After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 573313 - Umount vs. eject?
Umount vs. eject?
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 598690
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: File and Folder Operations
2.24.x
Other All
: Normal trivial
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-02-26 20:20 UTC by Jack Malmostoso
Modified: 2010-05-26 15:29 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.21/2.22


Attachments
Screenshot of the two options (30.71 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-02-26 20:20 UTC, Jack Malmostoso
Details

Description Jack Malmostoso 2009-02-26 20:20:05 UTC
Please describe the problem:
When I plug in my cellphone (Nokia 5800) via USB, I get a nice dialog that asks me to open Banshee to play the media files, because it is recognized as a media player. And this is perfectly fine, even though I am using it as "Mass storage".

What bothers me is that when I want to umount the phone and I right click the icon on the desktop, I get two appearingly identical options (see screenshot), that seem to perform the same operation.
Apart from being confusing, I don't understand if one is "better" than the other.
Why does this happen? Is it the phone's fault?

Steps to reproduce:
1. Plug in the phone
2. Right click on its icon on the desktop
3. Be confused by two identical options


Actual results:
Either way, the phone is umounted.

Expected results:
To only have one option, since both seem to do the same thing.

Does this happen every time?
Yep.

Other information:
See attached screenshot.
Comment 1 Jack Malmostoso 2009-02-26 20:20:46 UTC
Created attachment 129600 [details]
Screenshot of the two options
Comment 2 Allan Day 2010-05-26 15:29:29 UTC
This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but we are happy to tell you that the problem has already been fixed. It should be solved in the next software version. You may want to check for a software upgrade.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 598690 ***