Lucas Rocha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> g-s-t shared-admin tool already make it possible to share folders
> through Samba and NFS. Shouldn't this module be integrated in some way
> (don't know exactly how) with what we have today? I know
> gnome-user-share aims to be a direct, simple and fast solution for
>
Hi,
g-s-t shared-admin tool already make it possible to share folders
through Samba and NFS. Shouldn't this module be integrated in some way
(don't know exactly how) with what we have today? I know
gnome-user-share aims to be a direct, simple and fast solution for
file sharing but we already have
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:01 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 02:26 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > Owen Williams wrote:
> > > ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> > > long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
> > > a
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 02:26 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> Owen Williams wrote:
> > ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> > long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
> > also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
>
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:44 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:06 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > > There was also the issue of translations of filenames.
> > >
> > > I thought that was mostly done now, with the new API in glib. Did any
> > > GNOME maintainers object to
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:06 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > There was also the issue of translations of filenames.
> >
> > I thought that was mostly done now, with the new API in glib. Did any
> > GNOME maintainers object to your suggestion?
>
> There was a huge flamewar about which approac
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Owen Williams wrote:
> ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
1) it was never exposed in a GUI
2) people building webpages can be considered more tech-savvy anyway,
and have
Owen Williams wrote:
> ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
> also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
> advertised these services with Bonjour, then we'd really have
> so
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:22 -0500, Owen Williams wrote:
> ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
> also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
> advertised these services with
~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
advertised these services with Bonjour, then we'd really have something
cool.
owen
On Tue, 2
tis 2005-11-29 klockan 16:06 +0100 skrev Alexander Larsson:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:43 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > >> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
> > >> [1], because there was a lack of
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:43 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
> >> [1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
> >> their files with other us
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
>> [1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
>> their files with other users on the network, via the webdav protocol
>> (using apache).
>
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
> [1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
> their files with other users on the network, via the webdav protocol
> (using apache).
>
> As
So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
[1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
their files with other users on the network, via the webdav protocol
(using apache).
As far as I remember, we didn't get consensus because some people
though
15 matches
Mail list logo
