Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
Issyer wrote:You used it incorrectly. Tabs are not impressive. But if you click on "cascade" somewhere in Menus, tabs become windows which can be resized and dragged. I want this feature to be implemented on Linux. It doesn't matter which file manager. And without stupid unnecessary bloats like mouseover, thumbnails and the like. And in general, the less bloats, the better.
sounds like stupid unnecessary bloats to me...
Why would you want a bunch of windows, inside a window? What function does that provide that is missing in other file managers?
Maybe you should consider a tabbed window manager where you can group windows, then you could use any filemanager and make a mess of it.
I am trying real hard to see your point, but I must be blind. What would that feature help with? What would it make faster and/or easier to do compared to tabs/trees/sidepanes/split-views/etc?
Issyer wrote:You used it incorrectly. Tabs are not impressive. But if you click on "cascade" somewhere in Menus, tabs become windows which can be resized and dragged. I want this feature to be implemented on Linux. It doesn't matter which file manager. And without stupid unnecessary bloats like mouseover, thumbnails and the like. And in general, the less bloats, the better.
sounds like stupid unnecessary bloats to me...
Why would you want a bunch of windows, inside a window? What function does that provide that is missing in other file managers?
Maybe you should consider a tabbed window manager where you can group windows, then you could use any filemanager and make a mess of it.
I am trying real hard to see your point, but I must be blind. What would that feature help with? What would it make faster and/or easier to do compared to tabs/trees/sidepanes/split-views/etc?
It's not interesting to discuss this subject with newbies. They don't understand a lot of things. Why? Why? Because I can open 50 directories and squeeze each window to 1 file. And the windows won't be scattered around the desktop but kept in one place which can be hidden with a single click. Productivity, you know. That Linux stuff drives me crazy to toggle the tabs and search for the same file again and again.
Why are you accessing the same file over and over again? How many times do you need to find the same file?
So you are going to look at fifty little open windows for the correct one when you could just look at the tab bar with the folder names on each tab and click the folder you want?
Once again, I see no functional difference.
I would think it would be faster to have a tree with the fifty directories listed, then just click on the one I want rather than search fifty little windows for the one I want.
As I said, you are annoying, buddy. Those little windows I can place in any order I want. You can consider that structure like a tab (if you are addicted to tabs to such an extent) composed of other 50 tabs.
Issyer wrote:As I said, you are annoying, buddy. Those little windows I can place in any order I want. You can consider that structure like a tab (if you are addicted to tabs to such an extent) composed of other 50 tabs.
so what...you still have to deal with fifty little windows. Can you describe what the difference would be clicking on the window you want and clicking on the tab you want?
souneedalink wrote:so what...you still have to deal with fifty little windows. Can you describe what the difference would be clicking on the window you want and clicking on the tab you want?
Bro.Tiag wrote:Well I've given your explorerxp a go and, I'm not all that impressed. Oh, aye the tabs are nice, but kde's konqueror does that too, but I prefer a file tree with additional panels (ok, it's got horizontal type panels). So what else does it offer, mouse-hover select, no; mouse-over select, no; single click, no; thumbnail preview, no (no preview at all); more then just a details view, no and zip, tar, gz & bgz browsing, no, just to name a few things that I've come to enjoy from the file managers I use. Nope, Tab's are not enough to make me switch to it.
Cheers
You used it incorrectly. Tabs are not impressive. But if you click on "cascade" somewhere in Menus, tabs become windows which can be resized and dragged. I want this feature to be implemented on Linux. It doesn't matter which file manager. And without stupid unnecessary bloats like mouseover, thumbnails and the like. And in general, the less bloats, the better.
Oh I see, you base how good a file manager is on some obscure feature that only you use, and any that do not off that same obscure feature are "crap". I get it. Then you want someone else to add said obscure feature for you, thus making their file manager superior based on your obscure feature. Makes perfect sense to me.
Bro.Tiag wrote:Oh I see, you base how good a file manager is on some obscure feature that only you use, and any that do not off that same obscure feature are "crap". Cheers
Not sure he is even talking about a feature....more of a method of usage. IMO if that usage is provided via another method then it is still functionally equivalent - just a different method. That is often what makes two programs similar but different - neither being more functional than the other and both providing the same functionality in different ways.
