WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: tinycore_v3.8rc1  (Read 3288 times)

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2011, 05:51:40 PM »
This has turned to being ideas and suggestions.

Sorry, I cannot please everyone, but I have no interest in popup dialog confirmation boxes or the dreaded double click. Feature creep towards being like Windows is not in the cards.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7819
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2011, 12:22:27 AM »

A refresh button is great but how about open "mnttool" on drive detection?   If you connect a USB thumb drive for example, it is detected so why not present the mnttool which is the next expected action of the operator?  

It follows that if you connect a drive there must be some intent to use it, no?  You could take this one step further and mount the drive considering this is the intention of connecting the drive, whilst leaving the mnttool up for the inevitable removal.

Such popups "I see you put in an usb drive, would you like me to blabla" are really against the idea of TC to me. Also discussed before.
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline netnomad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2011, 12:55:49 AM »
i agree,
we should not blow up tinycore,
it 's so unbelievable lean and clean...
one important goal should be to stay this tiny size,
6 or 10mb, packed with such a great environment, don't blow it up!!!!

please don't be offended, although the above mentioned symbolic link per label is rejected:
i really love this idea of symbolic links, especially this LABEL-link,
because i like to have on different platforms (like tinycore-configs, desktops, servers or embedded systems)
the same links, paths, multifunctional environments....

i don't mind to look for a different way to umount this /mnt/LABEL.
perhaps tinycore could mount on the normal mount point, but offers the /mnt/LABEL-link at the same time!?

perhaps there is a way to umount over the normal mount point or the device f.e.

/mnt/sdb2/tce                      /dev/sdb2                    physical device
/mnt/TCE                               /dev/sdb2                    LABEL-link
umount  /mnt/sdb2/tce

i would be happy if you could leave this idea in your focus at least for the long future.
thank you.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 01:04:29 AM by netnomad »

Offline coreplayer2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1606
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2011, 01:09:47 AM »
A pop up or double click to select,   didn't expect to be taken so literally these were just thoughts, throwing out idea's  Really I'm hoping you can come up with some innovative mechanism which is worthy and in keeping with the flavor of TC
;)

Offline uggla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2011, 01:23:49 AM »
Wallpaper is much better now. Thanks!

Offline coreplayer2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1606
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2011, 01:27:12 AM »

A refresh button is great but how about open "mnttool" on drive detection?   If you connect a USB thumb drive for example, it is detected so why not present the mnttool which is the next expected action of the operator?  

It follows that if you connect a drive there must be some intent to use it, no?  You could take this one step further and mount the drive considering this is the intention of connecting the drive, whilst leaving the mnttool up for the inevitable removal.

Such popups "I see you put in an usb drive, would you like me to blabla" are really against the idea of TC to me. Also discussed before.

Exactly it's obnoxious, I hate that too so I'm just throwing out the worst possible idea, leaving the innovative thinking to the experts who are now aware..   just bringing some potential area's where minor improvements wouldn't hurt to your attention and who knows perhaps one day...

I'd say why not simply skip all the steps in the process and just auto mount the USB thumb drive which was connected with the intention of using it right?   A mount tool's purpose then becomes a removal tool.   I think the steps could be streamlined for a more fluid user experience.

A bit late now but this was probably not the right location for this discussion 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 01:45:33 AM by coreplayer2 »

Offline florian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • Home Page
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2011, 08:04:35 AM »
Quote
I'd say why not simply skip all the steps in the process and just auto mount the USB thumb drive which was connected with the intention of using it right?   A mount tool's purpose then becomes a removal tool.   I think the steps could be streamlined for a more fluid user experience.


I disagree with the automount suggestion. Mounting is not always the proper behaviour. Consider that one might occasionally connect a USB device just in order to get extra info (using lsusb, etc...)

In addition, I believe automount goes against TC's philosophy to empower its users. Automount is enabled by default on turnkey distros because the approach is to guess the user's intention (user probably has the intention of mounting the USB key). On the other hand, TC's approach is to give the user the capability to decide by herself. And thus TC provides a mounting facility UI but does not hide the fact that connecting a USB device and mounting its filesystem are fundamentally different operations.

Online bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4853
    • My Community Forum
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2011, 08:13:29 AM »
My view is that automount most be provided by higher application levels, for example DE like Xfce or LXDE, not the base.
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."

Offline Lee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • My Core wiki user page
Re: tinycore_v3.8rc1
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2011, 09:15:09 AM »
My first thought is that automounting a removable device is a bad idea in almost any circumstance.  The only possible exception that comes to (my) mind would be some kind of "device copier" but then the copying application could handle the mounting.

Perhaps some optional method could be devised at the system with specific filesystems designated (by UUID or label) to be automounted when inserted, but (imho) the default should always be to -not- automount.  I wouldn't even bother with an optional method myself.

Also, any file system that is autmounted would have to be umounted before being fsck'd.

I find it comforting to know that my filesystems aren't going to get trashed until I explicitly make them available for corruption.  :)

32 bit core4.7.7, Xprogs, Xorg-7.6, wbar, jwm
PPR, data persistence through filetool.sh
USB Flash drive, one partition, ext2, grub4dos