[Thunar-dev] Thunar Extension Framework
bjesus at gmail.com
Wed Sep 14 14:19:57 CEST 2005
Even though I agree we shouldn't just keep everything basic because of
the fear to create something complex, I also think that having a VFS
layer at the file-manager isn't a good idea, just because of the fact
that having a VFS layer that only the file-manager can use is pretty
useless. GNOME-VFS has a fore because it's widely used, but who's
gonna use thunar-vfs outside thunar?
On 9/14/05, Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de> wrote:
> 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
> Thunar-dev mailing list
> Thunar-dev at xfce.org
More information about the Thunar-dev