Linux.com

Feature

A survey of Linux file managers

By Bruce Byfield on December 19, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Linux file manager ontogeny encapsulates the history of GNU/Linux. File managers began as command-line and generic graphical tools and progressed to desktop-specific ones, gaining sophistication along the way, with mouse controls, for example, replacing buttons. Today, the more than a dozen options highlighted here will suit users with widely varied interests.

Many modern file managers no longer try to be an all-in-one application for everything from copying files to archiving them. In some circles, file managers even seem to be considered obsolete, judging from the fact that many distributions no longer include one on the desktop, and some users seem to prefer search tools like Beagle to organizing their files into directories. However, even the oldest file manager remains useful, and may work better than newer options for some users, depending on their preferences in matters such as the relative advantages of keybindings versus mouse clicks.

Command-line choices

Using a command-line file manager is like stepping back in time. Most of them are based on Norton Commander, the old DOS standby. Both Midnight Commander and FD Clone display two panels and use either the function keys or keybindings to manipulate selected files. Midnight Commander even goes so far as to borrow the Norton Commander's blue and cyan color scheme.

Command-line file managers not only pack considerable functionality into small programs, but also frequently include functions not found in many desktop file managers, such as as an FTP client and advanced sorting options. They are particularly apt to support a full set of keybindings; vifm even goes so far as to borrow vi keybindings. Even if you spend most of your time on the desktop, you should probably familiarize yourself with one command-line file manager for the rare time you need it. Fortunately, that's not hard to do.

Generic graphical choices

In large, long-established distributions such as Debian, you can find packages for as many as a dozen file managers designed for the X Window System or Unix-like operating systems, rather than for a specific window manager or desktop or for GNU/Linux in particular. Some, such as the Desktop File Manager (DFM), are reminiscent of the modern spatial view in GNOME. However, to a modern user, many of these choices look painfully obsolete, with no drag-and-drop support, anti-aliased fonts, or CUPS printing. The Gentoo file manager (not to be confused with the distribution of the same name) supports only ASCII characters, and is unable to sort some of the characters in a modern UTF-8 locale.

Most of the available generic file managers are more or less direct transitions from command-line counterparts. Many, such as emelfm, support keybindings as well as their command-line equivalents, while others, such as FileRunner and Worker, include a formidable range of options via buttons. The main difference between these programs and their command-line counterparts is that the generic file managers include history, bookmarks, MIME recognition -- although, in some cases, by manual configuration -- and a greater variety of views of directory listings and file attributes.

The generic file managers reflect the needs of GNU/Linux users at the time they were first written seven or eight years ago, with built-in options for such commands as diff, mount, and symlink -- features that more recent file managers often have dropped. One especially thorough choice is TkDesk, which, in addition to offering both a tree view and two additional panes, also includes a configurable floating window for commonly used applications. In general, the geekier and less mouse-dependent that you are, the more likely you are to appreciate these applications.

Desktop environment choices

Most users are familiar with the file managers that come with their desktop environments: Konqueror for KDE and Nautilus for GNOME. Less well-known is Thunar, which is designed specifically for Xfce, but is responsive enough that users of other desktops may appreciate it.

Konqueror is not exactly a thing of beauty, especially in icon view, where file names are often truncated to the point of unreadability with the default settings. However, in Detailed List View, which includes a full list of file attributes, it becomes serviceable, if sometimes inclined to stall when doing multi-gigabyte file transfers. Many will appreciate its extensive keybindings. However, Konqueror's main strengths are not as a file manager but as a Web browser and a file viewer.

At any rate, Konqueror is preferable to Nautilus, which began as buggy and has improved only slowly. Although Nautilus' stability is no longer an issue, as it was in its initial releases, its default spatial view is. This view, chosen to simplify the average user's view of the hard drive, shows only the current user's desktop and home directory as a selection of icons. Even worse, in this view, the directory tree that has been a mainstay of file managers from the earliest days of computing is awkwardly reduced to a combo box in the lower left of the window. Like Konqueror, Nautilus is useful as a file viewer, but as a file manager, it is tolerable only in browser mode, which uses one pane for the directory tree and is only available from System Tools -> File Browser. Yet even in browser mode, the default view is of the home directory, with a separate entry on the tree for the entire filesystem.

With the general shift away from file managers as a central point for file manipulation, many users get by with Konqueror or Nautilus with few complaints. Still, alternatives do exist.

