[Thunar-dev] Thunar Extension Framework

Benedikt Meurer benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de
Wed Sep 14 18:04:45 CEST 2005

Tim Tassonis wrote:
>>>>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 
>>>I think our approach has always been "balance features and bloat and 
>>>always do it the *right* way"
> I think the argument of supporting "additional information like 
> metadata, mime/type etc" is fundamentally wrong, exactly because the 
> Linux/UNIX/Posix VFS layer does not support it. So you have to implement 
> the File/metadata mapping yourself anyway for 99% of all files you're 
> ever going to manage.

You missed the point: The POSIX API is very limited. That's a limitation
we have to live with right now (the core of the API dates back to 1970,
so no wonder it's not very up2date).

But what we're talking about is not how to apply this limitation to
newer systems; instead we're trying to find a solution for the future
(without this and other limitations).

> As far as I can see very few remote filesystems actually provide 
> metadata and mime-type information that could be used directly by this 
> higher level. SMB with NTFS might provide this, but I doubt anybody will 
> write a thunar vfs module supporting NTFS streams in the near future. As 
> for audio cds, mobile phones, etc.: they all do not provide this 
> information at the moment.

I doubt that anybody (including myself) will ever write a thunar-vfs
module at all.

>><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>
> That would not be a solution to manage files on a computer, would it? 
> But you realize that yourself, you just wanted to make me look like a fool.

Well, it was just ironic.

But to explain a bit: "Saving resources by dropping functionality" is
just as stupid for design as "security by obscurity". IMHO, the best way
to save resources is still to "do it right" at all stages of
development, and that's what we'll do. As botsie pointed out there are
fluxbox and other projects, which follow the former strategy, so you can
decide for yourself what you prefer.

> Thanks a lot
> Tim


More information about the Thunar-dev mailing list