File Managers usability and features discussion

Riklaunim · 2009-01-08 17:43:13

I have few questions about file manages that you use. Which are better, and why - what functionalities, UI, usability solutions are important?

Q1. Do you prefer icon list file managers (dolphin, nautilus, thunar) over twin panel list managers (krusader, total commander on windows)?
Q2. Do you like small and simple icons (by default in total commander), or bigger and more detailed (like in krusader by default, and others)?
Q3. What are the biggest bad/unusable features of file managers that you used/use?
Q4. How do you rate "file managers" that also handle other URLs (in tabs for example) ("mini" web browser, network filesystems - FTP, SFTP, SMB, terminal, binary file preview - PDF, images, multimedia files) -- konqueror like apps?

skottish · 2009-01-08 17:49:53

Once this thread has hashed out a bit, maybe someone can compile the information and help the community:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=62216

I'm using pcmanfm. I don't need a file manger to do a huge amount. If I can do something from the command line, I usually do. So,

1) It doesn't really matter if it does what it's supposed to do and works well.

2) Small. The less intrusive the better

3) I've only used two in the last two years: thunar and pcmanfm. I dropped thunar because of a very old problem with race conditions between threads. It's well documented even on thunar's bug tracker, so I won't bother.

4) I just want my file manager to manage files. I use external tools most of the time.

GogglesGuy · 2009-01-08 17:59:34

1) Prefer the single list. If I need to view to multiple directories I just open another window.

2) Small and simple.

3) Waiting for files to appear in the file list: Try opening /usr/bin in thunar for the first time or any file dialog in GNOME. Just using the extension to determine its type and icon is fine for me (and a lot faster than whatever Thunar/GTK is doing. Basically I don't want to wait for the files to appear on screen.

4) Don't need it. File managers should handle files, PDF viewers should show PDF files etc.

Procyon · 2009-01-08 18:58:20

Q1. Do you prefer icon list file managers (dolphin, nautilus, thunar) over twin panel list managers (krusader, total commander on windows)?

No, I like twin panel style. I use mc.

Q2. Do you like small and simple icons (by default in total commander), or bigger and more detailed (like in krusader by default, and others)?

No icons.

Q3. What are the biggest bad/unusable features of file managers that you used/use?

emelfm2: unstable, both the shell and the FM (but that was several months ago)
worker/gentoo: no bash shell, too complex, hard to setup, looks ugly
tuxcommander: unstable, slow, lacking in features
mc: no coloring by filetype (I hear it's coming though), difficult setup, can't disable running executables from it (it can be dangerous when files are erroneously +x like from FAT), it has some annoying bugs like with ALT+TAB completion not using escapes.
vifm*: awkward, could use more docs/features, but it was several months ago that I used it
FDClone*: very awkward! seems not to be for daily use
* only used for a little while

Q4. How do you rate "file managers" that also handle other URLs (in tabs for example) ("mini" web browser, network filesystems - FTP, SFTP, SMB, terminal, binary file preview - PDF, images, multimedia files) -- konqueror like apps?

Those are very unimportant things for me. I would even not mind if mcview/mcedit was removed. Other apps like gqview are good for image sorting/gftp/xpdf/etc

Last edited by Procyon (2009-01-08 19:02:09)

userlander · 2009-01-08 19:21:54

What about rox? I prefer mgrs like thunar/pcmanfm over "twin panel" managers, but I prefer rox over all of them. I think it's faster, and it feels more dynamic somehow.

Icons in rox are usually dependent on dir. size. Large are okay for small dirs. with mostly just other directories. Prefer icons in thunar small for directories, none for detail view.

I don't really want/need my file manager to be a "mini-browser," whatever that is.

Downside to rox is that associations can be hard to manage (change a README to open with text editor, for example, then suddenly some video files start opening in text editor), and sometimes you have to set certain icons manually.

pauldonnelly · 2009-01-08 22:22:11

1. I like twin panel managers, but I can't help but feel that they would be even better with more panels. Perhaps something like ROX with a CLI on each window would be good. I really wish drag and drop saving were implemented in more file managers and programs. Down with open/save dialogs!

2. I don't have any use for icons, but I do like large thumbnails for video and image files. What I end up doing is rolling with no icons, and using page from p9p to cycle through a directory of images.

3. It's good to handle archives and network protocols, and I like having previews. Putting a web browser in the file manager is kind of silly.

