Andrei Popescu said... > 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.
Sure, if the thing is like molasses then none of us want it; no argument there. But to be fair to Opus, it doesn't exhibit any slowdown. I agree that learning all the underlying functionality makes it complicated, but there's no need - I certainly don't know it all, especially it's inbuilt scripting. And surely that's a good thing: easy to use the essential stuff, but you can dig in when you have the inclination - like Linux :-) Where Opus is a bit of a pig is its prefs. But then devs seem to be poor at this in general - possibly because the prefs evolve rather than get designed. > > > 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. I use a PIII 800. Snap! > > 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. And the fact that folk are being paid to develop those file managers probably helps a bit. > > > 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. Yup, the modular approach is ideally the best. But then what I often find is that the module/plug-in management tends to be poor - particularly information about what plug-ins are available. And this is where I came in: borrowing the best ideas is no bad thing, wherever they come from. -- Cheers, Marc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
