How to disable gvfs?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Could anyone help with this question please?
I want to clean up my system of unused parts that are just using resources and driving me bonkas, specially things like gvfs (rotten fruit conduit, plus more).
Also would like to learn if there is any part of gvfsd that is necessary for operating a local system.
With many pre-thanks :)
I am a translator!
> I want to clean up my system of unused parts that are just using resources
If you install a window manager (ctwm, fvwm, openbox, dwm, or whatever) and start a graphical session with it, I suspect you will have a much more minimal system running.
I have recently become a big fan of dwm (but I mostly use it in a MATE session). The drawback of using a session only with a window manager is that you have no graphical configuration menu, like for screen resolution, you need to find commands or tools for any setting you need.
To make a system on your own, Parabola could also be a nice distro to try. It is typically documented for that (but you may have to look at Archlinux wiki that is more complete).
> if there is any part of gvfsd that is necessary for operating a local system.
I am not sure but gvfs might be needed to automatically mount USB disks that you insert. However, it is not difficult to mount them with a mount command as root in a terminal. I don't know whether udisksctl will work or not.
Thank you for the great suggestions and info Avron! Feels good to have options.
Thank you also for mentioning distros that I could make my own, and for listing window managers to try. I never installed a window manager before, so could be a good opportunity to learn. I have questions about this, but will keep that for later.
I saw another interesting solution on a thread from a few years ago and wonder if it would do the job without harming the system. I'll paste it here and would love to hear your thoughts.
Copied from https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/38109/what-is-gvfs-and-why-should-i-want-it-on-my-system
So I came to this solution: I block the daemons from starting and when I need them a enable them:
systemctl --user stop gvfs* # stop all services with gvfs
sudo kill $(ps -A | grep gvfs | awk '{print $1}') # to be sure GVFS is not running
sudo chmod 0000 /usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs* # this prevent GVFS from starting
lsof | grep gvfs # but it has many open files anyway...
When I need GVFS again so i run following code and reboot for sure:
sudo chmod 0644 /usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs* # this enables GVFS again
Avron, I was re-reading what you wrote about automatically mounting USB, you were right, it doesn't happen after removing gvfs.
I also found a couple of light weight window managers (with Synaptic), but uninstalled them, as I wasn't quite sure what to do with them... it is all a bit cloudy, but very exciting though :)
Does GVfs actually malfunction on your system, as it does on that of the StackExchange's user? Here, four hours after I started my session, the gvfs* processes have altogether taken fewer than 2.5 seconds of CPU time and 25 MB of RAM. It is nice to have a remote folder (accessed through SSH in my case) opened in one click in the file manager (Nautilus in my case).
EDIT: seven hours after logging in, those numbers have become ~4 seconds and 26 MB.
Not sure if I can call it malfunction, Magic Banana. There are errors because of blocked connections and disabled services, but that is OK, as intended... the problem for me is the number of unwanted processes that keep on running. It would be great if I could shut up the redundant processes for good and keep only what I need.
I would love to configure my system as completely standalone, have even made a name for it - Trisquelo (for Trisquel Local :)
What do you think about the solution from the StackExchange's user?
gvfs can be useful for many protocols and formats: ftp, sftp, smb, dav, archive and more. AFC/AFP are indeed listed as supported schemes: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/gvfs/schemes. Since gvfs is running on your Trisquel system, you are in full control of what it mounts and connects to.
That said, if you have no use for any of its backends, I believe you should be fine uninstalling the gvfs package altogether. On Trisquel Mini 11 I had to install gvfs-backends in order to sftp into other local file systems through PCManFM, which means that everything else is working fine without it *in my use case*.
I am left thinking you may want to start with a Trisquel Mini system, and add/remove whatever is needed/unneeded from there. It looks closer to what you seem to be aiming for than the vanilla Trisquel MATE system you are trying to nibble down to a leaner system. I usually opt for Trisquel Mini for similar reasons. As a rough comparison, RAM consumption on a Mini system is about half the amount used by the Trisquel MATE system on the same machine, and of course you still have access to the full Trisquel repo.
EDIT: by "other local file systems" I meant file systems on other machines on the same local network. Not Trisquelo.