You get that a lot from people who want everything in linux to work exactly ike windows - yet they left windows for something different?
Isn't the actual feature 'quick access to multiple locations in one window' and isn't that provided in many different ways by almost every file manager. You can argue which is a bit quicker and could provide scenarios where your favorite is the fastest....so could I....so could bob...so could....doesn't make any of the methods truly 'better' than the other - just different.
Now about those word processors....rhymes with....
Not sure he is even talking about a feature....more of a method of usage. IMO if that usage is provided via another method then it is still functionally equivalent - just a different method. That is often what makes two programs similar but different - neither being more functional than the other and both providing the same functionality in different ways.
You get that a lot from people who want everything in linux to work exactly ike windows - yet they left windows for something different?
Isn't the actual feature 'quick access to multiple locations in one window' and isn't that provided in many different ways by almost every file manager. You can argue which is a bit quicker and could provide scenarios where your favorite is the fastest....so could I....so could bob...so could....doesn't make any of the methods truly 'better' than the other - just different.
Now about those word processors....rhymes with....
Well it is a feature, I just think he's using it in a bass ackwards way.
hmmm....I guess it is a feature but if it is a feature then there are many functional equivalents and I do not see that it is 'better' than the other methods.
I still think the feature is 'easy access to mutiple locations' and cascaded windows are just a method of accomplishing that.
> It is not windows explorer but explorerxp. That is a different application. As for OO, it is not a wordprocessor
> but the whole office. My dream is to get at least a nice rtf word processor. If somebody is going to say that Ted is
> the nicest one, first give me a break to get ready not to explode from laughter. Meanwhile I use Tomahawk under
> wine. But it doesn't support unicode. Alas.
For a nice rtf word processor, oowriter does well. Seeing as you enjoy a large number of features that you've already admitted only you use in your file browsers, it's hard take seriously any complaint of inessential office features you don't need to access by running oowriter by its lonesome. Afterall, if you want only the features only you use, clearly the solution is to code it yourself. Or hire someone to code it for you.
> Not sure what "naut" means. I failed to find explanation of the definition. It's my stupid ethnic fault. Sorry.
Don't apologise for being ethnic. That doesn't make you stupid. It's your arrogance that's causes the problem.
FTR, 'naut' is an abbreviation of nautilus.
Soybean wrote:Afterall, if you want only the features only you use, clearly the solution is to code it yourself. Or hire someone to code it for you.
Thanks for clarifying. I solved my word processor problem with a crack of TreeDBNotes 3.3 Pro which is great in wine and freely available on the internet. As for coding, I prefer not to invent bicycles. Also I solved my file manager problem by writing pages in PHP and DHTML. HTML is nice but dangerous for health.
Soybean wrote:Afterall, if you want only the features only you use, clearly the solution is to code it yourself. Or hire someone to code it for you.
Thanks for clarifying. I solved my word processor problem with a crack of TreeDBNotes 3.3 Pro which is great in wine and freely available on the internet. As for coding, I prefer not to invent bicycles. Also I solved my file manager problem by writing pages in PHP and DHTML. HTML is nice but dangerous for health.
Oh snap! I just can't resist.
You probably remember from my earlier posts correcting your inaccurate statements on this forum for the good of the Intertubez that I'm a web developer/designer and stong advocate of PHP, but coding some kind of desktop file manager equivalent using PHP and Javascript/HTML (and for gods sake just call it javascript/HTML not DHTML, DHTML was a buzz term from about 5 years ago that only sales people used even then) is plain whacky. That's not what PHP/Javascript/HTML was designed for and you know it. It would be like using a feather to hammer in a nail. Well, not quite that ineffective but the analogy ilustrates my point well enough.
I don't use compiled languages with the work that I do and have little experience with them, but if I was seriously wanting to make a desktop app, I would learn a compiled language and do it properly.
95% of the time I can't figure out what you're talking about, but it sounds to me like you've invented a bicycle alright, just one with square wheels.
1335 posts at the time of this writing and I'd say about 5 might have some useful information in them.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
