How do you handle the cryptic mountpoints

henfri · 25. Juni 2022

Hello,

indeed, adding a comment to the Filesystems is really helpful. This way, you can give each Filesystem a memorable name.

That is good. But indeed, this "Comment" is not prominent enough. It seems quite optional, but for a good usability, it should be mandatory.

What is also not good is that the "Comment" is not used prominently:

Why is the "Comment" not used to identify the FS.

Furthermore, it would be good to have the same User Experience for Drives, i.e. being able to name them.

I am considering adding a request in the github issue tracker. What do you think?

Best regards,

Hendrik

ryecoaaron · 25. Juni 2022

Zitat von henfri

It seems quite optional, but for a good usability, it should be mandatory.

If it is good for you, use it. There is no reason it should be mandatory.

Zitat von henfri

What is also not good is that the "Comment" is not used prominently:

Add the comment column.

Zitat von henfri

Furthermore, it would be good to have the same User Experience for Drives, i.e. being able to name them.

The comment for a filesystem is actually the filesystem label. There is no equivalent for drives and drives are not stored in the OMV database. So, there isn't a way to associate a name for a drive. They would be serve very little value in raid arrays as well.

Jetzt mitmachen!