On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>> Have you considered NAS? > > No way! What's wrong with NAS to elicit such a rejection? > GVFS is absolutely optional software. You only ever consider things from your limited use-case but upstream developers and distribution maintainers have to take into account the majority of users. Simply because you mount external drives manually or via udev-without-gvfs, doesn't mean that this is the best way for the majority. So the GNOME developers must have decided to develop gvfs and make it a hard dependency of GNOME for a reason other than "we've got time on our hands and computers have alot of spare processor power, RAM, and disk space, so let's add another piece of software that runs in the background." You've also complained in this thread and previously about compliance with green drives. I could've replied: "I only ever connect an external drive to my computer long enough to copy in and/or copy out files. So the Brussels bureaucrats who came up with this standard have yet again mis-spent my tax GBP by wasting their time on researching, writing, publishing, and enforcing this nonsense - and probably making drives more expensive in order to comply with this standard!" Would it make any sense for me to have such a rant? Furthermore, have you filed a bug against gvfs for it to be made compatible with EU green drives? Has someone else? If the developers aren't aware of this problem (they might use external drives the way that I do, do example!), how can they improve their software? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sx0v4tykhs8x5plmzq8b69dqs4uz0koporoe4kj0wv...@mail.gmail.com
