ivman

[moore.bryan]

just wondering why ivman doesn't get any love in the forums... when i did a search for it, there were *no* posts with "ivman" in their titles... shame...

[John.Michael.Kane]

Well I just a search,and pulled this thread with ivman in the title http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=244996&highlight=ivman

Also theres seven pages of threads with ivman being talked about.

[moore.bryan]

weird... it didn't bring-up any for me. any thoughts as to why more folks don't use ivman?

[picpak]

ivman is ok, it needs a GUI config tool. Thunar-volman is better.

[moore.bryan]

ivman is ok, it needs a GUI config tool. Thunar-volman is better.
i'm not a gui fan, since i'm not running a very powerful system... i like the raw xml config files. i'm also not a thunar-anything guy; for some reason, i've always had problems with thunar and related programs. exactly what makes thunar-volman good?

[picpak]

It has a GUI config tool :p

[moore.bryan]

:-)
funny...

[picpak]

But honestly, though:


The advantage of Thunar Volume Manager over other solutions (like gnome-volume-manager or ivman) is that it does not require an additional daemon to be running in the user's desktop session, which means it is a very lightweight solution. In addition, the Thunar Volume Manager smoothly integrates into the Thunar file manager and the Xfce desktop.

[moore.bryan]

ivman doesn't have "an additional daemon" to run in the session... so...

[picpak]

Well in that case...it's better because it has a GUI config tool :p

[moore.bryan]

i would agree on that for gui people, then...
thanks for putting thunar-volman on my radar!