xffm

[jouke hylkema]

David,

Have you ever tried FileRunner ? I think it is great

Jouke





On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:03:52 +0200
David Fraser <davidf at sjsoft.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://lunar-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
>