Re: File dialogs: Network access
- From: Dylan Griffiths <Dylan_G bigfoot com>
- To: Gnome GUI list <gnome-gui-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: File dialogs: Network access
- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:11:19 -0600
Christian Rose wrote:
> So portability is bad, and GNOME should be heavily tied to the Linux
> kernel?
No, I just think it should use the normal VFS services provided by all
mature Unix kernels. That's the place to implement these extra features,
IMO.
> I don't see why you detest gnome-vfs. The work is being done as we speak
> and is used both in Nautilus and Evolution.
I don't detest it, I just think it's the wrong place for it. If no one
listens to me, and we all get Gnome-VFS, I really have no problem with it.
I just think there's a better way.
> Why is an abstraction layer like gnome-vfs so terribly bad? The
> gnome-vfs _is_ (or should be) the consistent interface. If using
> gnome-vfs, any portability changes will only have to be made to the
> gnome-vfs as I understand it.
It's not completely consistent, though. It can't be. If I open a
Gnome-Terminal, will that terminal hook the libc such that the f* commands,
as well as the normal open/read/close commands work on the VFS provided by
the local kernel, as well as the gnome-vfs? If not, it's not "consistent"
because I can get past the illusion in a second. Kinda like I can get past
the illusion that Win95 has no DOS by hitting escape to see DOS load behind
the graphical splash screen.
I can see the Gnome-VFS being good because you could add meta-data features
fairly easily, but I'd prefer to see it lower in the system (perhaps we
should all use ext4 with new BeFS meta-data features, or OS/2 Extended
Attributes? :)).
--
www.kuro5hin.org -- technology and culture, from the trenches.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]