Handling of volumes: thunar vs. places

[Diego Ongaro]

On 9/21/07, Grant McWilliams <grantmasterflash at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just sounds like the old toilet seat up/toilet seat down problem. One person
> thinks it better for the desktop to be as automatic as possible, the other
> thinks nothing should be done unless we specifically do it. Even though I've
> been an admin for two decades as Linux becomes more polished and the user
> base changes I'm siding with the former. It is really nice when I plug in a
> USB device and I don't have to manually mount it.

That's your opinion. If I didn't like to have control of my system, I
wouldn't care about open source software. Since both our opinions are
valid, I suggested making a preference for the places plugin.

> I mean if I have enough
> brains to mount the volume manually I have enough to unmount it manually
> right, so why can't I just unmount it manually if I need to?

I don't follow this logic at all: Because *you* can mount it manually,
you know how and when to unmount it. Therefore, users shouldn't have
to mount volumes manually.

> Even better
> let's make it so it unmount automatically in a clean manner than we have the
> best of both worlds.

That's really not something the places plugin should be handling.
Actually, it's pretty hard to predict when you're going to reach over
and pull out a USB device, for example.

> I'm sure I'm going to get jumped for even suggesting
> that we make the Linux desktop experience nicer (God forbid it be as good as
> other desktops - I won't mention names) but isn't it time?

Firstly, if I didn't want to make the experience nicer, why would I
have written the places plugin in the first place? I'll also point out
just how unnecessary your email was, given that I had already proposed
a plan of action that should satisfy everyone.

-Diego Ongaro