4. Why do you ask?

weasel8 · 2009-01-08 22:46:53

I usually use my terminal in place of a file manager, but every now and then they do come in handy. I use emelfm2 when the terminal won't do what I need.

1. I find that with dual pane managers, I usually hide the second pane - I just don't use it enough. If I need to have two directories open at the same time, I use tabs, or multiple windows.

2. I like small icons, or none at all. It's the file name I'm after, I don't want to have to scroll past a bunch of huge pictures.

3. Features that are half-baked and seem like they've just been thrown in to boast another feature.

4. I like to equip my system with my favorite tools for the things I need to do and nothing else. So I want a file manager that manages files and does it well, nothing else, thank you very much.

Last edited by weasel8 (2009-01-08 22:47:34)

Riklaunim · 2009-01-08 22:48:06

pauldonnelly wrote:

4. Why do you ask?

As I want to get a picture what components a filemanager that can has cheeseburger, err plugins should have by default. I'm making cross platform (poor my) file manager - PyDingo. I have the local file management model which can use few ways of displaying files and folders (what Qt provieds - Tree, List, Column, and Table). The base thing it's that it uses tabs, and in each tab you can set an URL, and the app will use a plugin that can handle such URL (for example /home/user/foo/, or www.google.pl, settings://xyz, terminal://, or ftp://www.foo.bar and so on/in future). So I'm gathering informations how to make it also usable for some people

R00KIE · 2009-01-09 00:37:17

Q1. Browsers like thunar (old habit from windows I guess).

Q2. Even no icons would be fine as long as I can have a tree to browse and a pane to see which files are inside a directory, just a simple representation of whats what is enough, that is, being able to know what is a directory, a file, a link, etc.

Q3. Having to wait forever to see the files inside a directory, file browsers (Thunar) exploding (well more like hanging indefinitely) when you unhide and hide again the hidden files (unhidding takes forever too). Fam as it's share of fault here too because gamin works a little better.
(I use thunar with a tree view on the side pane and a detailled list view on the right, no previews otherwise it would crawl to a halt)

Q4. I hate it, a file browser should browse files and allow me to open the files with the proper application. I hate applications that try to do all be all (they are usually harder to use than they should be or broken enough to be useless anyway).

pauldonnelly · 2009-01-09 02:32:00

@Riklaunim
I thought you might have a project.

Rasi · 2009-01-09 09:58:52

1) I definately prefer twin panel file managers, stuff ist just done so much faster.

2) I dont really care, but it should not affect the speed.

3) Dolphin: Getting slower and slower with time, no clue what causes this. Has Twin Panel Support (But is not very usable)
Thunar: Pretty fast, great for quickly opening some file. Hal Support works ok.
Pcmanfm: Same as thunar, but it adds some bugs. Adds some nice features too tho.
Nautilus: Bloated version of thunar (Yea i know nautilus exists longer). Looks nice, agreed, but its just slow.
Gnome-Commander: Cant explain why, but i simply dont like it.
Tux Commander: Closest to the feel of Total Commander, but lacking many many features. not the fastest too.
Rox: quite nice but it feels akward. For some reason everything related to the ROX toolkit has this effect on me
Krusader: Its the best graphical FM for me. Has all features i want (like a good renamer). It has some usability drawbacks tho. ( For example simply typing something should switch to "Command mode")
cp, mv, rm: I prefer those guys over all the above in many cases. Often even faster then twin panel FMs.
mc: nice twin panel FM, which has some huge usability problems (strange shortcuts e.g. for file completion)

dunc · 2009-01-09 20:13:19

1. It's odd: on the Amiga, I used to have Directory Opus (the twin-pane file manager, accept no substitute) open all the time, but I've almost never used one in Linux. ROX-Filer FTW.

2. It depends. Sometimes big icons are better, sometimes smaller ones - almost a list view - is more appropriate. I guess I'm saying I like to have the choice. (Again, ROX is nice in that it can automatically switch to smaller icons for very full directories.) I should maybe add that in a real list view, I prefer no icons at all.

3. I think my biggest bugbear is managers that don't have an "open a terminal here" feature. I find that very restrictive. Similarly, an inability - or even an obscure or complicated method - to configure the actions that can be performed on files is annoying. I think "taking too long to read a directory" goes without saying.

4. Completely inessential, but I wouldn't ditch one simply because it had FTP/SMB support. Those I could live with, and might even use.

linkmaster03 · 2009-01-12 21:45:12

1: I like icon list managers.

