de.techno at gmail.com
Mon Oct 17 18:59:25 CEST 2011
On 10/17/11 17:51, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2011, at 11:18 , Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:25:32 +0530
>> "dE ."<de.techno at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The main bottleneck is Developer support then, to maintain a large
>>> codebase; as I've stated before, it's time for xfce to become
>> Ok, first of all, let me add something here. While the reasons to not
>> implement tabs and split views include maintainability, it has also
>> been a design decision from the start. Thunar is supposed to be simple.
>> There will always be people who need 20+ windows and do heavy file
>> management. But I assume the productiveness of the majority of users
>> does not depend on tabs or split view.
> Just to make this clear: Thunar was always meant to be a simple, easy-to-use file manager. There was no need for another complex, difficult-to-use file manager in Xfce since we already had Xffm.
> From my POV, the PCManFM file manager just tells me that we were right to keep Thunar's design simple: PCManFM is basically "Thunar without the polish". While the source code is in large parts a fork of Thunar (pre GIO/GVfs) with a lot of renaming (at least last time I checked), the UI looks like "we want everything except usability". I guess there'll always be people who demand these kinds of tools, but that is a minority. The majority of users just wants something simple to get the job done.
>> - Jannis
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
Thunar is missing another thing -- Network browsing which's critical in
enterprise environment. Do we have a separate browser for this
(exclusively) for NFS, CIFS? Yes, I know mounting is an options but the
end users won't like that.
More information about the Xfce4-dev