Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 08:58 +0200, Alexander Larsson a écrit : > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:58 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > > > So what am I trying to say? I'm trying to say it makes sense to show all > > drives and their mountable file systems notwithstanding the user might > > be allowed to access them. Because if they're not privileged they should > > at least get a chance to see the drive is there (otherwise you get "My > > drive didn't show up! Is the computer broken?") along with an > > explanation why they can't access it maybe even with a possibility to > > auth for access. > > I don't really follow your reasoning fully. I agree that users want to > see their OSX and/or windows mounts from linux, but I think you > over-empasize the "single user, dual boot, home desktop" usecase. In the > case of more traditional sysadmined unix setups (at universities and > whatnot) you'll have a bunch of bizzare mountpoints (nfs mounts, autofs > mounts, tmpfs, /usr, /home, extra drives/partitions, etc). > > If we were to show all these, then I think things would look pretty > confusing. I really think we need to hide a bunch of mountpoints. Some > mountpoints can probably be hardcoded > (like /proc, /tmp/, /home, /opt/*, /usr, and /boot), but we can never > think of all possibilities, so we should probably have a way to mark > them. > We should only display "/media/*" and "/mnt/*" Xavier.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=