One of these alternatives is Dolphin, a KDE application currently at its 0.70 release. Dolphin focuses only on file management, with few of the other purposes that tend to clutter Konqueror's and Nautilus' menus and tool bars. The advantages of this focus can be seen in Dolphin's speed and ability to handle large file transfers. Although it so far lacks a tree view, users can improvise one by pressing F9 for a split view, then selecting the Previews view mode for one of the resulting panes.

By far the most promising file manager for the desktop is a KDE application called Krusader. With its use of function keys and its ability to call external applications as needed, Krusader looks more like a direct descendant of the Norton Commander clones than other modern file managers. With its abilities to search archives, compress files in a variety of formats, encrypt, and show disk usage in a chart in a separate window, Krusader is easily the most powerful file manager for the modern desktop. Its main drawback is that too many functions are dumped into the Useractions menu, although some users may also dislike the fact that it displays selected files in separate windows rather than existing panes.

Choosing file managers

The selection of a file manager is a highly personal decision. For most users, Midnight Commander is probably the command-line choice that is quickest to learn. Few users will want to use one of the generic file managers unless they are already familiar with it from another Unix-like operating system. Of the modern file managers, Konqueror the most satisfactory -- so much so that otherwise dedicated GNOME users have been known to install KDE mainly so that they can use it.

However, for those who have always relied on file managers, the first choice has to be Krusader. Combining the centralized functionality of earlier generations with the look and feel of modern applications, Krusader is by far the most complete of the file managers I've mentioned.

Depending on your priorities, you might settle on another choice, but it's worth taking the time to explore your options. For many users, the choice of a file manager remains nearly as important as the choice of an editor is to a developer. A file manager can't force you to organize your files, but the right one can help you keep them that way.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for NewsForge, Linux.com, and IT Manager's Journal.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on A survey of Linux file managers

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

KDE Fanboys.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 10:07 PM
"At any rate, Konqueror is preferable to Nautilus, which began as buggy and has improved only slowly. Although Nautilus' stability is no longer an issue, as it was in its initial releases, its default spatial view is. This view, chosen to simplify the average user's view of the hard drive, shows only the current user's desktop and home directory as a selection of icons. Even worse, in this view, the directory tree that has been a mainstay of file managers from the earliest days of computing is awkwardly reduced to a combo box in the lower left of the window. Like Konqueror, Nautilus is useful as a file viewer, but as a file manager, it is tolerable only in browser mode, which uses one pane for the directory tree and is only available from System Tools -> File Browser. Yet even in browser mode, the default view is of the home directory, with a separate entry on the tree for the entire filesystem."

KDE fanboy writes article. Drives up pageviews. Film at eleven.

#

What about ROX?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 19, 2006 11:48 PM
I can't believe there was no mention of ROX Filer. It is simple, fast, and configurable. I couldn't ask for anything more.

As for GNOME users using konq...I have never heard of that, maybe K3B but not konq. It is such a confusing mess of buttons and options that I don't know many people that enjoy using it. Nautilus is fine once you turn off the spatial view.

#

Re:What about ROX?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 01:02 AM
Konq can be nice once you get used to it and customize the view a bit but then I'm more a KDE person since leaving Enlightenment as my X manager.

Konq will give you file management, pdf viewing, browsing and a terminal. I'm sure there's a tone of other stuff in there too and more than likely an equivalent function set available on the Gnome prefered choice.

#

Re:What about ROX?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 01:30 AM
And bantam a completly different approach to a file manager etc... there's a whole sea of them.. also skipeed entropy and evidence from e17...

#

Nautilus

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 07:35 AM

Every version of Nautilus I have ever used has been buggy. I pick it up, I try it, it breaks, I leave it alone. Recently I installed Ubuntu and the first thing I wanted to do was copy over my personal files from my Slackware partition. OK so I decided to use Nautilus, thinking that my previous experience was some years before so Nautilus should work now. Nautilus couldn't handle it: interestingly it could not copy files with names like internal function names (python?), eg system.c, file.cpp, assert.c, etc. I tried this twice more, cleaing the target directories and using nautilus to copy, same problem every time. Someone is going to try this on a dozen files with similar names and say "works for me". OK. But I was copying 150,000 files. So I deleted the target directories and used the old "cp -Rp" and it worked without any problems. I have also done this with Konq, which was why I was surprised Nautilus barfed, initially thought the files were corrupt.