Great info Prospero, thank you!!
gvfs can be useful for many protocols and formats: ftp, sftp, smb, dav, archive and more. AFC/AFP are indeed listed as supported schemes: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/gvfs/schemes. Since gvfs is running on your Trisquel system, you are in full control of what it mounts and connects to.
That said, if you have no use for any of its backends, I believe you should be fine uninstalling the gvfs package altogether.
This is enlightening!
Apart from sftp, which I'll be needing soon (for uploading/downloading websites), I think there isn't anything else I need from those protocols and formats. If backends are what I think they are (servers, external drives, cloud, etc), I can say for sure I don't use any of them (not anymore).
It's good to hear gvfs can be uninstalled, specially for older machines like mine (which I LOVE!). I'll have to gain confidence before doing a big move like that though, so far I have uninstalled a couple of apps, but never uninstalled any system packages, just disabled and masked what is redundant for my use case.
Must say, my learning method has been odd to say the least and I'm still catching up with terms people use in the forum :)
Continuing on what you said:
On Trisquel Mini 11 I had to install gvfs-backends in order to sftp into other local file systems through PCManFM, which means that everything else is working fine without it *in my use case*.
If I could partly disable gvfs, could I keep the part that deals with sftp enabled and still use it? That might be a donkey question, but worth a try, so I can keep just what I need. On the other hand, if I could find a libre app to upload websites, then uninstalling gvfs could be a really good move.
I am left thinking you may want to start with a Trisquel Mini system, and add/remove whatever is needed/unneeded from there. It looks closer to what you seem to be aiming for than the vanilla Trisquel MATE system you are trying to nibble down to a leaner system. I usually opt for Trisquel Mini for similar reasons. As a rough comparison, RAM consumption on a Mini system is about half the amount used by the Trisquel MATE system on the same machine, and of course you still have access to the full Trisquel repo.
I tried Trisquel Mini 11 and made a mess of it, couldn't find my way for some reason, but that was a while ago, but what you said makes so much sense, maybe I should have another go.
EDIT: by "other local file systems" I meant file systems on other machines on the same local network. Not Trisquelo.
I love that - "Not Trisquelo"!
Yes, I use no "other local file systems", not of any kind, not even my other half's computer has access, everything I need connects via cables (USB external drive, USB printer, etc)... in my mind, Trisquelo is a standalone system, completely self-contained, but expandable to any level with any Trisquel package!... A dreamer, I know :)
It does sound wise to do only what you are comfortable with.
I would probably use FileZilla or similar front end to synchronize a website through ftp/sftp, for which you do not need gvfs. Using gvfs to browse remote file systems as directories in a file manager is mostly a matter of convenience. It is quite convenient, though. I previously used Samba for such purposes, but sftp feels cleaner, easier to set up, and hence safer.
> If I could partly disable gvfs, could I keep the part that deals with sftp enabled and still use it?
It looks like you get all the backends or none. Whatever you decide to do with gvfs will be fine anyway, since you can always re-enable or re-install it. FileZilla should do the website job either way. You will find it in Add/remove applications if you want to give it a try.
THANK YOU Prospero!!
I would probably use FileZilla or similar front end to synchronize a website through ftp/sftp, for which you do not need gvfs.
That is it, ftp/sftp sorted! You explained it beautifully:
Using gvfs to browse remote file systems as directories in a file manager is mostly a matter of convenience. It is quite convenient, though. I previously used Samba for such purposes, but sftp feels cleaner, easier to set up, and hence safer
I think I am seeing gvsf in a better light now, if I ever need it in a 'distant' future I'll remember this, is so helpful to know what 'better' choices we have. Also glad to learn it would be an easy re-install.
Prospero, this thread has been great learning, maybe is time to try Trisquel Mini again!
What do you think about the solution from the StackExchange's user?
The second command looks useless, because the first one should have done the job, except that there is apparently no gvfs* service on Trisquel 11. That second command is uselessly complicated too (equivalent to one single killall). More importantly, I would certainly avoid changing the permissions of system files.
I searched the Web a little. As far as I understand, D-Bus starts gvfsd when an application requests it and there is a so-called "ugly hack" (still nicer than changing the permissions of system files!) to avoid that: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=544148#15
Or remove all the gvfs* packages, as prospero proposed.
