The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Konqueror
by Daniel on Thursday 01/Mar/2007, @17:56
|
"I know that there are a lot of people out there that really love Konqueror.(I'm one of them)"
LoL! What is puzzling is I still cannot find a real user who would say "I need my file manager crippled, and thus I prefer Dolphin." People moan when Kubuntu hides some folders, imagine what moaning you will get when suddenly smb:// ftp:// or other non-local paths stop working in the default file/resource browser.
Is there ANYONE out there who can truly say "By default, I (focus is on I) need a browser that puts tight limits on what is possible to do with files."?
For a lot of web-enabled people, there is NO separation between remote and local resources. Once we get to metadata / tag / DB enabled filesystems, there will no longer be a need for "file manager" I just hope I get my search-enabled interface to my data: files, contact info, messages etc. This way Dolphin will hopefully be the last thing I would have to use on my system.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Paul Eggleton on Thursday 01/Mar/2007, @19:50
|
Seeing as KIO is integral to KDE's file handling there's no way it would just stop working.
> By default, I (focus is on I) need a browser that puts tight
> limits on what is possible to do with files.
But that's not what Dolphin is supposed to do - in fact, by not having to worry about also being a web browser, it can offer an interface better suited to file management.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Steve on Tuesday 18/Mar/2008, @08:26
|
>But that's not what Dolphin is supposed to do - in fact, by not having to worry about also being a web browser, it can offer an interface better suited to file management.
Please explain how Dolphin is better suited to file management? What about it makes it better? Be Specific.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Jucato on Thursday 01/Mar/2007, @22:13
|
1. Dolphin already does ftp:/ and sftp:/ (I don't have smb:/ to test). It also does everything in remote:/, which includes Bluetooth stuff and Samba shares.
2. Dolphin doesn't put tight limits on what you can do with files. It only sort of limits what it, the application, presents to the user, that is, limiting the UI to file management functions. Whatever file *management* (emphasis on the management) functions you need, they are there. Management doesn't directly involve embedded viewing. It's just an added bonus in Konqueror, thanks to KParts.
3. "Web-enabled people" is a bit vague. Does this term refer to people who can surf the Web? Some of these people don't even know remote vs. local. In fact, they don't even know about remote files. Now, if you're talking about people who knows about servers, remote locations, FTP's, etc., then you're talking about advanced users, people who can configure their system, who can change the default file manager from Dolphin to Konqueror.
People don't really say "I want a crippled file manager." Some do say that they want a file manager that is separate from the web browser, but still shares in the benefits of KDE (KParts and KIO). Dolphin is for these people. Dolphin answers almost all the basic file managing needs. If you want more, Konqueror will always be there.
(And I do want more!!)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Richard Van Den Boom on Thursday 01/Mar/2007, @23:27
|
Well 95% of people using a computer are used to a a file manager that does web browsing and have no issue with that, are used to have an explorer-like windows on the left side and are OK with that, are used to have no crumbread thing or whatever but a path field and are OK with that.
Whether Gnome and OSX have switched to a different way of doing file management does not mean it's a good thing, I know a good deal of people, computer-saavy or not, who find it irritating at best. I don't think there has been any serious study showing that's actually better way of doing it and the fact is that most people actually do not use such stuff.
So making it the default seems a strange idea to me if it's supposed to bring new users, it doesn't seem to have really brought any new user to either Gnome or OSX. It actually make things a bit more different for people coming from Windows, and that's usually enough to have them back.
And if the answer is "well you can personnalize Dolphin to look like Konqueror/Explorer", what's the point making Dolphin the default then?
People will probably tell me that Konqueror will not go away, that I'll still be able to do whatever I've done with it in the past just the same, etc.
OK, fine.
But I don't think than setting the file manager that looks like something about 5% of computer users are used to is such a well thought-out decision, and the arguments have been provided by proponents of this idea("simpler is better", some people want a separate app") look more like gut feeling than based on any solid poll, statistics or study.
Why not a wizard at first start of KDE asking if you prefer a OSX-like file manager or a Windows-like as default? This way everybody can have what he's used to.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Jucato on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @01:35
|
> Well 95% of people using a computer are used to a a file manager that does web browsing and have no issue with that
Granted you are referring to Windows, how many times does windows open a link from an external application inside Windows Explorer? While Internet/Windows Explorer are much like Konqueror, in that they both do file management and web browsing, the distinction between the two is clear and persistent. Things don't get mixed together. Konqueror's Profiles are not as strong.
> And if the answer is "well you can personnalize Dolphin to look like Konqueror/Explorer", what's the point making Dolphin the default then?
