On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 09:25 +0100, Lukas Middendorf wrote: > On 20/03/14 18:43, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > I'm not saying it can do anything about it, I'm saying it should not be > > misleading. It claims to show transfer bandwidth and time to completion, > > but both are egregiously wrong. As I suggested earlier it should tell > > the user that these indicators are not reliable when the target is a > > remote server. > > As I already wrote earlier, this is not limited to remote servers but > also applies to slow (removable) local storage (usb key drives, mobile > phones working as UMD, etc.) with the usually huge write caches you get > for current-day systems. It never is accurate when some kind of write > caching or buffering is involved, but for the named cases it is clearly > noticeable. I agree, and I repeat that the user should have some indication of this. Either that or just eliminate the indicator entirely if it's not giving useful information (or rather reduce it to a simple flag that the transfer hasn't completed yet). poc _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