Thanks for clarifying the info in the StackExchange thread, Magic Banana!
More importantly, I would certainly avoid changing the permissions of system files
Yes, I understand what you said, the use of permissions made me question that solution. Happy you said it so clearly.
I checked the link you posted and think you are right, Prospero's suggestion of removing gvfs packages looks the best way to go. Could I do a backup before hand and, if there was any problem, put everything back as it was?
There are things that annoy me no end with gvfs, I found system files where the rotten fruit was trying to connect (!?!), as well as others just as repulsive to me. Bare in mind that I never used the fruit cloud, but the hackers of my previous system did it, imagine that!
I blocked, disabled and masked avahi, smb, etc and was relieved when reading about their failures... they failed to connect again and again and again... boy, they tried, so many times that I decided to remove annoying failures and any mention of those corporations from my computer. If I wanted to access a cloud storage, I could do it with Abrowser while keeping them out of my system. Happy to say I used Abrowser to rescue files from Goggle Drive and it worked like a charm.
Could I do a backup before hand and, if there was any problem, put everything back as it was?
I do not see how removing the gvfs* packages would put the user data at risk, but you want to back them up regularly anyway! Doing a backup of the system is not much useful. If you want, you can copy the list of installed packages, for instance using the Synaptic package Manager, as explained on https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/cloning-system-or-how-make-copy-installed-packages-one-computer-another
In the short term, the logs in /var/log/apt should be enough though, if you change your mind and want to know what packages to reinstall.
I do not see how removing the gvfs* packages would put the user data at risk
Great!
In the short term, the logs in /var/log/apt should be enough though, if you change your mind and want to know what packages to reinstall.
Always learning from you Magic Banana - THANK YOU!
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/cloning-system-or-how-make-copy-installed-packages-one-computer-another
And this, which I've put into practice thanks to the guide you wrote!
----
EDIT:
One last question, how about mounting disks after gvfs is gone?
One last question, how about mounting disks after gvfs is gone?
I believe local filesystems (including on removable ones such as USB sticks) will still be automatically mounted... but you will tell us. I have never removed GVfs. For remote filesystems, you will need dedicated programs, such as FileZilla that prospero recommended.
More good news and more thanks to you Magic Banana!
I believe local filesystems (including on removable ones such as USB sticks) will still be automatically mounted... but you will tell us
Hope to find out soon and will let you know for sure!! I'm building confidence to do remove gvfs completely, but feel I am almost there now.
For remote filesystems, you will need dedicated programs, such as FileZilla that prospero recommended.
Yes, that was great to hear and I'll probably be hunting more dedicated programs as the need arises.
thank you all, it feels like I am getting nearer and nearer to a prototype of Trisquelo :)
Magic Banana, it took a little while to report back, but I'm glad to say it's done :)
I decided not to risk removing gvfs from my main drive and made a clone (or quasi-clone) for the purpose (your guide was really helpful). Things went well and the computer is blissfully quite, but there are a few hiccups:
- First, external drives don't seem to mount (are invisible), but 'Disks' sees them and I used it to power down drives before removing them safely.
- Second, there is no file manager. My files can't be opened in GUI, unless I click on 'Places' (in the panel) which opens the files with kid3... it's odd and funny, but I feel lucky I had kid3 installed, as there is no alternative available (yet).
I found a file manager that seems to do what I am looking for:
SLiM (info from Synaptic):
"desktop-independent graphical login manager for X11
SLiM aims to be light, simple and independent from the various
desktop environments. Although completely configurable through
themes and an option file. It is particularly suitable for machines
that don't require remote logins."
When installing it, a pop up window asks to select the default display manager, SLiM or lightdm. I wasn't sure and ended up uninstalling it.
Do you have any suggestions or comments on this file manager? Or another one, perhaps, that is also light weight? (I am using MATE)
I think that is it so far, but I have just started testing.
- First, external drives don't seem to mount
I believe you should still be able to mount a device with udisksctl, in a terminal. For instance, to mount /dev/sdb1:
$ udisksctl mount -b /dev/sdb1
For auto-mounting, https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/746305 suggests "GVFS on GNOME and most other GTK+ desktops [or] KIO on KDE" is needed, unless the filesystem is statically known, with an entry in /etc/fstab. For those, systemd's auto-mounts is a possibility.
