Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:48:40 +0200 From: Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.in-berlin.de> To: Jan Grant <jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option Message-ID: <20060405124840.GA1696@dice.stsp.lan> In-Reply-To: <20060405133507.G15367@tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> References: <1144042356.824.16.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <1144133238.9725.32.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20060404114547.GA1613@dice.stsp.lan> <200604042252.17806.soralx@cydem.org> <20060405120035.GA1372@dice.stsp.lan> <20060405133507.G15367@tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Jan Grant wrote: > On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, soralx@cydem.org wrote: > > > > > > > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if > > > > vfs.usermount is 1? > > > pardon my ignorance, but how any of those methods described earlier may > > > be superior to simply using sudo? > > > > Using sudo is a hack? :) > > I don't buy that aesthetic argument. I wasn't serious. Sudo is fine by me as well. However, having something that is in the base system (and not in ports) to allow user mounts would be neat. Still, KDE and GNOME and even xorg are in ports as well, so that point is not a really strong one either. The only thing that still nags me about the sudo solution is that if you have to use sudo anyway, why was vfs.usermount even implemented in the first place? Using sudo makes it redundant. -- stefan http://stsp.in-berlin.de PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060405124840.GA1696>