- This topic has 31 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Mar 20-6:54 pm by ahoppin.
-
Posts
-
SamK
I tried smb4k and had mixed but encouraging results. I may go back to that at some point, though it seems like a 100-kiloton flyswatter.
Yes, I agree.
A lot of work goes into making antiX light on CPU/RAM/disk-space to make it possible to run on modern and elderly systems. Partnering lightweight apps with appropriate methods of working are integral parts of getting the most from this distro. There are many ways of finding and mounting remote shares. It is a step away from the antiX philosophy to use an app that consumes more CPU or RAM or disk space when lighter ways of doing it are available in the distro. For example Connectshares only uses CPU/RAM at the time of actually mounting and unmounting shares, it does not run continuously, nor require something that does. Findshares is similar in that respect and has a tiny disk footprint of circa 20k, whereas other methods can be many MB in size, to do a similar job.
User choice is part of the antiX philosopy and the lightweight items in antiX do not preclude a user from employing a more heavyweight alternative. Share mounting methods that tie a user to a particular file manager are, in effect, a restriction of user choice in favour of that file manager. Connectshares gives access to CIFS shares and NFS exports without requiring the use of a particular a file manager. It works with any file manager of the user’s choice, or no file manager at all. Share access is available directly from any app, whether or not that app is network capable. It places the choice in the hands of the user.
I also use Thunar, and tend to be kind of opinionated about file managers. I’m not a big fan of the Pcmanfm / Zzzfm family, or of Roxfiler, for that matter.
A few years ago a comparison of Connectshares and Thunar was produced in the former antiX forum, most of it is still OK.
Comparison Connectshares v Thunar
Below it is reproduced for current users who may not have seen it.REPRINT
Many people regularly use network shares at their workplace, university or school. Because Windows is commonly used on their workstation, they are familiar with its way of working. The concept of mounting network shares tends to cause new and even experienced users of Linux some consternation.In Windows, network shares are typically accessed in one of two ways. The first is by using the network browsing functions of your file browser. The other is by mapping a network share to a drive letter. In newer Windows editions, network browsing is also built into the standard “File Open” dialog inside your apps.
In Linux, we also have the ability to access network shares. Depending on your particular flavor of Linux, you may be also able to browse shares, and you will most certainly be able to set up your shares to be mounted, similar to the Windows mapping function. However, depending on the flavor of Linux you use, the shares may not be browseable from standard “File Open” dialog inside your apps.
Because user choice is a fundamental concept in antiX, it ships with various file browsers installed. When any of these is used together with Connectshares, you can work with network shares in a simple and familiar way.
Connectshares is an easy to use share mounting automation tool, designed with simplicity in mind. It can be set up by a standard user and without the need of deep technical knowledge. Normally, you will set it up once only, and there is a step-by-step user guide to walk you through the process (see antiX FAQ).
It can mount your shares either at boot up or on demand, as you see fit. Your shares will be available to any application, whether the app is network-enabled or not. You can disconnect on demand as well if you wish. You can also choose whether to automatically provide your username and password to access password protected shares.
The table below compares the way network shares are handled in antiX via Connectshares, with its cousin MX via Thunar. It’s not intended to show one is any better than the other. It provides information to help you make a choice that suits your way of working and level of skill. One of the benefits of using Linux is that, in the end, it’s your choice that matters.
Notes
Table based on antiX 13.2 and MX-14 beta2
dolphin_oracle and SamK are joint authors of this post and tableAttachments:
ahoppin
Sam, again, many thanks for your patience and support. That’s an interesting table. I’ve saved a copy for future reference.
I wouldn’t have thought to compare Connectshares with a file manager, but I see the reasoning.
Maybe some of my Thunar preference is just familiarity. I’ve used it in Puppy for a decade. It’s also non-standard there, and integrating it requires more manual tweaking than in antiX.
The way Puppy handles mounting and unmounting, all Thunar has to do is display the mounted shares and drives, so I never noticed its limitations.
In antiX, I’m fine with Thunar’s handling of removeable drives. It can’t unmount them without root permission, but that’s OK. The panel icon does it nicely.
Samba shares, I’m not so sure, but I’m not connecting to any Samba shares from antiX at the moment. If I need to connect to Samba shares from antiX later, I’ll revisit the situation.
Smb4k’s mass is why, after testing it on antiX live, I haven’t added it to my antiX installation. It’s needlessly complex and, dare I say it, kind of clunky. I may go back to it, but it’ll be as a last resort.
As for the choice of an operating system, you might choose a lightweight one like antiX to keep old hardware going – a good deed for the environment, IMO. Or you might choose it just because you like things lighter. I drive a small car and live in a small (by US standards) house, so I tend to go for lightweight hardware and software too.
Others have different preferences and needs. Some folks drive big muscular pickups and SUVs. Some run Ubuntu and Fedora. To each his own.
Linux gives us the choice, and thank goodness for that. Windows doesn’t.
I have antiX-21 64 bit, version 4 kernel, installed on a 13 year old Thinkpad T400 with 4 gb of memory. It’s remarkably responsive. With a modern SSD in place of the old spinning platters, it boots from Grub to desktop in less than 20 seconds, and a push of the power button shuts it down in 5 seconds. What other modern OS can match that?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