I searched a little more. There seems to exist a (niche) solution that does not rely on GVfs: SpaceFM with udevil. Both are in Trisquel's repository. At least the description of the spacefm package promises:
(...) device management featureful enough to replace the various udisks-based *kits when used alongside udevil.
SpaceFM and udevil, from the same authors, look abandoned. Their codes were last modified five years and eight years ago, respectively:
Second, there is no file manager. My files can't be opened in GUI, unless I click on 'Places' (in the panel) which opens the files with kid3.
The ID3 tag editor for KDE?! What happens if you execute caja (MATE's file manager) from the command line?
I found a file manager
As the description you posted says, SLiM is a "graphical login manager". It is not a file manager.
Do you have any suggestions or comments on this file manager? Or another one, perhaps, that is also light weight?
As I wrote above, SpaceFM with udevil may be what you are searching for. That said, if most file managers have chosen to rely on GVfs, it is certainly because it is a good solution. If you do not face any problem with GVfs, why rejecting it?
Thank you Magic Banana! For all!!!!!!
You are right again :)
If you do not face any problem with GVfs, why rejecting it?
I see what you mean, GVfs seems to be the only way to go, and am glad I used a test drive to remove it.
You are right about SLiM too, my bad! I was searching for file manager in Synaptic and my hopeful thinking blinded me.
I did a bit more searching for standalone/local desktop environment alternatives, but it seems there is none. The obligatory parts (external) are always there. I wonder why they are obligatory though.
Now, back on my main drive (with GVfs untouched) I am doing just one more test - I removed caja-share. That was the only change in Caja, so I expect everything will work as usual (and smb will be properly disabled). Please enlighten me if you think this is a bad move, for any reason.
I see what you mean, GVfs seems to be the only way to go, and am glad I used a test drive to remove it.
Well, GVfs is not "the only way", since KDE uses KIO instead.
I wonder why they are obligatory though.
Imagine you are developing a file manager. You want it to be able to browse the files on a removable device (without administrative privileges and even if it has never been inserted), those on a remote filesystem (accessed through FTP or SFTP or SMB or...), etc. After all, essentially all the file managers for GNU/Linux have those features! Either you spend years implementing (and then maintaining) them using POSIX calls or you find a free software library that has already achieved that work for you. If there exists such a library that is good (well designed, well documented, supporting many protocols, mature hence with probably few bugs, in particular security bugs, etc.), why wouldn't you include it and focus on the rest your file manager?
Please enlighten me if you think this is a bad move, for any reason.
I believe most Trisquel users are on MATE and could better reply (I am on GNOME). Nevertheless, caja-share is apparently an extension to Caja: removing it should indeed only disable folder sharing. Nothing else.
You explained it well Magic Banana, thank you very much for taking the time to make it clearer!
Either you spend years implementing (and then maintaining) them using POSIX calls or you find a free software library that has already achieved that work for you.
I think I see what you mean, specially in relation to experienced GNU/Linux users (not sure what POSIX calls are, but seem like a chore :). Also, I guess there aren't many people looking for a standalone system, freedom respecting or otherwise.
Ahhh, I'd still would love to have Trisquelo available in the wild, for the few who might want a simple local system, if only I had the skills to offer it, I would! I think it would be a perfect start and could grow with people as they learn and expand their needs.
Thank you also for reassuring me about the Caja extension. Peace of mind!
not sure what POSIX calls are, but seem like a chore :)
They are low-level functions available on any POSIX-compliant systems: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/functions.html
Ahhh, I'd still would love to have Trisquelo available in the wild, for the few who might want a simple local system, if only I had the skills to offer it, I would!
GVfs does not force you to have your system connected to a network. Even connected, GVfs should not communicate with any remote machine unless asked to do so. Do you want to disable Linux's networking support too? There is the compilation option CONFIG_NET for that. Nevertheless, "some programs need kernel networking support even when running on a stand-alone machine that isn't connected to any other computer": https://www.kernelconfig.io/CONFIG_NET
I am happy to say I am using GVfs again and feel comfortable with it! I think I understand how things work a lot better now - thanks to your patience, Magic Banana, as well as Avron's and Prospero's.
