From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mi39Z-0007Nw-32 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:26:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 169ADE0880; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB73DE0880 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:35:12 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,304,1249254000"; d="scan'208";a="128656753" Received: from unknown (HELO compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org) ([213.152.39.90]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2009 15:35:12 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.71] (unknown [192.168.1.71]) by compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C42137AB3 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:35:08 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: From: Stroller To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <5b7f62152b3704f3ce8c684a81cb8893.squirrel@jesgue.homelinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How to set udev rule? Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:32:26 +0100 References: <200908302138.14457.dirk.heinrichs@online.de> <98e072813338e844438b47ec9e95c0fd.squirrel@jesgue.homelinux.org> <200908302326.53203.wonko@wonkology.org> <5b7f62152b3704f3ce8c684a81cb8893.squirrel@jesgue.homelinux.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Archives-Salt: 98dd51db-e1c8-4a09-ab38-efd809abd82a X-Archives-Hash: ff9660627440461d945b37df8a735912 On 31 Aug 2009, at 06:38, Jes=FAs Guerrero wrote: > ... >> I see Windows users do this all the time, without any problem >> yet. Of course, the wait a little after writing to it, but a few =20 >> seconds >> after the blinking stops seem to be enough. > > Lucky guys. That, or when the file is not on the drive they come back > and copy it again without you noticing it. This happens lots of times. > I've seen it and I'll continue to see it as long as users don't > understand what's going under the hood. That's what the safe removal > feature in Windows is about, it's not there just to decorate your > try, it exists for a reason. Indeed. Macs complain if you pull a USB drive without safely removing it =20 first, and this warns users against doing it again in the future. The problem with XP is that the "safely remove" icon is so small that =20= typical users don't ever notice it, and consequently don't know any =20 better. They're used to hot-plugging USB mice, keyboards & printers =20 into & from their laptops, so they don't see why a USB drive should be =20= any different. XP doesn't complain about a USB drive unsafely removed; =20= Vista's "safely remove" is slightly more obvious (available from a =20 right-click menu) but I don't know if any other improvements (IMO a =20 warning is important) have been made in Vista or Windows 7. Windows does have an option which implies immediate syncs to USB =20 drives, and I'd guess that if this is selected the copy or save file =20 dialogues should remain on the screen until the whole file has been =20 written, thus discouraging the user from unplugging the drive mid-=20 write. I'm sceptical, however. Stroller.=