On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:32:08 -0000 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 misused the term, but I meant too many functions in program that can make it slower and too complicated. > > Total Commander (former Windows Commander) is much faster > > In what way is Opus 8 slow? There's no lag in any file manager I've > used recently - except those that poll through directories to perform > "mime magic". You are probably using current hw. Until recently I was running a PIII-800. The difference between krusader and worker was obvious. > In any case, my comment was not about the "best" file manager on > Windows > - which is just another emacs vs vim debate - but the fact that the > Linux file managers could learn a lot from the mature file managers > on Windows. If Total Commander has functions worthy of borrowing, > then that's good too. IMHO file managers on Windows are (sometimes) more developed because (almost) nobody is using the shell. There are still lots of linux users using *only* the shell for file managing, especially the more advanced ones. > > 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. I think the best model in such cases is to use plugins as much as possible. This way the user has the choice to install only the functionality he really needs. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
