houghi wrote: > [...] > I agree with the part that automounting should be easy to be disabled. The > standard however should be enabled and for all configurations, not only > KDE or Gnome.
>From my point of view, the standard should be the traditional way of mounting filesystems in a UNIX environment - it's SUSE Linux not SUSE Windows XP, and far too many companies just try to make Linux a "better" Windows clone (this is a general remark and not particularly targeted at SUSE). That is (again from my point of view) the wrong way to go and should not be a primary goal! Linux might and should pick up good ideas from other OS, but it should not just clone all features without checking their usefulness. Linux should remain Linux and not try to become a better version of another OS... However, coming back to a realistic point of view and considering the target group of the SUSE Linux distribution, an automount mechanism should be implemented and enabled by default. Nevertheless, it must satisfy certain conditions: - it should be easy to disable the mechanism and mount any filesystem (whether it's on a hard disk, USB stick, etc. etc.) in the traditional way. - it should not come along with severe drawbacks like mounting with the "sync" Option. As any automatic mount procedure (where you can, e.g., just unplug a USB stick) and asynchronous write operations (which give the best performance) are mutually exclusive, I am not sure how this will be handled in future. Even Windows systems have a way to manually(!) "umount" an external USB device (e.g., an external hard disk). I would like to have a stable and well performing Linux system and that should not be sacrificed by an automount mechanism! - the dependencies must be handled in a proper way. I don't want to install lots of software related to automounting on my server only to satisfy RPM dependencies, although I am not going to use an automount mechanism on that machine. - the automount feature must be easy to configure and it must be documented. From my point of view, HAL, udev, and subfs etc. really lack proper documentation and are a nightmare when we consider the configuration. If a user (newbie?) must edit cryptic XML files just to make minor changes to the way these processes operate, then something is wrong. There might be other conditions, these just came to my mind... Have a nice Sunday! Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