There is nothing better than scratching an itch (until it hurts) to get rid of it.
GVfs does not force you to have your system connected to a network. Even connected, GVfs should not communicate with any remote machine unless asked to do so.
Yes, I understand that even better now (and the problems that come with not having it too), but I want to make clear that my concerns were based solely on my previous experience with a hacked system (FruitOS), when uninvited 'users' joined in, took over the computer, broke into my bank, my emails, my documents, my passwords (keychain), personal information and everything else you can think of... that was what I had in my mind + the fact I didn't know they were there until it was too late... I wondered if any of them could find their way in again, after all, they have all my data (mostly old data though, took a lot of effort, but everything that could be changed was changed!)... One of my big aims now is to learn how to fully defend a system against weirdos like that.
Do you want to disable Linux's networking support too?
I think I'm OK now, thank you :)... Also, if "some programs need kernel networking support even when running on a stand-alone machine that isn't connected to any other computer", I prefer to leave things as they are. I've blocked connections and ports from the beginning and that seems not to interfere too much, I hope.
Thank you for all the helpful links as well!
Note that the Trisquel team is going out of their way in order to make sure that our systems are making no connection attempt whatsoever unless explicitly instructed to by us, the users, including for the purpose of checking for updates on Trisquel servers and mirrors.
If you wish to persevere towards Trisquelo, it may be advisable to first check dependencies for packages you are considering removing. You can do that in Synaptic, in Package > Properties, Dependencies tab. Anything listed under "Dependent packages" is probably going to be removed, which will be confirmed if you try to select the package for removal. For instance, you can see that file managers Caja, Thunar and Nautilus are all dependent on the gvfs package, but not PCManFM, which is the default file manager for Trisquel Mini. PCManFM only "recommends" the gvfs-backends package, as well as gvfs-fuse.
Note that the Trisquel team is going out of their way in order to make sure that our systems are making no connection attempt whatsoever unless explicitly instructed to by us, the users, including for the purpose of checking for updates on Trisquel servers and mirrors.
Big thanks for that Prospero! YES! I couldn't agree more. I'm grateful to each and everyone in the Trisquel team and my admiration grows deeper the more I learn. What a nice opportunity to say THANK YOU!!!!!!!
As for Trisquelo, I guess my 'temporary' paranoia is finally subsiding and the way my system is configured, including GVfs, is looking pretty sweet now (more about the reasons for paranoia in my reply to Magic Banana). Thank you also for your advise, I'll keep it all in mind and will be very careful. Must say that removing GVfs in a test drive was a great exercise on learning what NOT to do :)
> seven hours after logging in, those numbers have become ~4 seconds and 26 MB.
Wow. Your system is really slow.
Joking aside, it certainly does not look like gvfs is taking a huge amount of resources, even when it is running in the background without a purpose. Your case is different, though, since you are using it to access remote file systems, just not at all times.
26 MB is a massive amount of memory for something that should be as simple as an automated mount command. Makes me wonder what gvfs is really doing? Sending all your private data to the NSA or to Cthulhu perhaps?*
*[technically this is grammatically incorrect, as the NSA and Cthulhu are one and the same]
Edit: For comparison's sake - on Hyperbola I can start an entire DWM session with about 76MB total memory in use. Should gvfs really be using 1/3 the memory of an entire graphical window manager and networking and all its services?
Interesting!! Thank you andyprough!
Makes me wonder what gvfs is really doing?
Very good question, this thread has been extremely helpful and your question echoes where my digging started.
I was prompted to look into GVfs when I found a series of files showing attempts to connect to systems I have nothing to do with, including attempts by the fruit corporation to access devices I stopped using since moving to GNU/Linux. One of these files mentioned the battery going dead on a retired ipadthing. All of this made me wonder what were the reasons for their persistence. I never used their cloud, but, as I said above, fruit-hackers have used it in my name, which made me pay attention.
Saying that, there is a bright side too, the files I found read like a nice list of failures and retries! Although there is still a lingering desire to have a system without GVfs, I'm OK with the idea of leaving it alone now, I'm confident any attempt to connect will lead nowhere.
