Comments on: gnome-vfs is going down, down, down

By: Matt G

Matt G — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:57:09 +0000

That is awesome! Rock on Alex…

By: David

David — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:51:44 +0000

In a modern environment, the most common use-case of an archive file, by far, seems to be to download an entire folder structure conveniently from the internet (Witness archive files full of things like .jpegs and .mp3s– which don’t compress much, if at all.). XP’s more folder-like treatment of archive files has struck me as one of the features worth imitating if at all possible.

By: alexl

alexl — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:44:50 +0000

nona:
I even got a recommendation from some of the kde people to not support it, as they had a lot of problems with it…

By: nona

nona — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:31:14 +0000

about the “chained uri” thing:

That’s quite a shame! I understand that you feel a dedicated app for archives can be better, but I suppose the same could be said about FTP, webdav or samba (a dedicated ftp client could be better than gvfs ftp: method).

I personally like the consistency URI chaining gives, and I use it all the time (really!) with the Midnight Commander (ssh+tar+gz+…). I was hoping the mc would one day be able to migrate to gvfs, but it would be a shame that it would cost them a nice feature.

That said, I realize you probably got a very good insight on what a vfs should be like considering Nautilus’ heavy use of it. I just regret this one feature.

By: alexl

alexl — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:22:44 +0000

a foo:
That is the plan at least.

Matthias Adler:
Various people have ideas how to solve this.
The best solution I’ve heard involves adding a mount option like “udata” this would not be handled by the kernel, but just echoed back in /proc/mounts. Then you can set mount options like -o udata=nopreview,notrash and apps can honor that for this particular mount.

By: a foo

a foo — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:54:44 +0000

Will this be in 2.22?

By: Matthias Adler

Matthias Adler — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:49:55 +0000

Can you shed any light on the most frustrating issue with any fuse-based network mount and nautilus being that files are treated as *local* and thus prompting to nautilus to preview them ? (Besides them being relatively slow and tending to simple hang-up in certain situations)

If I remember correctly this issue (nautilus not always guesses “correctly” if a file is actually on a local harddisk or accessed remotely) was discussed in a mailing list or so in quite some detail a while back.

Besides that: Rock on !!!

By: alexl

alexl — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:41:11 +0000

nona:
There is no support for chained uris like there is in gnome-vfs. That model is complicated and never quite worked well in gnome-vfs. Also, I think it generally will be a better user interface if a dedicated app like file-roller handles archives.

By: nona

nona — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:28:05 +0000

Really nice looking!

I suppose there is a tar method like with current gnome-vfs? What happens if there’s a tar file in the samba mount? will there be a second mount point for the tar file under .gvfs/ ? Will Nautilus be able to browse up and down into the tar file?

By: David Benjamin

David Benjamin — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:46:44 +0000

Awesome!

Is there any chance of unifying this with KDE’s thing. Something like this seems relatively desktop-agnostic, and it would be great if GNOME and KDE’s implementations of this sort of thing were compatible.