On 1/11/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wim De Smet said...
> On 1/11/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But that's my point, really: why continue to clone TC, when there are so
> > many additional functions out there on other tools that leave TC in the
> > dust? If devs stick their head
Cybe R. Wizard said...
> marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > But I don't know what you mean by the two pane setup sentence.
> > > Krusader has that by default.
> >
> > As I said, I use Krusader, but its limited layout options is a good
> > example of what not to do, imo. IOW, a good example t
own their interface in non-reversible ways. This means a lot of users get
unhappy at the way the interface gets dumber and dumber at every new
release.
2. Broken, stupid, non/badly-engineered design on the underlying code is
becoming more and more common on the desktop environments. The GNOME
file-p
marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > But I don't know what you mean by the two pane setup sentence.
> > Krusader has that by default.
>
> As I said, I use Krusader, but its limited layout options is a good
> example of what not to do, imo. IOW, a good example to learn from.
Have any of you trie
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:53 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> [...]
>Seems like the problem is getting mime type (as mentioned here
> before) or something of that nature...
>
> erik
It would be nice if it was possible to turn this "feature" off.
I really don't need
Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 00:27 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
it takes few minutes to open /usr/bin here (almost no load on
machine), next time (I assume cache helps a lot) it takes 10-20 seconds.
system:
debian unstable
icedove 1.5.0.9.dfsg1-1
pentium 2.4 GH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/11/07 14:52, marc wrote:
> Wim De Smet said...
>> On 1/11/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> I think what you should really do right now is scratch that
>> itch and build your own file manager.
>
> LOL The cry of the true conservative
Wim De Smet said...
> On 1/11/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But that's my point, really: why continue to clone TC, when there are so
> > many additional functions out there on other tools that leave TC in the
> > dust? If devs stick their heads in the sand and ignore developments then
> >
On 1/11/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But that's my point, really: why continue to clone TC, when there are so
many additional functions out there on other tools that leave TC in the
dust? If devs stick their heads in the sand and ignore developments then
things will atrophy. In fact, in th
Andrei Popescu said...
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:32:08 -
> marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > For me Opus 8 is too bloated.
> >
> > Bloated is one of those spurious apparent criticisms that doesn't
> > mean anything, though. In any case, why would anyone translate the
> > "bloat" when por
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:32:08 -
marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For me Opus 8 is too bloated.
>
> Bloated is one of those spurious apparent criticisms that doesn't
> mean anything, though. In any case, why would anyone translate the
> "bloat" when porting functions to Linux?
Maybe I misus
Nyizsnyik Ferenc said...
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:47 +, marc wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > In passing, I'll mention that the Windows' file manager Directory Opus 8
> > [1] is something that the Nautilus, Konqueror and Krusader folk should
> > examine. If Linux could get close to just its two pane
Andrei Popescu said...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:47:52 -
> marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Erik Steffl said...
> > >Not sure if it's standard gtk/gnome file open dialog, but it's
> > > the one used to pick application when opening an attachement and
> > > downloading files (it's proba
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:47:52 -
marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Steffl said...
> >Not sure if it's standard gtk/gnome file open dialog, but it's
> > the one used to pick application when opening an attachement and
> > downloading files (it's probably used in other places as well).
>
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:47 +, marc wrote:
> [...]
> In passing, I'll mention that the Windows' file manager Directory Opus 8
> [1] is something that the Nautilus, Konqueror and Krusader folk should
> examine. If Linux could get close to just its two pane setup, I would be
> a happy man. Add
Liam O'Toole said...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:47:52 -
> marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > In passing, I'll mention that the Windows' file manager Directory
> > Opus 8 [1] is something that the Nautilus, Konqueror and Krusader
> > folk should examine. If Linux could get close to
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:47:52 -
marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> In passing, I'll mention that the Windows' file manager Directory
> Opus 8 [1] is something that the Nautilus, Konqueror and Krusader
> folk should examine. If Linux could get close to just its two pane
> setup, I would be
On 1/10/07, Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wim De Smet wrote:
... gnome file chooser discussion snipped ...
> indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in
> those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing
> power not to mention disk I/O which
Erik Steffl said...
>Not sure if it's standard gtk/gnome file open dialog, but it's the
> one used to pick application when opening an attachement and downloading
> files (it's probably used in other places as well).
>
>The dialog has two parts - left part has shortcut to user home dir,
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 00:27 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
>it takes few minutes to open /usr/bin here (almost no load on
> machine), next time (I assume cache helps a lot) it takes 10-20 seconds.
>
>system:
> debian unstable
> icedove 1.5.0.9.dfsg1-1
> pentium 2.4 GHz
> 1G
Wim De Smet wrote:
... gnome file chooser discussion snipped ...
indeed very annoying) but I don't think it's open()ing every file in
those directories. This would require an ordinate amount of processing
power not to mention disk I/O which I'm just not seeing.
it takes few minutes to open /u
On 1/5/07, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wim De Smet wrote:
> You're saying two things here. First you're saying it open()'s every
> file you come across, then you say it lists every directory. I've
> noticed it does list all files in a directory on the path you type
> (which on a system w
Wim De Smet wrote:
> You're saying two things here. First you're saying it open()'s every
> file you come across, then you say it lists every directory. I've
> noticed it does list all files in a directory on the path you type
> (which on a system with sufficient ram only goes slow once but is
> in
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 11:42 -0500, Carl Fink wrote:
> Could you list some advantages that counter the "Requires three times as
> many clicks as all other file pickers" problem? Oh, and the "displays
> information in tiny subwindows that don't relate to each other in obvious
> ways" problem? Or th
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:38:15PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> I don't really like the concept of file pickers at all, but as far as
> they go, the GNOME one is probably one of the best ones I've used.
Could you list some advantages that counter the "Requires three times as
many clicks as all
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 08:43 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 08:02, Geoff Reidy wrote:
> > Googling gnome file picker gives you a fair idea what people think of
> > it. But wait, I just found a way to stop iceweasel using it, add this to
> > user.js
On 1/5/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007, Wim De Smet wrote:
> To be honest, I actually like it. The newest incarnation of it anyway.
> I think all those hits you'll come up will be at least partly based on
> the older one, which had a bit too many big
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007, Wim De Smet wrote:
> To be honest, I actually like it. The newest incarnation of it anyway.
> I think all those hits you'll come up will be at least partly based on
> the older one, which had a bit too many big buttons and a bit too
> little functionality.
No, you got it wrong
On 1/5/07, Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 05 January 2007 08:02, Geoff Reidy wrote:
> Googling gnome file picker gives you a fair idea what people think of
> it. But wait, I just found a way to stop iceweasel using it, add this to
> user.js:
The GNOME fi
On Friday 05 January 2007 08:02, Geoff Reidy wrote:
> Googling gnome file picker gives you a fair idea what people think of
> it. But wait, I just found a way to stop iceweasel using it, add this to
> user.js:
The GNOME file picker is so bad, I'd rather run Firefox on Windows XP in
Mark Roach wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 16:12 -0500, Matt Price wrote:
hi folks, trying out a couple of gnome programs that seem to use the
"gnome file picker" for file selection (i'm running the xfce desktop,
not gnome). I find this incredibly frustrating to use, as it doesn&#
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:06:14PM -0500, Mark Roach wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 16:12 -0500, Matt Price wrote:
> > hi folks, trying out a couple of gnome programs that seem to use the
> > "gnome file picker" for file selection (i'm running the xfce desktop
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 16:12 -0500, Matt Price wrote:
> hi folks, trying out a couple of gnome programs that seem to use the
> "gnome file picker" for file selection (i'm running the xfce desktop,
> not gnome). I find this incredibly frustrating to use, as it doesn't
hi folks, trying out a couple of gnome programs that seem to use the
"gnome file picker" for file selection (i'm running the xfce desktop,
not gnome). I find this incredibly frustrating to use, as it doesn't
have a command line to type in & doesn't show dotfiles.
34 matches
Mail list logo
