Re: File dialogs: Network access

[Dylan Griffiths <Dylan_G bigfoot com>]

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.