[Thunar-dev] Thunar Extension Framework

Benedikt Meurer benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de
Wed Sep 14 13:13:22 CEST 2005

Biju Chacko wrote:
>>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.
> Well, in xfce we've never followed the approach of "avoid features in 
> order to avoid bloat". Fluxbox et al do a better job of that approach 
> anyway.
> I think our approach has always been "balance features and bloat and 
> always do it the *right* way"

Damn right. And on the "why side": Simple, because everything else would
be useless and waste of time.

<irony>Your best bet if you want a really lightweight solution is to
deinstall the operating system. Or even better, don't power on your
computer at all, that's a fantastic resource saver.</irony>

> -- b


More information about the Thunar-dev mailing list