This is NOT about making a widows clone. This is about making linux more usable by people who don't have the time or interest in becoming a LINUX guru. The more market share that linux takes the more development we will get in our little space. Right now windows has the share because people know that when they get a (thing) be it software or hardware that it will work in windows. This is not yet the case with linux. I use a Wireless broadband card. In order to make this work I create a windows virtual machine as a router. There are all kinds of things I have to give up when I run linux. So I vote for these little things that make it more likely that my parents will continue to run linux.
I do agree that you should be able to turn it off in YAST... and while your at that.. make it so that I can specify who the drive will be mounted as when it gets mounted. On 2/12/06, Thomas Hertweck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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] > > -- Physicists like to think that all you have to do is say, these are the conditions, now what happens next? - Richard Feynman