I think no one said this (might be wrong, though). It was just said that Dolphin will be equally configurable as an KDE app is. Of course, within the limits of it being a file manager.
Dolphin was never meant to be a clone of some other file manager. Its aim is to be a "file manager for KDE focusing on usability". If it incorporated some features that are similar to other file managers, it doesn't do so for the sake of imitation, but because of their usability.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Richard Van Den Boom on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @09:14
|
OK, I agree that Konqueror's profiles would need work, and I also know that it may not be as easy as it sounds, depending on how the app was coded in the first place. I understand pretty well that sometimes, starting again from scratch is often the best way to improve a software, so I will never complain about people trying to do something different, especially in open source.
On top of that, I'm perfectly able to change the default file manager if the option exists, so I don't expect to be lost.
The thing is : the little "usability" I can sort out from screenshots (I don't have the possibility to test Dolphin right now) seems to imply a heavy influence from Gnome/MacOS. It may not be the only source of inspiration, I don't know, but the general look does. It may seem more usable to some, but there's probably as many people, if not more, that will prefer a standard Explorer-like window and Konqueror is a better match for them.
To answer your question, every FTP request is actually opening an Explorer-like window, in which you can drag and drop from local explorer windows, just like Konqueror.
What I mean about all this is : for all the examples of people I know who would prefer a Konqueror-like file manager, you will probably find as many who will prefer Dolphin. I'm perfectly OK with that, Open Source is about choice after all. But I think imposing Dolphin as default leaves as many people "in the dust" and not just power-users. Providing the choice between the two styles of file management at first start would be the option I would choose personnally.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Wyatt Epp on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @10:59
|
Okay, compromise time. Dolphin is the default file manager. It was also clearly stated (and even shown in a picture) that it can be switched to resemble the current status quo (toolbar, path bar, file pane, sidebar). I think there's significant weight to the point that you want to cater to the majority while still expanding their horizons- they can switch when they're ready, if ever. To wit, make the "classic view" the Dolphin default, and allow people to customize from there. That way, everyone is happy.
It should be noted, however, that I like tabs. I like a path. I like embedded document viewers. They all help my workflow. And really, why would you spend all that time making Okular if you can't use it with Kparts to show a pdf in a file manager tab? While I appreciate the Unix philosophy of "one application per task," it only works when a user can create a positive environment to work in with it. This, I find, is accomplised through developments like Kparts, Phonon, and Solid. That's a damn good question, actually- how will Kparts be extended and improved in KDE4?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Gabriel Gazzán on Saturday 03/Mar/2007, @07:34
|
I think I am in a mid place here. I somewhat like the integration between the file manager and the web browser, while at the same time I feel in the case of Konquieror this integration is not completely well done.
I agree with the fact that Konqueror's profiles are not extensive (they don't affect application behaviour as much as they should).
I like the fact that when I'm browsing the internet I could see a PDF just in the browser window, but I really dislike the fact that when I'm looking for an image in the file manager and double click over an image name, the image opens in my file manager window. The problem in this respect with Konqueror is that you can't define distinct behaviours for file types for file management and web browsing modes.
The other complaints I have with Konqueror is with it's tree view sidebar when in file management mode, because it lacks some basic functionality.
There are really two things that I don't like:
1) not beaing able to rename a directory in the tree view
2) the tree view don't always follow the directory showing on the right side (hidden ones, etc.)
I think Dolphin could be a welcome addition to KDE if done right (make it simple and coherent with what has been file management inside KDE until now), but at the same time I tend to think that there were so little things that separated Konqueror from being the perfect file manager/web browser that it's a pitty hackers hasn't been able/willing to correct or add them for KDE 4.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by konqueror lover on Friday 20/Jun/2008, @03:43
|
>>> I like the fact that when I'm browsing the internet I could see a PDF just in the browser window, but I really dislike the fact that when I'm looking for an image in the file manager and double click over an image name, the image opens in my file manager window. The problem in this respect with Konqueror is that you can't define distinct behaviours for file types for file management and web browsing modes.
1. I guess most people want to view a image file really fast and quick instead of open it for editing in GIMP.
2. If you really prefer defaulting to open an image file in an seperate application, just configure it in Konq:
Right-Click on the file name to open the context menu, select 'Property' and press the 'troque' icon to open the MIME configuration dialogue. Here, select the 'Embeding view' tab and change the default behaviour to 'open in seperate app.'.
You can even have different setting for different type of image file, is it sweet?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by konqueror lover on Friday 20/Jun/2008, @03:56
|
>>> The other complaints I have with Konqueror is with it's tree view sidebar when in file management mode, because it lacks some basic functionality.
There are really two things that I don't like:
1) not beaing able to rename a directory in the tree view
2) the tree view don't always follow the directory showing on the right side (hidden ones, etc.)
For your 1) complaint. It actually support 'renaming' but you must bring up the context menu and select 'rename' to do it. Pressing 'F2' or Press&Hold left button don't work as they should. A minor bug.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by ac on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @03:13
|
thats actually not true at all. most windows users don't even know that the explorer is the same thing as the internet explorer. and when you look at it as a user, it really isn't.
internet explorer and explorer look completely diffrent. they don't share toolbars, the don't share options. they don't share anything besides the same executable.
the only way to notice that these are the same is when entering a web url in your normal explorer view. though what you get is en explorer suddenly shifting into internet explorer - not an explorer displaying a webpage. also the explorer doesn't show files, even if you click on a local html side it starts a new internet explorer instance.
also, when you click on "my computer", and thats what most new users use, because its more or less the only filesystem related thing by default on the desktop windows starts a explorer without the treeview. you only get the treeview when you search for the "real" Explorer in your start menu or use a special shortkey/rightclick on the startmenu - something normal windows users wont do.
though actually i don't care what windows users expect. there should be reasoning to do something like you do. not just because everyone else does it this way.
i don't think viewing documents(including webpages...) has anything to do with managing your filesystem. i never created new "things", or move "things" around, while reading the dot. my webpages don't resemble a graph or tree. so i don't think i should use the same program for both... it just doesn't make any sense.....
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Richard Van Den Boom on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @08:58
|
Well I have both of them opened right now on my Windows desktop here at work :
You have exactly the same menus names, exactly the same position of tool bar, path, and OK button, the same previous and next icon at the same place.
You basically have several icons added to the browser version but that's about it.
There is a Favorites menu in the file manager window, with all the links to websites I recorded.
I don't know for you but most people I know actually switch to treeview once they know about it. I perfectly agree that my experience is just one data point but nobody seems to actually be able to provide anything else here anyway.
Moreover, when they get to FTP sites, seemlessly from their browser, people get a file manager view and usually like it, that one of the complains I hear most often against Firefox.
The argument of taking into account Windows users is an argument against the "simple is better" one : people not always prefer what is simple but what they are used to, especially non-power users. I've seen many Windows users being baffled by OSX file manager and finding it not practical at all. So if you plan to make things easier for people, their vision should be taken into account too.
Going on the web is not just watching web pages but also sending and receiving files nowadays. Having the possibility to do file management through the web thus makes perfect sense. And in that view, having two different apps doesn't.
It just come down to what you're doing and how you want to do it. Having both solutions is OK to me, but I think you consider that many people, and not just power users, are used to browse their files in a certain way and that KDE should provide a way to do it in a straightforward manner, not through hidden options.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Vide on Saturday 03/Mar/2007, @04:31
|
Don't worry. Vista acts exactly as OSX and Gnome (and as KDE will do). So 99% of user in 3-4 years will be experiencing separate file/web browsing
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by vicza on Wednesday 07/Mar/2007, @12:22
|
Let Vista acts as it wants. But WHY should KDE copy Vista (or OSX, or GNOME, or whatsoever else)? Why? Many people like KDE as it is. Don't turn it to another bad copy of Mac, like gnome already is. Let there be at least one _normal_ DE, please.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by pizorn on Thursday 01/Mar/2007, @23:54
|
_I_ would like a separate file manager. I like konqueror very much but still. I certainly prefer external file viewers (pdf _really_ annoys me when opened in konqueror- when I mistakenly use the left mouse click).
I also do not like having my Web bookmarks in my file browser.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Pino Toscano on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @02:45
|
You would like a separate file manager just for a configurable setting you don't like?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Guillaume BINET on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @00:17
|
When I heard the news about a simplified file manager instead of Konqueror the first thing I thought was : "Oh no ! I moved out from Gnome and they gonna do me the same stalinian treatment, soon, it will be our way or no way, hidden editable paths, reversed buttons, configurability to what *we* think it is best for you.."
But I tried Dolphin and I understood immediately the benefits !
I consider Konqueror the best web browser ever, but it is really confusing for me, for example :
- you grab a window you never know in which "profile" it is so trying to fit a profile to a purpose is useless
- what is home ? I have 2 homes, my google home page and my /home/user
- what is the default page, should I put one in the profile ?
- you have the focus on a specific file in the file browsing mode, shift+down arrow then you have a "really selected one" video reversed and a "current one" just with a border.. you do a ctrl-C, which ones are copied ?
With dolphin, everything is clear and that's what I need when I move around important files !
For whose who are sceptical like me, just try it ! associate it as your default file handler for directories and try it a bit, in no way it is a gnome like regression.
Guillaume
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Evan Robert on Friday 02/Mar/2007, @10:14
|
I've never seen the point of having a "home" webpage. Just enable the bookmark toolbar and put your frequently used webpages in the root directory.
It is true that the profile system in Konqueror is a bit messed up but this could be fixed, I hope the Dolphin project doesn't stop this from happening.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Francesco on Saturday 03/Mar/2007, @02:40
|
Well, I for one work for an Internet website and I find it useful in having a default webpage opened whenever I launch my browser, instead of having to type it in or click on a bookmark...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Jucato on Sunday 04/Mar/2007, @00:59
|
Konqueror already does this. Open the page or directory you want to be the default page and then save that profile. Everytime you launch that Konqueror profile, you get that page.
The problem starts when you try to return to that page when you try to press the Home button. Unless you set it to a different location in Konqueror's settings, it goes to the user's home directory. While this is ideal in the file management profile, it's a bit unnatural in a web browsing profile.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Arnomane on Saturday 03/Mar/2007, @05:37
|
You brought me to an idea that could be a killer feature for Konqueror of KDE 4:
How about modifying the target of the home button that way that it displays a nice HTML page with your bookmarks/favourite places? This could be easily done with a (local) KIO-Slave called "bookmarks" that delivers a HTML page.
If you look around in the internet many web sites want to be your "home". They are portals that you can personalize in order to make them your "base camp". The downside is: You are locked in, reveal a lot of your personal data (habits, interests, whatever) for data mining and you have to accept that these sites want to promote their stuff which is not necessarily the stuff you want.
Now imagine a "home" which is feed by you own browser history and browser bookmarks. For example boxes representing your bookmark folders, screen space weighted by a tag cloud mechanism (taking the number of your views of these bookmarks as calculation basis) and of course if you like, tweaking this "home" page to your own needs by yourself...
This thing would provide *much* more than Windows Live and friends would ever be able to provide to you while being at the same time:
* Much more intuitive and usable, cause the page is directly feed by your browsing habits and without needing to create yet another strange account somewhere on the web.
* Best possible privacy. Your personal browsing data never leave your computer in aggregated form. You don't need to trust anybody but you that they don't do data mining on these data... And of course this local home page is not restricted by privacy laws. ;-) You can do personal data mining on your own as much as you like in order to dynamically customize your home to your needs.
* No customization - site provider tradeoffs. You don't need to accept ads, preselected search engines, pre selected whatever pages the site provider wants to promote in your customized home.
How about that idea?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Konqueror
by Bobby on Sunday 04/Mar/2007, @08:12
|
"The fact that Dolphin will be listed in the K Menu will not harm your user experience in any way."
It's not the fact that it is listed in the file manager that bothers me. It's that (for most users) they will believe that the "file manager" for KDE is just as broken as it is in Gnome. When did we start to confuse a lack of functionality as a feature?
I have heard almost NO ONE (at least no one who is not already totally convinced to use Gnome regardless of what we do) who thinks that Konqueror web integration was a bad thing. Why are we changing this? Why?
0h, and just as an FYI.. someone type /home into your firefox browser... or open an html page in Nautilus... OMG web and file integration!
Bobby
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Tony O'Bryan on Sunday 04/Mar/2007, @14:45
|
I have to agree. Dolphin seems like a solution in search of a problem. Every single Konqueror complaint I've read in this thread seems more easily addressable by changing the respective KParts than by creating a separate file manager.
Maybe I'll change my mind once I try it, but from what I've read so far, Dolphin seems to be quite a big step in the wrong direction. Konqueror is a fairly capable web browser (though it has at least two severe rendering problems: bad CSS and major slowness), but it seriously rocks as a file manager. I'll try to keep an open mind, but my gut instinct is that Dolphin is going to cause more problems than it solves.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by Tony O'Bryan on Sunday 04/Mar/2007, @14:48
|
Actually, I can't say that the CSS problems I have are due to Konqueror (KHTML). It's entirely possible that the problem is with web sites that have bad CSS. However, Firefox renders those sites correctly.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Konqueror
by neal on Sunday 13/Jan/2008, @17:22
|
I agree with all the positives that have been said for Konqueror and love the integration and file viewing flexibility. When I am doing this and need to include viewing web documents it is perfect. When I just want to do some web browsing I use Firefox.
Please don't hide this easy to use and wonderfully flexible piece of software from new users. If anything, it should be treated as a flagship.
olaf
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