2. I like big icons I guess, because image/movie/pdf thumbnails help me find what I'm looking for.

3. Slow in populating large folders, bloated right-click menus.

4. I hate them. I want Firefox to open my web pages, I want evince to open my PDFs. The only thing I like is FTP support so I can seamlessly manage local and remote files.

Last edited by linkmaster03 (2009-01-12 21:46:23)

lang2 · 2009-01-13 00:05:31

My favourite FM has to be Altap Salamander on Windows. Probably little known. Not free. It's two pane. On Linux, there is nothing like it although there are plenty of two pane FM. So I'd rather use a icon list manager - rox is my choice. I configured it to do '/' for CD, ':' for running command, '`' for giving me urxvt in the current dir.

To give short answers to your questions:
1. I prefer two pane
2. Full list, small icon
3. speed
4. Useless.

Procyon · 2009-01-13 01:35:11

lang2 wrote:

My favourite FM has to be Altap Salamander on Windows. Probably little known. Not free. It's two pane. On Linux, there is nothing like it although there are plenty of two pane FM.

I'm pretty curious now. Can you say some things about it and what sets it apart?

scrawler · 2009-01-13 05:07:07

I've come to really like rox--panels, drag to wget, send-to menu where I keep little utilitarian scripts...the list goes on. mainly the panels, however. in a sense a file manager is always open on my desktop.

archlinuxsagi · 2009-01-13 05:23:49

I am used to dual pane file managers.

Krusader and midnight commander is the two applications I fire up whenever I have some file transfer operations.

I am thinking of creating similar to Krusader but will be using QT as the library -> for Cross platform. However time is always the concern.. Anybody care to collaborate?

hk2717 · 2009-01-13 05:50:03

Q1. Do you prefer icon list file managers (dolphin, nautilus, thunar) over twin panel list managers (krusader, total commander on windows)?

I use Total Commander at work but prefer a icon list one at home where I don't need many features. If I use a twin-pane file manager under Linux I think it will be emelfm2.

Q2. Do you like small and simple icons (by default in total commander), or bigger and more detailed (like in krusader by default, and others)?

For a twin-pane file manager, I think no icon is better. Twin-pane is all about productivity isn't it?

Q3. What are the biggest bad/unusable features of file managers that you used/use?

Thunar: No tab.
Nautilus: Slow. Too much spacing between icons. Image thumbnails too large. Folder icons too small.
Pcmanfm: No trash. No bar-style navigation. Somewhat ugly UI, compared to Thunar.
Dolphin: Too slow.
Konqueror: Lacks of some features of dolphin. Don't quite like the all-in-one thing.
Rox-filer: Never really used it. It looks ugly.

Q4. How do you rate "file managers" that also handle other URLs (in tabs for example) ("mini" web browser, network filesystems - FTP, SFTP, SMB, terminal, binary file preview - PDF, images, multimedia files) -- konqueror like apps?

web browser: NO
FTP, SFTP, SMB: should be nice
terminal: nice
file preview: NO

Last edited by hk2717 (2009-01-13 05:50:37)

soul.. · 2009-08-16 07:44:09

Riklaunim wrote:

I have few questions about file manages that you use. Which are better, and why - what functionalities, UI, usability solutions are important?
Q1. Do you prefer icon list file managers (dolphin, nautilus, thunar) over twin panel list managers (krusader, total commander on windows)?
Q2. Do you like small and simple icons (by default in total commander), or bigger and more detailed (like in krusader by default, and others)?
Q3. What are the biggest bad/unusable features of file managers that you used/use?
Q4. How do you rate "file managers" that also handle other URLs (in tabs for example) ("mini" web browser, network filesystems - FTP, SFTP, SMB, terminal, binary file preview - PDF, images, multimedia files) -- konqueror like apps?

Total commander xp (extendet +many plugins..) - is all in all THE best fm, on linux there is NO one that can be like it..
Tcmd burn ripp combine archive play music audio edit tagname viewing all files taht i needet, multi re-name editing calendar webbroswing, ftp crypting, sorting hell stable, running, proces managing, services manageg and hell more... With that one, then i haved looong time ago winxp.. i didnt needet nothing more just tcmdxp...

Q1. Thunar is only for eye candy just to see oh how nice - for rare usage or show, but not for dayly usage; emelfm, worker, krusader, xfe is more quiqer way to do something... I prefer two panes managers.

Q2. If icons lags opening say directory with couple hunderts+ files, its no use of them. Tcmd is ok.
Its even better to have colorized by fyle type or extension. So i prefer wery small and w.quiqly and clear looking, working, icons but its not necesery.

Q3. Im still cant find - normal fm on linux, many off them just lack of logic, simplyness, compfortnes:
Lets say i take emelfm - point is to create couple hunderts symlinks at once-at one cmd or one push after selecting - it does taht in no time,
lets take as example worker fm - it ask 200times to name those symlinks without any kind off options to automatize this action..... Absurd. Wheres the logic..
This example is most freaquent on almost every linux fm on one way or another for many different actions copy move clone... some event cant manage multiple files at once..
None of linux managers suport hardlinks... I found crusader shity does that in same dir with asking to name it... as mentioned no multi..
Doublecommander makes hardlinks to.. but too in some shit borring way - oh sorry time consuming way .
And i cant say there is manager that have biggest unusable features - cause all off them lacks or have features that other doesnt have.
And those that already are inplemented, are not a stright way to do something. Like some fm's (im talking only about two panes at all in this section, cause i dont use 1window fms) even cant handle multiple symlinkinking at once - i select files but some creates only one link to first in selection file.
And simplyness - some managers pops up for one action - too manny question boxes, with selections like suggesting, check that, chose that - why not to put that in one box of that action..

Q4. Remmeber how fast and nice way is atrl+q on tcmd, and u on one pane quiqly go true files and on other pane it shows-plays-views automaticaly any file, and that does in no time. On linux zero managers do that ! Worker acts something like - for viewing pictures. Mc as console manager to... In emelfm i was able to implement audio files playing true sox..

I dont like qonqueror, way like it shows images is not the same way like i want that in two pane managers.

But after all to your question, i rate wery high. Its just a waist of time to opoening files in external programs - just to preview, "oh its not that one"..

Nice, then u can enter into isos, archives like to in a folder...

I tryed: total commander xp, double commander, xnc, bsc, xfe, df, emelfm, emelfm2, krusader, gnome-commander, worker, gentoo, thunar, pcmanfm, rox, mc, vfu,

I wish a mixed up thing of (totalcommanderxp), emelfm, worker, krusader, xnc, emelfm2, - all to one will be Something..
Damn that emelfm2 is unstable - no use.. i like it, how it works - configured without icons.

Now im exploring/using worker fm, i like the way how it can be configured, its great fm, jsut laks litle bit something there or there, if it will fix evaluate - i think i will stay with it..
krusader is always on my sys - cause its hell stable, i trust on it totaly. Heh but is huge...
emelfm first fm that i found may way, on linux i love it...even if it lacks something.. like multirename.. - its hell fast for dayly usage,

sad sad there is no normal fm, i always must chose one over another to do some things that other fm isnt capable to do in a quiqer way..
in a system is ok to have one windowed manager for eye candy things (like thunar) i have it.. i dont use it.. , and one that is for many files managing

Murray_B · 2009-08-17 06:50:06

Hi!

I really like threads like that, where people explain what the use and why and why not another program... I tried such a thread about window managers, but maybe there's to much religious beliefs in it... I mainly got answers like "xyz is best" - without really a reason :-( But maybe I should try it another time.

Your questions:

1) I don't think that icon-list is the opposite of twin-panel, because twin-panels could have icon-lists in it, too (double...). I always prefer a detailed list-view in any file manager. I only need/care about 2 icons: folder and non-folder ;-) Twin-panel are great, if you want to do really much filemanagment. I used it, when I had to move and resort the data of a whole company from one server to another and it was great! But in "normal life" I use a file manager to navigate to the files I need and open them. Maybe I copy some files to my USB-stick now and then... So twin panael is quite useless and just takes space on my screen.

2) A file manager should show informations and not pictures, I got a image-viewer for that... As said above, I only care about 2 kinds of icons to navigate through, folder and non-folder, I don't need the rest.

3)
- Windows Explorer: Aborts if one file couldn't be copied - I hate it!!!!
- Dolphin: Quite nice, but very bad twin-view handling. And it needs the kdelibs, so it is quite big for a non-kde-user...
- mc: configuration is a bit hard and I still didn't find the key-shortcut to use the list with the last opened ftp-servers, etc....
- thunar: unable to show informations like size of multiple folders and files, a bit slow with big folders like /usr/bin/

Many file manager show big icons by default. I don't know why, I think it is really unsuable. First, it needs many space for nearly no information. Second you have to navigate vertical and horizontal, what makes it harder to find a special file. Okay, lets excude pictures, if the have an preview-icon... And I hate filemanager which are opening folders in a new window like the MS Windows workplace (don't know if this is the exact english word...) - I think, nautilus does the same. And I don't like file manager which store different configurations for different folders.

4) In my opinion, a file manager should manage files, things like renaming, copying, moving, create folders, opening files with the right application. That means, that I like it, when a filemanager is able to navigate through ftp, fish or smb, but I don't want an buildin imageviewer or browser. If I open a file the file manager should lnow about the applications which are able to open it and open the file with a standard app - which could be changed, of course...

Okay, some final words. What DO I like? I am a keyboard fan so I like good keyboard shortcuts. And I like a sidebar with my favourite foulders. At work I need access to many servers so I got used the the favourites in the Windows(tm)-Explorer. But at home I tried dolphin and found out, that I can work with the sidebar quite well. I like automounter and the appearing of the mounted devices in the sidebar. As well as the ability to unmount them there. I like it, if I can configure which information are shown in the detailed view. And I like it if the file manager is actively developed, some projects seem a bit silent... (xfe, xnc, rox?) I like file managers which start fast.

I am using thunar as a graphical filemanager and mc on console, very often I use plain cp, mv, etc. on console, too. And I use mc as an ftp-filemanager. Don't know why, but ftp with mc is blazing fast...

Greetings from good ol' germany,

Thomas

SpeedVin · 2009-08-17 09:51:59

Hello
1. I like this two thing's becouse twin panel can give your more inforamtion and you can work in more than one directon but I prefer more icon-list becouse when I click on Dir/File I got menu
And to work in more dir's we can use tabs
2. I prefer FM with inforation's but one that I Know is MC but I hard to configure it and it haven't automount .
3.
MC hard to configure and not so flexible interface but it's lightweight and fast
4.
I think it can have terminal or option open in terminal
I got question to they that was using Rox and PCMAFM someone can compare them two who is more lightweight,flexible,faster.
And I search but I can't find that Rox got automount , it has?

Last edited by SpeedVin (2009-08-17 17:13:33)

Stefan Husmann · 2009-08-17 13:49:25

Q1: No icons please. But I prefer one-window filemanagers over twin-style ones.
Q2: No icons please, but the smaller the better.
Q3: Bloatedness, missing speed, mouse-only-use. I use bash and emacs' dired-mode most of the time. It is enough for me.
Q4: Not needed, calling external tools is the better way.

toxygen · 2009-08-17 19:43:27

does anything compare to konqueror (on kde 3.5)?
i like the directory tree on one side, files (in detail mode) on the other. i like that it loads ftp in same view (minus the tree )
i dont spend too much time in the file manager though, most multifile operations i do through a terminal. image viewer is separate, same with other viewers (i stick to detail mode so i can quickly sort by date, type, name, etc). the kio stuff comes in very handy for quick open/edit of files.

i havent moved to kde4 for this reason (and a couple of others).

do any of these other FM's have similar features? i'd love to see a wiki comparing apps like this too.

abijr · 2009-09-22 01:31:44

I think, IMO, it should have a small command line (not a full fledged terminal emu) to do sorting stuff (even if its gui based). And have shortcuts.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-08 17:43:13

File Managers usability and features discussion

#2 2009-01-08 17:49:53

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#3 2009-01-08 17:59:34

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#4 2009-01-08 18:58:20

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#5 2009-01-08 19:21:54

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#6 2009-01-08 22:22:11

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#7 2009-01-08 22:46:53

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#8 2009-01-08 22:48:06

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#9 2009-01-09 00:37:17

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#10 2009-01-09 02:32:00

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#11 2009-01-09 09:58:52

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#12 2009-01-09 20:13:19

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#13 2009-01-12 21:45:12

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#14 2009-01-13 00:05:31

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#15 2009-01-13 01:35:11

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#16 2009-01-13 05:07:07

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#17 2009-01-13 05:23:49

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#18 2009-01-13 05:50:03

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#19 2009-08-16 07:44:09

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#20 2009-08-17 06:50:06

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#21 2009-08-17 09:51:59

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#22 2009-08-17 13:49:25

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#23 2009-08-17 19:43:27

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

#24 2009-09-22 01:31:44

Re: File Managers usability and features discussion

Board footer