Biju Chacko wrote: >>Still, a "simple" file manager, as thunar is supposed to be, should work >>with files, as provided by the operating system vfs interface. I think >>the FUSE approach is the right one, it is not the job of a simple >>filemanager to provide a separate, better vfs layer. I hope xfce4 is not >>turning into an alternative GNOME/KDE beast and thunar not into >>nautilus/konqueror because GNOME/KDE already exist. I always thought >>xfce is supposed to be an alternative for people that like to do without >>all that additional, costly stuff. A separate vfs layer certainly would >>go into that direction. > > Well, in xfce we've never followed the approach of "avoid features in > order to avoid bloat". Fluxbox et al do a better job of that approach > anyway. > > I think our approach has always been "balance features and bloat and > always do it the *right* way"
Damn right. And on the "why side": Simple, because everything else would be useless and waste of time. <irony>Your best bet if you want a really lightweight solution is to deinstall the operating system. Or even better, don't power on your computer at all, that's a fantastic resource saver.</irony> > -- b Benedikt _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list Thunar-dev@xfce.org http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
