Comments on: Thunar 1.1.0 – Native support for remote filesystems http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/ user help, free and open source Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:08:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Bruce http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-454 Bruce Wed, 19 May 2010 18:09:42 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-454 This is amazing! I've been waiting for this feature for a long time now. I had to rely on nautilus when i wanted network access. Thanks for the heads up :) This is amazing! I’ve been waiting for this feature for a long time now. I had to rely on nautilus when i wanted network access. Thanks for the heads up :)

]]> By: Jannis http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-413 Jannis Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:58:56 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-413 @Jim: Thanks for the kind summary! I really appreciate it because I haven't found the time to write a more verbose release announcement on my blog yet. @John: It's true, most of these features are available only because of the folks at GNOME. I may not agree with all design decisions made in GIO and especially not in GVfs but overall the APIs are pretty good. ThunarVFS definitely is more lightweight than GIO/GVfs. It has file:// and trash:// hard-coded in very efficient ways and the API is more to the point as well. There's also no D-Bus or DeviceKit-disks/gnome-disk-utility involved which makes it somewhat faster and requires less dependencies. But leightweightness is not everything of course. GIO is more flexible, extensible and is used indirectly because of GTK+ anyway, so it's fair to say that it has a brighter future than ThunarVFS (which is being deprecated at the moment). @LucidFox: I'm concentrating on implementing and fixing stuff at the moment and I have little time to update websites these days, so that's why there's no 1.1.0 announcement on thunar.xfce.org yet, unfortunately. @Jim: Thanks for the kind summary! I really appreciate it because I haven’t found the time to write a more verbose release announcement on my blog yet.

@John: It’s true, most of these features are available only because of the folks at GNOME. I may not agree with all design decisions made in GIO and especially not in GVfs but overall the APIs are pretty good. ThunarVFS definitely is more lightweight than GIO/GVfs. It has file:// and trash:// hard-coded in very efficient ways and the API is more to the point as well. There’s also no D-Bus or DeviceKit-disks/gnome-disk-utility involved which makes it somewhat faster and requires less dependencies. But leightweightness is not everything of course. GIO is more flexible, extensible and is used indirectly because of GTK+ anyway, so it’s fair to say that it has a brighter future than ThunarVFS (which is being deprecated at the moment).

@LucidFox: I’m concentrating on implementing and fixing stuff at the moment and I have little time to update websites these days, so that’s why there’s no 1.1.0 announcement on thunar.xfce.org yet, unfortunately.

]]> By: jim http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-412 jim Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:34:28 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-412 LucidFox . . . I don't know why the Thunar page hasn't been updated, either. LucidFox . . . I don’t know why the Thunar page hasn’t been updated, either.

]]> By: jim http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-411 jim Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:30:10 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-411 Hi LucidFox - the news is from the release notes ( http://releases.xfce.org/feeds/project/thunar ). For some reason, the release notes don't display well in webkit-based browsers, so I recommend viewing them in Firefox. I learned about the release from the Xfce identi.ca feed - http://identi.ca/notice/18536060 Hi LucidFox – the news is from the release notes ( http://releases.xfce.org/feeds/project/thunar ). For some reason, the release notes don’t display well in webkit-based browsers, so I recommend viewing them in Firefox.

I learned about the release from the Xfce identi.ca feed – http://identi.ca/notice/18536060

]]> By: LucidFox http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-410 LucidFox Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:51:17 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-410 I don't see any references to Thunar 1.1.0 on the official site. Where is the news from? I don’t see any references to Thunar 1.1.0 on the official site. Where is the news from?

]]> By: Rafael http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-407 Rafael Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:05:43 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-407 This is amazing! I've been waiting for this feature for a long time now. I had to rely on nautilus when i wanted network access. Thanks for the heads up :) This is amazing! I’ve been waiting for this feature for a long time now. I had to rely on nautilus when i wanted network access. Thanks for the heads up :)

]]> By: redDEADresolve http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-406 redDEADresolve Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:09:44 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-406 this is great news. using gigolo wasn't a problem, but having native support really is awesome. this is great news. using gigolo wasn’t a problem, but having native support really is awesome.

]]> By: John Carr http://j1m.net/2010/01/09/thunar-1-1-0-native-support-for-remote-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-405 John Carr Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:21:26 +0000 http://j1m.net/?p=145#comment-405 I'm a big fan of XFCE, and this work is still to be applauded, but you should probably point out that this is built on top of GIO - so all the STFP, Samba, FTP goodness you describe comes from the hard work of the GNOME developers. It's also probably a bit misleading to suggest that ThunarVFS might be more lightweight without testing it - GIO has a special extension point mechanism and the network backends are implemented seperately in GVFS - theres no reason the new backend will be any more bulky when not using the network backends. Don't want users needlessly missing out on the new good stuff. I’m a big fan of XFCE, and this work is still to be applauded, but you should probably point out that this is built on top of GIO – so all the STFP, Samba, FTP goodness you describe comes from the hard work of the GNOME developers.

It’s also probably a bit misleading to suggest that ThunarVFS might be more lightweight without testing it – GIO has a special extension point mechanism and the network backends are implemented seperately in GVFS – theres no reason the new backend will be any more bulky when not using the network backends. Don’t want users needlessly missing out on the new good stuff.

]]>