faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
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 ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
