[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT/Sometimes Windows is better] Horrible GNOME File Picker (Was: Open (helper application chooser) for iceweasel/icedove is too simple)

Andrei Popescu said...
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:32:08 -0000
> marc <gmane@auxbuss.com> wrote:
> > > For me Opus 8 is too bloated.
> > 
> > Bloated is one of those spurious apparent criticisms that doesn't
> > mean anything, though. In any case, why would anyone translate the
> > "bloat" when porting functions to Linux?
> Maybe I misused the term, but I meant too many functions in program
> that can make it slower and too complicated.

Sure, if the thing is like molasses then none of us want it; no argument 
there. But to be fair to Opus, it doesn't exhibit any slowdown. I agree 
that learning all the underlying functionality makes it complicated, but 
there's no need - I certainly don't know it all, especially it's inbuilt 
scripting. And surely that's a good thing: easy to use the essential 
stuff, but you can dig in when you have the inclination - like Linux :-)

Where Opus is a bit of a pig is its prefs. But then devs seem to be poor 
at this in general - possibly because the prefs evolve rather than get 

> > > Total Commander (former Windows Commander) is much faster
> > 
> > In what way is Opus 8 slow? There's no lag in any file manager I've
> > used recently - except those that poll through directories to perform
> > "mime magic".
> You are probably using current hw. Until recently I was running a
> PIII-800. The difference between krusader and worker was obvious.

I use a PIII 800. Snap!

> > In any case, my comment was not about the "best" file manager on
> > Windows 
> > - which is just another emacs vs vim debate - but the fact that the 
> > Linux file managers could learn a lot from the mature file managers
> > on Windows. If Total Commander has functions worthy of borrowing,
> > then that's good too.
> IMHO file managers on Windows are (sometimes) more developed because
> (almost) nobody is using the shell. There are still lots of linux users
> using *only* the shell for file managing, especially the more advanced
> ones.

And the fact that folk are being paid to develop those file managers 
probably helps a bit.

> > > But I don't know what you mean by the two pane setup sentence.
> > > Krusader has that by default.
> > 
> > As I said, I use Krusader, but its limited layout options is a good 
> > example of what not to do, imo. IOW, a good example to learn from.
> I think the best model in such cases is to use plugins as much as
> possible. This way the user has the choice to install only the
> functionality he really needs.

Yup, the modular approach is ideally the best. But then what I often 
find is that the module/plug-in management tends to be poor - 
particularly information about what plug-ins are available. And this is 
where I came in: borrowing the best ideas is no bad thing, wherever they 
come from.


Reply to: