[Thunar-dev] Thunar Extension Framework

Tim Tassonis timtas at cubic.ch
Tue Sep 13 15:53:04 CEST 2005

> Well, as discussed in various places before, FUSE is pretty useless,
> because it (a) works at the wrong level and (b) is limited to Linux 2.4
> and 2.6.
> Doing remote file system abstraction in the kernels VFS layer is exactly
> the wrong abstraction level, as that limits you to the POSIX API, which
> is certainly not what you want in 99% of all (desktop use) cases, esp.
> not within a smart file manager. E.g. there's no way for backends to
> pass additional information (like the suggested mime type, metadata,
> capabilities, etc.) to the application; you are limited to the plain
> POSIX API. And even worse, the POSIX API imposes requirements on the
> backend that require awful hacks to make it work with some remote
> filesystems.

Still, a "simple" file manager, as thunar is supposed to be, should work 
with files, as provided by the operating system vfs interface. I think 
the FUSE approach is the right one, it is not the job of a simple 
filemanager to provide a separate, better vfs layer. I hope xfce4 is not 
turning into an alternative GNOME/KDE beast and thunar not into 
nautilus/konqueror because GNOME/KDE already exist. I always thought 
xfce is supposed to be an alternative for people that like to do without 
all that additional, costly stuff. A separate vfs layer certainly would 
go into that direction.


>> just my 2p
>> Jaap
> Just my 0,019€,
> Benedikt
> _______________________________________________
> Thunar-dev mailing list
> Thunar-dev at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev

More information about the Thunar-dev mailing list