xffm

[David Fraser]

edscott wilson garcia wrote:

>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.
>  
>
I presume the front-end here means the right hand panel displaying the 
files ...
I found it confusing that there is a tree on the left to select certain 
things and another tree on the right to select other things.
I think having an iconview will make it easier.

>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. 
>  
>
Right, I tried it out and this is a good summary.

>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.
>  
>
Yes, konqueror has nice functionality but as you said it uses loads of 
stuff (and Qt)...
Also I would rather have a folder tree completely separate to a file 
list, so a tree view as such isn't important to me ... Konqueror in File 
Manager mode seems to work well.

>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.
>  
>
It is really fast. Shame about the treeview...

>So I'd say, "use rox and wait until 4.3.1 to give the xffm iconview a
>try".
>  
>
OK thanks. I'm wondering if there are any other things that can be done 
to make xffm more intuitive ... Or maybe there just needs to be another 
lighter-weight-but-simpler-file-manager-for-xfce. Although I hardly use 
it, what I'm really looking for is something fairly similar to Windows 
Explorer :-)
I'll play around with the above apps and see what suits me best...

David