Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Don Y Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: webcam viewer? Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:26:28 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <26fe0jpbfttsdmm3beeebf9acm58s2qigm@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 19:26:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e8920cb7c2f0ba383491d77aa9b49ba"; logging-data="2809362"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18EtBf8ii/xP7oQly2nMjEJ" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:WvAAqqUYmIdqut50Z7aPGLxzwiU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2928 On 4/1/2024 11:32 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> The directory *contains* a mountpoint?  Or, *is* a mountpoint? >> I.e., in the former case, only the mountpoint references an exported >> filesystem.  In the latter, everything in the directory is external. > > It's not NFS. The problem manifests itself in both openafs and sshfs. > It's the GUI file dialogs that ask for far more information than they > really need. It's vexing, because those same dialogs also tend to hide > information that I *do* need. (Where did it put my files??) Perhaps they are collecting data to show you the "size" of the hierarchy below a particular subdirectory -- and just not displaying it (due to some option you have disabled). (I think MacOS had a feature like that... made directory listings slow as it drilled down to all terminal leafs from the current folder -- especially in the days of slower media). > As I said, I avoid directories with active mount points in them when > using GUI programs. It's still annoying, because it forces me to put > mount points in subdirectories, which I would not have needed to do if > these dialogs had been better designed. I would have a problem with that as almost all of my mount points are at the root of the filesystem -- or, perhaps, *one* level below (e.g., I may have a shelf with 15 spindles and create 15 mount points under /shelf1). Otherwise, there are mounts at /cdrom, /thumb, /0, /1, /2, etc.