Re: [Nautilus-list] Nautilus + smbclient

Ed McKenzie wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2001 18:10:26 -0500, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> > I have no problem with having an abstraction for ftp, http, gopher
> > and other protocols that aren't mounted in the usual sense of the
> > term, but it seems to me for stuff that already can be mounted that
> > you should use the filesystem services the system offers.
> Except this makes Nautilus less useful to non-Linux users.

    Well, it *does* offer them a construct to follow, and some example
code to program by. Kinda makes their developer's job easier, aye?  As
long as it doesn't employ methods intentionally designed to not be
duplicated (See also: Microsoft) I don't have a problem with it, either.

    Linux is something about evolution; if we set a standard, consistant
with the whitepapers...document everything and make it available...maybe
we'll win over some fence sitters, aye?

Brian Fahrlander                             Linux Zealot, Conservative,
Chicago, IL                                       and Stranded Technomad
ICQ 5119262             
As Bruce Schneier says 'Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying 
to make water not wet. The sooner people accept this, and build business
models that take this into account, the sooner people will start making 
money again.'

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]