Re: A proposal for Midnight Commander

[Ali Akcaagac <aliakc web de>]

On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 19:09, Nerijus Baliunas wrote:
> And I need console filemanager not for rescue disks, but for
> normal work (file manager plus editing files), as I have usually
> up to 10 terminals with mc opened. And I don't care about its size
> or whether it depends on glib... BTW, I don't see any new bad
> things in 4.6.0, can you elaborate on this?

Listen, I'm not going to make some sort of flamewar out of this. I just
raised a proposal which I for my own belive in. If you and others are
going to see it differently then it's ok. No further harms no bad
feelings nothing. After all it's open source which you can go and fork
as you wish. The rescue disk idea was just one of many possible
combinations that one person could raise - I only wonder why people are
more up to discuss the concerns of a rescue system rather than talking
about the real problem. Do you know the problem I was raising - do you
understand the technical problem raised here ? Now you said you don't
care whether it depends on glib or not so why did you replied then ? You
do not see any difference from operation only that the handful glib
calls gonna be replaced with native glibc ones which imo is a good sign
to go in the right direction again. Your benefit is that you can edit,
rename, copy, move the files even under worst system circumstances
because of less dependencies of the core. The functions you have now in
mc460 stays the same. By the way you can do the same stuff with
mc4140MP, edit, copy, move, rename etc. Please people - only reply if
you understand the technical problem I describe here and not just
because you feel you need to reply but do not understand the problems.
It only raises a wrong light and creates the wrong impressions that
there are people who do not like to see mc improving in that area. A few
comments already raised are made by people who do not understand the
bottom problems here.