Relative to Nautilus...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Jul 06, 2009 10:48 AM EDT |
Anything will look good. Nautilus is incredibly, hard-to-believe SLOW. Nautilus has become so annoying that I've recently been running Vector. The plain-vanilla XFCE in Slackware is pretty ugly, so I have been running Vector with XFCE. You don't realize how often you use the file manager until it starts to annoy you and I've not found any way to completely replace Nautilus with Thunar. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2009 11:12 AM EDT |
Not only slow, but annoying beyond belief. For example, when you're deep into a file tree, which is fun because Nautilus' tree view is broken and obnoxious and totally inefficient, and you re-order your columns, which are mostly invisible until you figure out how to make it show the ones you want, it drops you back to the root of the tree. So when you re-order by date, or filename, or whatever you're always wading back to where you were before. I wish I knew why gnome designers think that clunky, awful, slow, and time-wasting is more user-friendly. |
| vainrveenr Jul 06, 2009 11:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:Anything will look good. Nautilus is incredibly, hard-to-believe SLOW.ROX-Filer is another faster alternative to Nautilus, http://freshmeat.net/projects/rox-filer/ There is, of course, the faster and MUCH older Midnight Commander for the CLI, http://freshmeat.net/projects/midnightcommander/ |
| bigg Jul 06, 2009 11:39 AM EDT |
PCMan, too, which is included with Vector. That does the mounting of other partitions that the author finds a drawback of Thunar. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 06, 2009 12:58 PM EDT |
I like ROX quite a bit, Thunar, too. When I run vanilla Ubuntu, which is most of the time these days, I don't find Nautilus to be so problematic or slow. A whole lot of this is hardware-dependent. If you have a fast system, any file manager will seem OK. ROX is one of those things -- I first used it in Puppy, and my familiarity with it is such that I tend to install it when I'm building up the desktop from scratch in Debian or OpenBSD. |
| hkwint Jul 06, 2009 12:59 PM EDT |
If you need a file manager at all (CLI works for me), why not just use mc? Or if the lack of 'Windows familiarity' bothers you, Krusader? Dolphin wasn't all that bad either, but I just kicked out KWin again in favour of good 'ol wmaker (wow, the KDE desktop is slow! It might even make Nautilus look fast!). Good thing is, Krusader runs better in wmaker than in KDE; after I ditched KDE as desktop it doesn't SIGTERM anymore after starting (?!). Maybe you should try Nautilus without Gnome; I suggest using some decent WM instead. |
| tuppp Jul 06, 2009 12:59 PM EDT |
@tuxchick ***I wish I knew why gnome designers think that clunky, awful, slow, and time-wasting is more user-friendly.*** Nautilus is user-friendly, because it is "simple and pretty": http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/principles-si... "Simple and pretty" is probably the second most important rule in the Gnome HIG (and in the Mac HIG, too). Compliance with that guideline is much more crucial than actually being usable. Don't question that logic, because the Gnome (and Apple) designers know what is best for us. They have spent a lot of time standing over computer test subjects, while staring at stopwatches. They also have much more sophisticated "taste" than the rest of us. By the way, the most important rule in HIGs (Gnome and Mac) is that an app's interface be "consistent." This guideline ensures that lowly end-users won't get momentarily confused if menus/buttons on one app happen to be a different scheme/design than those on other apps. Nautilus' interface is definitely consistent -- consistently as lame as the rest of Gnome. |
| tuxchick Jul 06, 2009 1:04 PM EDT |
LOL tuppp... I guess I'll settle for being grateful they don't design cars or power tools... ;) |
| caitlyn Jul 06, 2009 3:22 PM EDT |
Careful, tuppp. Next you'll be calling the GNOME designers "interface Nazis" like Linus Torvalds did. Then you'll be roundly flamed. Then there will be debate all over the Linux blogosphere and tech journal sites about how you are right or wrong or both at the same time. That will be followed by an article or twelve about how contentious debate is hurting FOSS. |
| tracyanne Jul 06, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
Personally I find Nautilus to be no worse than what was done to Konqueror (well actually Dolphin) in KDE4. They are much of a muchmess, and neither gives me the view of the filesystem I really want. Nor for that matter does Thunar. |
| hkwint Jul 06, 2009 6:10 PM EDT |
Then what does, TA? |
| tracyanne Jul 06, 2009 6:11 PM EDT |
Konqueror in KDE3 and Windows Explorer |
| caitlyn Jul 06, 2009 6:16 PM EDT |
I actually like PCManFM the best of the graphical file managers for Linux. Thunar isn't bad and extensions to the latest version do add some of the missing functionality of previous versions. I agree with Hans that mc is very nice on the console. I do use it on servers a whole lot. For another simplistic file manager on the GUI that is kind of like mc there is also Xfe. |
| herzeleid Jul 06, 2009 7:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:Konqueror in KDE3 and Windows ExplorerNot all that familiar with 'doze, but yes, definitely konqueror in kde 3.5. In fact, the more I see of kde 4, the more I realize that kde 3.5 was the best DE I've ever used. I've half a mind to start a petition requesting that kde 4 development efforts be halted, and the kde 3.5 code be simply be ported to the new qt libs (and refactored as needed), as would have been done had sanity reigned. |
| hkwint Jul 06, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:I've half a mind to start a petition requesting that kde 4 development efforts be halted, and the kde 3.5 code be simply be ported to the new qt libs I guess they'll be happy to point out that you / other people can port KDE3.5 to QT4 if you wish. Instead of choosing the negative approach (halting KDE4), I think you would do better asking if someone is willing to do just that porting. It seems there's enough demand. |
| herzeleid Jul 06, 2009 9:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:I guess they'll be happy to point out that you / other people can port KDE3.5 to QT4 if you wish.I'm sure they would glad to do so. But I wasn't entirely serious, as it's not important enough to me to reshape my life around the goal of reviving kde 3.5 - I've already switched to gnome, but I'm keeping an eye on other DEs such as e17 and xfce. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2009 10:03 PM EDT |
> I think you would do better asking if someone is willing to do just that porting. It seems there's enough demand. I expect that to happen. I don't know if it will gain enough developer support to be sustained though. |
| bigg Jul 06, 2009 10:17 PM EDT |
> A whole lot of this is hardware-dependent. If you have a fast system, any file manager will seem OK. You would sure think so. Perhaps the fact that everything else happens quickly on my 2.6 Ghz dual-core, 4 GB RAM system is why Nautilus seems so slow. Nonetheless, it is slow. Very slow when I enter a directory with a moderate number of files - it's so slow that it feels like Vista. Thunar is done almost immediately. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!