On Fri, August 28, 2009 00:34, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Freitag 28 August 2009, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> On Thu, August 27, 2009 21:14, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> >>> On Donnerstag 27 August 2009, Frank Peters wrote: >>> Also: network transparency. >>> >> >> mc can do whatever konqueror can, including ftp, ssh, samba, and some >> more things that konqueror can't, isos, archives, etc. Oh, and it >> actually work, unlike the io-slaves, which works sometimes (or so they >> used to, to be frank, I haven't tested intensively these features in >> kde4, only superficially). > > oh really? can mc present an audiocd as ogg/mp3/flac/wav files? > > I don't think so. > Konqueror can do archives just fine. > or encrypt/decrypt files nicely.
Well, that's true :) But I was talking about file management, and not media ripping. In that regards, mc do everything that konqueror can do, and more, and consistently. Konqueror is a container for kparts, so it's virtually impossible to compare it with any other program unless you specify which kpart is the one that you refer to, I am referring to the file management part, not the rest of kio-slaves like man:/, info:/ the khtml part and so on. You can embed konsole and kate on it as well if you want, but that's not what we are speaking about. konqueror can do anything that kde can, virtually. Just as a side note, for those fond on generic tools that are DE agnostic, cdfs can do that. I can agree that sometimes it's better to use a graphical file manager, like konqueror or dolphin. For example when you need to manage image colletions. They are great for lots of purposes. >>> Well, I need konqueror and konsole and their working together. I need >>> okular. I love gwenview. And I love the fact that I do not have to >>> learn a whole new set of key-combos and config syntax for every single >>> app I use. >> >> It's not a war, they all can coexist. I use fvwm and love mc and bash, >> however I also think that okular is probably the best pdf viewer that >> there has been in linux, ever. >> >> But this is really completely out of the purpose of the thread. >> > > well, I am just saying that even if Frank things highly integrated, code > and functionanilty sharing DEs might be superfluos I am thinking the exact > opposite. Integration is good, and sharing code is good, but all the wm's and desktop do that their own way. KDE reuses code thought kdelibs, but kdelibs replicate lots of things that the linux core system can do in a different way. Things like media handling/fs stuff, network, etc are done usually by the kernel/OS core, but KDE reinvented it instead of reusing it. So, as you see, it all depends on how you look at it. If you look it that way, kde is the one who's doing wrong. Not that I think that, I am just trying to tell you that that same argument can be used against kde as well. I actually think that the kde architecture is very smart, and I like it. Not everyone needs a bulky desktop, it just depends on your needs. I am sure that lots of people will work proficiently in fluxbox, some others will use xmonad, some fvwm as I do, and I am sure that a lot of persons will work proficiently in kde or gnome. It depends on the task at hand and your workflow. The whole discussion is pointless by now, just choose whatever you want and leave the rest do the same, this isn't aimed at you, Volker, I am just summing up the thing. :) -- Jesús Guerrero