It is great to have the ability to configure, block, disable, mask and obliterate any unwanted "sharing", it gives me great joy :)... I am happy Trisquel handles Ubuntu with kid gloves!
Hy andyprough,
While searching the web for information on how to install Hyperbola, I found your guide and was completely gripped, there is nothing like it out there! Even though most of the technicalities flew over my head, I kept reading it. As a new GNU/Linux user, I want to say thank you, I'll go back to your guide when I am ready to take the plunge.
Edit (link to the guide I mentioned):
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/hyperbola-part-2-beginners-guide-installation-w-dwm-window-manager
I have always liked shameless plugs about Hyperbola in the main section of the Trisquel forum, but can we consider this thread "solved"?
Meanwhile, I hope andyprough will also tell us more about the next release of his pet GNU/Linux-libre project: AndyX 23 "Earthen Worm". Or is it "Wooden Ant"? Upstream is available since August. Many are beginning to worry. The crowd may soon become uncontrollable, tentacles may start flying around.
Link: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/jwmkit-libre-antix-respin-32-bit-version-2nd-beta-version-available-testing?page=1
Other link: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/available-testing-alphaexperimental-respin-antix-distro-without-non-free-bits
>"Meanwhile, I hope andyprough will also tell us more about the next release of his pet GNU/Linux-libre project: AndyX 23 "Earthen Worm". Or is it "Wooden Ant"? Upstream is available since August. Many are beginning to worry. The crowd may soon become uncontrollable, tentacles may start flying around."
I haven't heard of anyone using antiX-Libre for quite a long while, including myself. With Gnuinos offering an easily installable 32-bit version and so greatly surpassing antiX-Libre's modest ambitions, I don't really see the need for it. And antiX's repos are not completely libre, no matter how much I push the respin around. The whole point of antiX-Libre was a concept respin for when Trisquel was dropping 32-bit, but Gnuinos is just a lot better.
I installed the new Gnuinos version with the s6 init manager last night. That thing is pretty slick.
There is no i686 iso image for the experimental s6 version of Gnuinos Daedalus. Or have you been respinning that too?
The "regular" runit version of Gnuinos 5.0 Daedalus is pretty stable now. I am running the 64-bit version, though.
>"There is no i686 iso image for the experimental s6 version of Gnuinos Daedalus. Or have you been respinning that too?"
Yes, but I was enjoying the 64-bit version. It's so cool.
>"The "regular" runit version of Gnuinos 5.0 Daedalus is pretty stable now. I am running the 64-bit version, though."
That's where the 32-bit version is available is Gnuinos runit. Also pretty cool, but s6 has a cooler name, in my extraordinarily humble opinion.
> That's where the 32-bit version is available
This should be pretty clear to everybody by now. You can go back to your spinning.
Yes prospero, I think this thread can definitely be considered solved. It was helpful in many levels, including it's branches, buds and flowers, all products of the freedom I appreciate so much in this forum.
Also, no matter how we expand and compare, Trisquel is the reason we are here and 'can' discuss freedom in such granular way, a kind of thinking alien to most of the world out there.
By the way, I like andyprough and I like you... I also like the way you like each other, it's charmingly entertaining and very educative - thank you both!
As you may have noticed, some of us Trisquel users share a soft spot for minimalist-ic systems, and at times that spot shamelessly shows. We try to do our best to contain it within the General Free Software Talk, but from time to time the excitement is such that it spreads into the main section of the forum.
> I also like the way you like each other
We once considered partnership, after so many years trolling each other, but at the last moment he chose Masaru Suzuqi instead, leaving me lonely and heartbroken. Masaru Suzuqi was sent orbiting the galaxy for that, forever frozen in a most uncomfortable pause called "under review".
I also try hard to contain my enthusiasm for minimalism in systems, but sometimes it seems to contain me instead. Please please, feel free to curb any excess if overflows beyond borders.
...leaving me lonely and heartbroken
Haha, smiling big here!
To be fair, Masaru had tremendous potential for creating new revenue streams with his paintings and musical recordings, so a partnership made great economic sense.
You, on the other hand, I considered to be in that phase of life known as "squandering your inherited billions on yachts and private jets and debauchery". I could not, in good conscience, contribute to your riches-to-rags downfall.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires