xffm

[edscott wilson garcia]

El lun, 31-01-2005 a las 09:48 +0200, David Fraser escribió:
> edscott wilson garcia wrote:
> 
> >El sáb, 29-01-2005 a las 18:34 -0800, Brian J. Tarricone escribió:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>Xfce doesn't have to be a geek toy. The new features added to GTK+ 2.6 
> >>>have long been present in KDE, and some in GNOME. A few of these 
> >>>features were moved from the GNOME libraries into GTK+.  GtkIconView 
> >>>is one,  it's a very useful widget and one that Xffm badly needs (I 
> >>>believe an icon view for xffm is already being worked on). Trying to 
> >>>navigate a huge filing system like Linux with a single 
> >>>expandable/collapsable file tree is cumbersome (very OS/2-ish) and not 
> >>>very user friendly.  (Sorry, no offence intended.)
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Well, for this specific example, perhaps Xffm should be moved out of the 
> >>Xfce core and have its own release schedule?  That way, Edscott can 
> >>depend on whatever makes the most sense for Xffm, and not be tied into 
> >>the core Xfce desktop's requirements, which, IMHO, shouldn't be complex 
> >>enough to need too many advanced features.  Something that's considered 
> >>a "core" should be just that, a core.  Having said that, a desktop icons 
> >>plugin/extension for Xfdesktop would certainly need some kind of icon 
> >>view, so the "core" line is a bit blurred.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Bit OT, but xffm does not require more than 2.2 for the iconview, so it
> >does not have any special requirements in this sense. 
> >
> >But yes, the xffm treview front-end is much too geeky and not too
> >appealing to the ordinary user. This should change with a simpler
> >iconview as the "core" front-end. Local file operations should be core,
> >maybe not other stuff like smb-network (which can be packaged separately
> >since it is a plugin).
> >  
> >
> To be honest, I still haven't been able to work out how to use xffm and 
> I'm a geek :-)
> I felt it was my duty to read the documentation. After having read it, 
> xffm still doesn't fit with my brain... (no offense, edscott, your brain 
> must be much superior :-))

The treeview front-end takes some time getting used to. The double
treeview from 4.0 was very screwy, but with 4.2 behaves in a sane
fashion. OTH, I am aware that most users do not need or want a
filemanager where you can do everything without opening yet another root
level window. What xffm critics do not seem to understand is that the
treeview front-end is just that: a front end. 

The front-end can also be an iconview, and will be for 4.3.1. The
treeview front-end will still be available but stay out of the way if
not requested.

The difference between xffm and rox/nautilus/konqueror is that xffm
talks and listens to other programs. Both nautilus/konqueror and
conqueror other program's libraries instead. Rox talks, but only does
some listening.

> Is there any more standard file manager that people can recommend for 
> use with xfce?

By standard, I suppose iconview. Here are some options:

Nautilus is very pretty and not so slow anymore, but has tons of
dependencies and prefers to takeover your desktop. The nautilus treeview
is a no-no. 

Konqueror is not so pretty and has tons of dependencies but will not
provide desktop icons (although one of it's dependencies will). The
konqueror treeview is quite good.

Rox is small and fast. The default settings are uncommon (single-click
navigation, new windows with a different sizes, out-of-the-ordinary
popup menu) but most of these things can be configured by the user.
There is no treeview front-end, and it can provide icons on the desktop.

So I'd say, "use rox and wait until 4.3.1 to give the xffm iconview a
try".

regards,

Edscott