#

Re:Nautilus

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 10:13 PM
consider Kubuntu and Konquerer.. Nautilus continues to be buggy for me also but Konq is good stuff.

#

Re:What about ROX?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 04:32 PM
It is also my main reaction... I used Rox-Filer for years, until recently when I switched to Thunar, which is faster in many cases.

I actually did some speed test 2 months ago between Thunar, Konqueror, Nautilus and Rox, and Konqueror is nearly always the fastest (I was creating a directory with thousands of files (text or png), or opening<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib). Rox was very often among the slowest ones. Nautilus has really improved in the last years speedwise.

But Rox advantage is the very good interface. Very efficient for most actions.

Thunar got mentioned, but not described in the article. It is a little like a Nautilus without the annoying features (e.g. spatial mode). Still rough but very usable (not yet a 1.0 release). As I said, I switched to it recently after years of Rox-Filer.

#

Re:What about ROX?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 09:52 PM
Rox rocks...:) When I get the itch to use Fluxbox, I always use Rox. As a long time Gnome user, I can honestly say I have NEVER heard of a Gnome user willingly using klunquorer as a file manager. I agree with the K3B comment, but never klunquorer.

I use Nautilus in both spatial and browser view - browser when I am doing general file management of my user's directory, and spatial from the desktop when I only need to access a single directory.

Let's not forget the beauty of GNU/Linux and FOSS: we have a choice.

#

Re:What about ROX?

Posted by: Administrator on December 20, 2006 01:10 AM

I second ROX. It's very lightweight and extremely easy to configure... Not to mention, it can provide a "desktop" to those that don't want a desktop environment.


More info here:


<a href="http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/static.html" title="sourceforge.net">ROX Desktop</a sourceforge.net>

#

emelFM2

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 12:50 AM
It was nice to see emelfm mentioned, but I prefer the gtk+-2 port <a href="http://emelfm2.net/" title="emelfm2.net">emelFM2</a emelfm2.net>.

#

Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 01:26 AM
With the possible exception of Emacs, no other offering has the features and functionality that Konqueror offers. No other offering has the integration that Konqueror does. No other offering does file management as well as Konqueror does.

None!

Does anyone really use MC anymore?

#

Re:Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 04:36 AM
Does anyone really use MC anymore?

No, we use unixtree. It's much better than MC ever was. And MC degressed considerably while it was being "maintained" by MdI.

#

Re:Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 09:42 PM
Making blanket statements such as this certainly does not inspire confidence in the writer's post. All of these posts reflect each reader's OPINION, so really should be stated as such. To me Konqueror is a horrible file manager because it is slow, and has an extremely cluttered UI, much like KDE itself, which is why I do not use KDE. Nautilus is my FM of choice and for me, does everything I need it to, very well, which is why I use Gnome. I use MC every day when I am at the CLI.

You should be happy we have a choice, unlike users of the evil empire's "OS", rather than flatly stating one particular FM does everything better.

#

Re:Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 11:17 PM
I agree with the blanket statement thing, not even an "IMO" clause, and some would label it a troll.

I also spend a good deal of time in mc, using it for nearly all my sysadmin file management and editing tasks at the command line or in a konsole window it doesn't matter, with a completely customized F2/user-menu. I have EDITOR=mcedit in my profile/bashrc files at both the system and user levels, and have a symlink from e->mcedit as well.

For "user" file management, I still prefer konqueror, however, for much the same reason I prefer KDE -- it may be cluttered if you don't customize it, but KDE including konqueror excels in customizability. In fact, ease of customization and degree of customizability are the biggest reason I've adopted KDE as my desktop of choice, since I've yet to find anything that ships in anything close to my preferred configuration by default, meaning customization is a must and ease of customization is pretty close to top of my usability list.

Of course, by "user" file manager, I'm talking tasks like thumbnail and full embedded file viewing, and strength of first and N-degree mime-type associations, that many would consider "soft" file manager functionality, and use dedicated browsers, graphics viewers, etc, for. Konqueror excels at this sort of thing, which is why I use it for it, but doesn't work so well for the "hard" file management tasks, where it can be very slow as it stops to make all those associations and decide on the appropriate icon or thumbnail representation to use, which is why I use a tool more suited to the task, mc, for my sysadmin file management time tasks.

Your conclusion, however, is right on. The good thing about freedom is just that, the freedom to choose, and in the end, it doesn't matter whether you and I prefer different file managers, or even if each of us uses multiple file managers, depending on the task at hand. What matters is that we have the choice, and that in the land of free software, there remains the opportunity to (0) make use of the software we find useful, (1) learn how the program works and adapt it to our needs (both at the source level and thru configurability), (2) share the programs we have found useful with others, without having to worry about the legality or lack thereof of doing so, and (3) make improvements to the programs as we think of them, again making these improvements (again in configuration OR source) available to others, without fear of infringing on the rights of the original creator or further contributors or distributors between him and us. These are the four freedoms of free software. Would that they applied to all software, and indeed, all creative works. Maybe some day...

Duncan

#

Re:Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Administrator on December 20, 2006 02:04 AM
Yep, I use MC almost exclusively. But I'm a console freak.

Also, if you have your own website -- especially a small consumer type account without shell access -- MC's ftp client is a godsend. With it, you can actually remotely edit files (F4); essentially it gives you an interactive shell.

#

Lots omitted

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 03:15 AM
This is a good survey as far as it goes, but it misses out on lots of important ones listed at <a href="http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Utilities/File_Managers/" title="linuxlinks.com">linuxlinks.com</a linuxlinks.com>

#

Re:Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 04:07 AM
I'm a Bash/ncFTP feller myself but I may have to give MC another look.

#

Re:Konqueror - All Other Pale In Comparison

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 05:24 AM
Just for those who don't know (you being a console freak probably won't be that interested<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) but every KDE application supports remote file access through ssh.

Simply use the fish://user@host/path/to/file as the address.

Split the view in 2 in konqueror, use fish to browse to a remote directory and it's MC goodness with GUI confort.

HTH

#

Your Gentoo Response

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 05:44 AM
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes" title="wikipedia.org">You</a wikipedia.org> failed to acknowledge that NONE of the other utilities come close to Konqueror in combined speed, features, functionality, integration or ease of use. Nor any subset thereof.

What would you suggest is better? Let's get real! Have a look at Konqueror and and compare it to Nautilus or MC(?!?!?) no one could argue that it is head and shoulders above the competition.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes" title="wikipedia.org">Your post</a wikipedia.org> doesn't carry much weight.

#

Re:Your Gentoo Response

Posted by: Administrator on December 20, 2006 02:34 PM
Well some people like the person who posted after you get it some people don't. FYI I use konqueror quite often. I use the best tool for the job that needs to be done. I do what works best for me. My point that you so grievously missed was that this article promised to be something that it was not. Now you are attempting to turn my post into something it was not. As for the wikipedia link. wtf? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole" title="wikipedia.org">You</a wikipedia.org> need to stop being such a well... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole" title="wikipedia.org">you</a wikipedia.org>.

#

mc &amp; xfe

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 05:58 AM
I use Midnight Commander and X File Explorer (Xfe). They are both light-weight & fast, plus they fit well together with my fluxbox desktop & rxvt-unicode terminal.
<a href="http://freshmeat.net/projects/xfe/" title="freshmeat.net">http://freshmeat.net/projects/xfe/</a freshmeat.net>

#

MC is still the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 07:08 AM
Konqueror? I want to get file management done quickly so that I can do other stuff; why would I need such a fat application for that? And one that tries to be too many things at once? No, thanks. MC is still the best; check out Gnome Commander for a graphical version, which has gotten better, but still has to improve...

#

Re:MC is still the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 09:43 AM
Fat? LOL. You have confused it with something else.

#

Re:MC is still the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 03, 2007 11:07 PM
mc is great but, sadly, gmc is no longer available. I'm not sure when support was dropped but the mc web site has a FAQ entry to the effect that the GNOME and Tk front ends were removed. 4.5.55 still had support for it as that's the gmc I have installed (Debian woody).

gmc was always better then nautilus, where better is faster, more stable and more useful. Nothing replaces it.

#

Re:Fanboy article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 08:54 AM
I have yet to meet someone who actually LIKES KDE.

I know exactly ONE Linux user who actually USES KDE as their main operating environment/Desktop. This includes the dozen people I work with on a daily basis and the ones I've talked to at my local LUG.

I honestly do not see where the KDE fanboys get the idea that KDE/Konqueror rules and Gnome/Nautilus drools.

That being said, the author did have some token criticisms for Konqueror, so this wasn't a total fanboy puff piece. Close, but not total.

I do expect more objectivity out of Linux.com. If they are going to pass an article off as newsworthy it should actually BE newsworthy, or at least useful. This article doesn't rise above the level of a blog rant.

#

Re:Fanboy article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 09:59 PM
I only use Linux because of KDE. But you're right, we're probably never going to meet each other.

#

Re:Fanboy article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 10:24 PM
My preference is actually Enlightenment which replaced an older and lighter WM for day to day use until E started to show it's age and I switched to full blown KDE rather than Kapps under E.

#

Re:Fanboy article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2006 01:49 AM
Are you from the US? Because it seems Gnome is more popular in the US and KDE is more popular in Europe. I like KDE over Gnome, having tried both, and it's what I currently use. Moreover, I frequently chat in a Linux IRC channel where stating that you like Gnome over KDE means you'll be considered a weirdo, plain and simple.

#

Re:Fanboy article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 11, 2007 05:10 PM
Anecdotes and solipsism.. you sure know how to make an ironclad point.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/KDE user

#

Oh, my... the good times...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 09:56 AM
(Commercial trademarks belong to its respective owners)

First, I tend to agree on Konqueror being _The_ best of all... but, frankly, this is not so much because of high quality code (which it probably has anyway) but more because it's so well integrated in KDE it makes me cry (of joy!).

But mc is still very important inside terminals or when using the console (that non-graphical thing).

Now, what I truly miss is: XTREE.

Norton commander and all other two pane file managers always looked very clumsy to me. XTree, OTOH, was always quick and allowed for nimble operation. This in turn created the mythical "flow", a condition when you do your work almost without thinking, as in driving a car or walking.

Its authors understood the advanced needs of people managing files. Some good features:

- default local partition operation made searches a lot faster; multi-partition ops (called "global") could be chosen;
- directories were pre-scanned at start time: on a single-user system file bookkeeping could be done at file manager level, at blazing speeds; nowadays, this would be a lot harder;
- as a file manager, XTree manipulated _files_, which allowed, e.g., tagging files in different directories with different criteria and afterwards work on them as a set; mc has such feature, but only to a limited extent;
- the interface was very well thought with a menu-like "ribbon" at the bottom, which changed when Shift, Ctrl or Alt were pressed. Also, the same single command would apply to one file or a tagged group, with Ctrl pressed.

How many times I wished some of these features would return! I even tried the free clones but there are differences in Linux which require a rethinking of the program architecture.

#

Oh my, bring out the fanboys...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 10:45 AM
Flaming others because of their choice of file manager?! Shame on you kids! Back in my day, we'd flame each other for proper reasons: emacs vs vi, bash vs csh, sed&awk vs perl...

Anyway, I tend to keep a ton of terminals open (frequently running multiple screen windows). I've tried many file managers (from mc all the way to konq) but imho they just get in the way. Lately I have begun popping up Thunar for certain tasks. It's a nice little tool, quick and nimble.

Yeah yeah, 'get off mah lawn', I know...

#

Re:Oh my...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 06:24 PM
I sense you're opposed to my views as expressed in the posting before yours...

Such complete contrast of opinions can only mean one thing... Are you Eugenia?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P

#

phoning in a verbose list

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 03:25 PM
This is, frankly, a terrible article.

First, an example of a 'command-line file manager' is bash. Midnight Commander and the like are 'console' or 'text-mode' file managers.

Second, the author presents an inaccurate mental mapping of 'old no-good only-in-desperation' console file managers, 'old no-good hideous desktop-independent' graphical file managers, and 'the only sensible choice: a desktop-dependent' GUI file manager. mc is extremely powerful and, contrary to the article, provides bookmarks, history, etc. The article completely ignores rox and xfe and emelfm2 which are excellent examples of an oddball, explorer-style, and commander-style file manager, respectively. These run without Knome or even so much as a Knome library - rox and emelfm2 are straight GTK2 apps and xfe is a fox application.

Third, it is too short to do any kind of justice to the topic: it's just a verbose list. Yet it references applications such as tkdesk and filerunner that have no business being mentioned unless in a completist list, so it's simultaneously too long.

I'm probably a weirdo in that I'm a file manager freak: I happily use the command line, mc, rox, emelfm2, and xfe for their own special virtues (though I primarily use the command line for heavy lifting and rox for browsing and simple 'while browsing' tasks, and am considering replacing xfe with pcmanfm depending on how it develops). So maybe I expect too much, but I don't think so - I think this was really a 'phoned-in' article whose only good point was correctly identifying krusader as a great fm if one is willing to be shackled to a desktop rather than using fvwm (or other favorite window manager - or none at all) and independent applications.

#

+1; zsh is CLI, mc isn't

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 05:03 PM
Yep, just scrolled down to look whether it was posted. Calling mc a "command line" manager is grave misunderstanding of what command _line_ is and why UNIX way is so much different from DOS way (where pipes were so feeble just because software was implemented in 80x25 -- sometimes "and 80x43" -- fullscreen and not stdio allowing to chain things together).

For an example of proper CLI file manager (because it's a stdio program which also can do fullscreen in fact), one might look at zsh more closely. It's even possible to do mc-like menu with zsh, but not vice versa.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

--
Michael Shigorin

#

Tux Commander

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 05:11 PM
You forgot to mention Tux Commander, you can find it at <a href="http://tuxcmd.sf.net/" title="sf.net">http://tuxcmd.sf.net/</a sf.net>
---
Pixel image editor - <a href="http://www.kanzelsberger.com/" title="kanzelsberger.com">http://www.kanzelsberger.com/</a kanzelsberger.com>

#

/bin/bash

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 07:12 PM
Surprisingly, having used many tools under DOS/Win/etc, Macs and Linux, I end up now using mostly bash.

I hardly meet a task bash - with file-utils/text-utils - cannot help to solve.

#

Re:/bin/bash

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 08:56 PM
I'm much the same - whenever going through directories, it's always with a terminal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I can't remember the last time I loaded a file manager to do something. It's just so much faster<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:S

#

Re:Fanboy article...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2006 09:45 PM
I would agree. The author clearly comes off as a Gnome hater and KDE lover. Very bad way of presenting information, especially if new users are going to read this article. Since we GNU/Linux users have many choices available to us, presenting those choices in an unbiased manner would certainly lend more credibility to the article.

#

gFastFile

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2006 02:10 AM
Here's another I've been looking at that's looking good so far. It's still early development but good.

<a href="http://gfastfile.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">http://gfastfile.sourceforge.net/</a sourceforge.net>

#

Gnome commander

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2006 06:01 AM
There is a Gnome commander to. An total comander for gnome.

True that its almost totalcomander. But it gets really close

#

X Northern Captain

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2006 02:29 PM
this is a great file manager; also KDE and GNOME both blow. Why would anyone want the bloat that accompanies these Desktops?

#

i've tried a lot. the best one for me is: xfe

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2006 09:47 PM
xfe is lightweight. it's fast. it's handy. and: you don't need kde etc.

#

command line

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2006 11:48 PM
All you need is,
ls, cp, mv, du, chmod, chown, ln, etc.

If you can learn to use the command line, it is fast, flexible, simple, etc.
I've played with a lot of file managers and in general they are pretty useless.

#

Konqueror vs. Dolphin FILE TRANFERS?!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 23, 2006 07:46 AM
Why in the world do you claim that Dolphin handles large file transfers better than Konqueror?! They both use the KIO-Slave system that's built into KDE! (Which is very reliable and flexible, I might add.)

#

Re:Don't underrate (and insult) spatial view

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 25, 2006 02:21 PM
As soon as I find a Mac user who can organize in that manner, I'll let you know.

The sad thing is, that 'right over there, that way' response doesn't work in a group environment, at least not very well. Not that the browser metaphor works well either, but the spatial model sucks ass. There's a reason why people used to lean on Sherlock 2 so hard.

I fail to understand why "seven levels of subfolders, seven separate windows" by default makes for a more organized person. I also don't understand how the GNOME camp gets off saying they have all kinds of research to support their findings when really it was a single Ars Technica op-ed piece that convinced 'em to ditch the old default for a new one. But that's the GNOME way, ditch what works in favor of what makes someone jizz, and do it at the drop of a hat (so long as the drop of the hat happens on a pseudo-predicatable 6-month release cycle.)

#

Re:Don't underrate (and insult) spatial view

Posted by: Administrator on December 25, 2006 05:02 PM
I can't comment on the GNOME team's development policies because I haven't been using GNOME long enough (started in the 2.x days, switched from Fluxbox), but perhaps I'm detecting something else here.

I've practically grown up with Mac OS, and I've worked in several Mac-only companies during the good and the bad times of Apple. In all that time, I've rarely seen people rely on Sherlock too much. Maybe it's a cultural difference? I'm in Switzerland, where there has always been a larger amount of Mac users than in other countries (10% vs. 2% in Germany during some part of the 90s, for example).

I'm not saying spatially arranging things makes people more organized, but that doesn't mean they aren't quick at finding their files. I find that the directory tree model adopted by other file managers is MORE likely to make someone better organized, although the same kind of duplication can occur here too (/home/lala/photos,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/(home/lala/work/photos,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/lala/pictures/photos<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)

I would actually be interested in doing a survey instead of relying on my gut feelings here. Those Mac people I've spoken to (and I have several thousand at my disposal since I work at an art university) were very disappointed by Mac OS X's NeXT-like Finder and missed the spatial arrangement they had with OS 9. I don't know if things have settled down in that department by now, but it would still be nice to sit a Mac user in front of Konqueror, OS 9 Finder, OS X Finder, Nautilus (spatial), Nautilus (browse mode) and Windows Explorer to get their thoughts.

Perhaps I can set something up. If I succeed, I'll post it somewhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Command line

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 17, 2007 04:07 PM
Yep! The command-line kicks ass. everything else is for wussies and lazy bastards who can't lift their hands to the keyboard, beer drinkers who can click away with one hand because the other is busy holding a beer can while they're watching the TV screen at the same time.

#

Systen G

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 19, 2007 01:39 AM
You should give it a try, <a href="http://www.newplanetsoftware.com/systemg/" title="newplanetsoftware.com">http://www.newplanetsoftware.com/systemg/</a newplanetsoftware.com>

#

Fanboy article...

Posted by: Administrator on December 20, 2006 04:03 AM
I think that your bias has tainted this article. Konqueror rules everything else drools. This is not much of an unbiased comparison. This is like a Fanboy meets a bash fest article . Not even an ounce of responsible journalism could be juiced out of this article. What you would end up with could be used only as fertilizer. I was really looking forward to an interesting and unbiased article on the subject of file browsers. Maybe even learn something new. What a disappointment.

#

You also forgot...

Posted by: Administrator on December 20, 2006 05:56 PM
M-x dired
--
emacs fanboy

#

Don't underrate (and insult) spatial view

Posted by: Administrator on December 20, 2006 10:26 PM
If you've ever used Mac OS 6, 7, 8 and the like, you know how to use file managers that incorporate the spatial view metaphor. If you don't, you probably don't expect spatial navigation, so you'll be disappointed when that's what you get. But don't go and insult the people behind Nautilus for choosing that view mode as a default just because you don't agree with it.

Do yourself a favor and watch someone who's skilled with Mac OS 9 manage their files. They can navigate folder structures dozens of layers deep with ease, speed and elegance, because they've built their own navigational space out of all those spatially arranged icons and windows. The photos from that kayak tour 1998 are right over there, that way, not in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/someone/work/pictures/photography/holidays/<nobr>9<wbr></nobr> 8/adventure/kayak.

With spatial navigation, your hands know where those budget spreadsheet files from last year are, freeing up your brain to think about other stuff. After a while, you navigate your favorite chunks of filesystem without even having to read the labels of most of your files and folders.

I'll be so bold to say that those who underestimate the spatial metaphor simply never learned how to use it.

#

Another good file manager

Posted by: Administrator on December 21, 2006 09:43 PM
What I like of this "comparison" articles is that you find more applications in the comments.

<a href="http://www.beesoft.org/bsc.html" title="beesoft.org">Beesoft Commander (bsc)</a beesoft.org> is another file manager with a GUI front end. Loads faster than Konqueror, but not faster than mc.

#

A survey of Linux file managers

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 216.227.100.143] on October 11, 2007 03:56 PM
Try mine at wurzin.com

#

A survey of Linux file managers

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.111.4.167] on December 17, 2007 06:06 AM
I still prefer to yank out the hard disk and use the good o'l electron microscope myself. All you freakin' User Interface Fanboys make me sick.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.


 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya