From: Nicholas Clark Date: 17:59 on 19 Jul 2006 Subject: Finder OK. Who omitted the STFU option from preferences? When I mount a server I don't need a little noise to tell me that it's completed. Heck, I don't really want it to open a window on an NFS mount that I'm restoring, but I can live with that. But computers should be seen and not heard. Cute sound effects are not, especially by default. If you think otherwise, please ensure that your development version defaults to an "audio-cock" theme. Nicholas Clark
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:54 on 19 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Finder I beleieve the STFU option is unchecking "Play user-interface sound effects" in the sounds control panel. But Finder mounting network shares is hateful in general. On OS 9 you used the chooser for this. In normal UNIX it happens behind your back using automount/amd/autofs/whatever. I'll take either option, so long as Finder doesn't get into the loop until all the network and file system crap is stable before it goes "bingledy bingledy beep". Whether you have the "bingledy bingledy beep" option enabled or not. (oh, and whoever decided that Finder (or anyone else) would mount FTP servers as file servers ...) I would pay money for an updated Cocoa implementation of the NeXT file manager on OS X.
From: Marco Von Ballmoos Date: 19:10 on 19 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Finder On Jul 19, 2006, at 19:54, Peter da Silva wrote: > I beleieve the STFU option is unchecking "Play user-interface sound > effects" > in the sounds control panel. That does the trick nicely. > But Finder mounting network shares is hateful in general. No kidding. And here I thought I was escaping Windows into a wonderful new world of "connecting to a network without blocking the rest of the shell". Alas, no. Connecting to a reluctant share on Mac OS X is just as balky as it is on Windows -- perhaps more so as it seems to block *all* Finder windows instead of just the one in which you initiated the connection. > *snip* > > I would pay money for an updated Cocoa implementation of the NeXT file > manager on OS X. As would I. As would pretty much any Mac user. -- Marco Von Ballmoos http://earthli.com - Home of the earthli WebCore; PHP web sites made simple.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 19:23 on 19 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Finder > No kidding. And here I thought I was escaping Windows into a > wonderful new world of "connecting to a network without blocking the > rest of the shell". Alas, no. Connecting to a reluctant share on Mac > OS X is just as balky as it is on Windows -- perhaps more so as it > seems to block *all* Finder windows instead of just the one in which > you initiated the connection. Yes, Windows Explorer is a better file manager than Finder in all kinds of ways, but alas either of them beat the snot out of the available competition. Including things like PathFinder that I *have* paid money for. > > I would pay money for an updated Cocoa implementation of the NeXT file > > manager on OS X. > As would I. As would pretty much any Mac user. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Mac users who Really Really Like the spatial Finder and don't even want to give up the shoddy remnants that persist in OSX finder. File managers are a whole category of hate.
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi