Re: Nautilus dogginess

[Loban Amaan Rahman <loban earthling net>]

> It's slow.  I can guess about why, especially knowing that Mozilla is
> involved, I am sure that plays a major role.  So regardless of anything I
> don't know about it, I know one thing that every user knows -- it's slow.
> GMC is faster.  Nautilus is unusable.

Like someone said, Mozilla is only used when going to an http url. Only then
is the mozilla component even loaded, it's then unloaded if no http url is
in use for some time.

And yes, Nautilus is a tad slow. It's quite a bit slower than GMC, but GMC
does nowhere near the things Nautilus does, so that's not a good basis for
comparison. If GMC provides what you need, then by all means use it.

I've been testing Nautilus since 0.5.something, and major improvements in
the last few updates before and after 1.0 were mainly in speed. It's quite
usable now, but more speed is all I ask for now for the next few updates.
I'm sure it will, now that all the bleeding-edge libraries it depends on
have finally stabalized.

I'm not interested in Nautilus just for the file browsing. I use it to
browse/maintain files, but I don't do that often. I'm waiting for the
plugin components that the nautilus architecture was built for. For example
the Gphoto gnome-vfs module - it provides a filesystem interface for
my digital camera so that i can type camera:// in nautilus and it'll show
me my pictures, allowing me to manipulate it as if it were a normal
filesystem.

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
|   Loban Amaan Rahman  <-- anagram of -->  Aha! An Abnormal Man!   |
|  loban earthling net, loban ugcs caltech edu,  http://i.am/loban  |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/