Re: Gnome File Mangers?

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:18:43AM -0800, Joshua Hansen wrote:
> > Agreed.  Personally, I don't really like Nautilus at all, but it's
> > better than GMC imho, so it's what I use.  Nautilus just doesn't seem to
> > "fit" with the rest of GNOME, feels weird.  ^,^  But that's me.
> 
> Yeah. Gnome has this... look. It's hard to explain but I like it. This
> does raise another question: Are GMC and Nautilus the only two choices
> out there for Gnome file managers? I'm sure there are more but I like
> asking what someone has used, liked and tested before just scouring
> Freshmeat for stuff.

I think they're the only ones that tie into GNOME, but I could be wrong.
Nautilus wouldn't be so bad if it's setting tied into GNOME (CC) and
whatnot, instead of having all those duplicates.

Configuration is my biggest pet peeve with GNOME.  KDE handles it so
much better, in most ways.  Cleanup the VFS a bit, rehaul configuration,
and GNOME would be equal to KDE, imo.

> 
> I know Nautilus is gonna get better as Mozilla gets better and when they
> finish in the features department they can move onto the performance
> department. However it isn't cutting it for my NOT REALLY SUPER FAST
> computer at the moment.


Heh, there, I disagree.  I don't even think Nautilus should in any way
use Mozilla.  GNOME currently requires it, since no decent GTKHTML based
packages for Nautilus are available (last I checked, a month or so ago),
and the default configs want to use the file manager for browsing help
(whatever was wrong with gnome-help, I guess I'll never know).  When I
browser HTML, I want a browser, not a file manager, and when I browse
help, I want a help program, ot a file manager.  Trim all that crap out
of Nautilus and it does get a bit faster (on my machine, anyways, could
just be coincidence).

Sean Etc.

> 
> Joshua
>