nautilus vs konq

[rikona]

Hello Mark,

Friday, October 29, 2010, 6:05:10 PM, Mark wrote:

M> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM, rikona <rikona at sonic.net> wrote:
>> Hello Mark,
>>
>> Konq is quite happy to make folders on, and copy files to, the same
>> drive. Does nautilus need different permissions than konq?
>>
M> It shouldn't, but then I've seen Nautilus do stranger things before.
M> If you find out why, please post it here.

I'd be happy to do that if it helps others...

>>> Disk UUID perhaps.
>>
>> Is that stored on the disk, and thus stays the same, or 'made up' each
>> time? Why use the UUID instead of, say, the disk label? The label
>> would sure make a lot more sense to the observer...
>>
M> Now you're thinking like a user - it could depend on what drinks (or
M> drugs) the developers were ingesting that day.

Uh huh... :-))

M> Seriously, I just upgraded one of my disk drives, which I did in
M> stages. First, I connected it externally via a SATA/PATA to USB
M> connector so I could format it and copy data onto it without
M> changing the current configuration. After the drive was partitioned
M> and formatted, when I plugged it in so the automounter could handle
M> it, each partition showed up with a [long string id] that looked
M> like a UUID to me. Each partition had a label on it already because
M> I use them in the fstab so I don't have to remember which partition
M> is which (and because each one is dedicated for a specific purpose.

That is almost exactly what I do/did before.

M> This seems is different in Ubuntu 10.10 than it was in CentOS 5.5,
M> where the partitions either showed up by their label or as just
M> /media/disk.

I'm using 10.04 - might be the same as 10.10. My old Mandriva also did
that. I didn't appreciate how nice it was until I am dealing with the
'improvements'. :-)

Thanks,

-- 

 rikona