APR
9
2007

Ars Technica: A First Look At Dolphin

Ryan Paul over at Ars Technica has a short article talking about Dolphin and KDE 4. "The Linux-based Dolphin file manager is now scheduled for official inclusion in KDE 4, the next major release of the KDE desktop environment. Dolphin includes several unique usability enhancements that aren't available in Konqueror, KDE's current file manager..."

Comments

when did you do this the last time?

the toolbar icons and the contents of the menus changes drastically. and thats just for windows xp and older. in vista its even more different...

so why should you write a software that can morph into a completely different app with a completely different usecase.

when i use a filemanager i want to kopy or rename files. i want to organize stuff. i never do this while browsing the web....


By ac at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> when i use a filemanager i want to kopy or rename files.
> i want to organize stuff. i never do this while browsing the web....

Yes, those are really completely different.
Filemanagement:
* Copy/move/delete files/directories
* New directory
* Open files for viewing the content (external or embedded)
* Show preview of files
* Show metadata of files

Webbrowsing:
* Following links
* HTML-renderer
* Javascript
* Flashplayer
* Editing web-forms
* Open files for viewing the content? (external or embedded) This is used rather rarely

On the other side, one may ask why konqueror doesn't do a punch of ofther stuff?
Why not manage/browse music? Who needs amarok anyway...
Why not manage/browse photos? Why is there digiKam or kphotoalbum developed?
Why is there any other application, when konqueror can be morphed to anything other?

I honestly don't know why some people think webbrowsing and filemanagement is similar. Even in times of "Web 1.0" they where different, "web 2.0" makes them completely different.


By birdy at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

you're right, but on the other hand, konqi CAN be used to listen music and view pictures. And I'd love to keep it that way.

I often mix webbrowsing and local filebrowsing: go to sourceforge, download a zip (klik open) and extract the files (yeah, embedded view). Ctrl-T (or even split-screen and drag'n'drop), ctrl-Home -> goto Downloads, manage the files. I wouldn't like to have to open a seperate app for this last step. Same with pictures and music, I manage & preview them in konqi. But I have no problem having a seperate pic viewer, nor a seperate music player, nor a seperate filebrowser. I'd even use them, as long as konqi doesn't lose functionality.

So, like Aaron, I don't understand this flamewar. There will be a new app, a filebrowser in KDE 4. As it shares (this is, after all, KDE) a lot of code with konqi, konqi will get better as result, AND it will be able to focus itself a bit more on being a BROWSER instead of a manager (but browsing both files, embedded docs and webpages). It'll only get better.


By superstoned at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

When did you touch a Windows box last time? ;-)

This is correct for Windows XP. But no longer for Windows Vista (as far as I know - I still didn't receive my upgrade yet).
I just did what you said. And the result is that FileExplorer changes into InternetExplorer 6. But I do have IE7 installed!

So Microsoft already did what KDE is going to do. Splitting file-management and web-browsing.


By birdy at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I'm just wondering where the 'UI' [G/K]nights will take KDE to?
to the 'G'DE perhaps.. or maybe they'll even surpass the 'gnumerish'
noncense.. :(


By A_KDE_User at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

i've already said it once in this thread, but i think it bears repeating: where do you get off judging us (kde) by the efforts of others (gnome) who are in this case unrelated to us?

you perceive them to have failed in this regard; fair enough. that's completely your prerogative (i'll keep my opinions on that to myself here =) ... but try and see what we are doing for what we are actually doing rather than through the tinted lenses of someone else's efforts.

thank you.


By Aaron J. Seigo at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

In my earlier, more sarcastic, post, I noted that the reviewer in the story made direct comparisons to Nautilus. I know that's out of the control of the developers, and comparisons are inevitable when features are similar. But such comparisons have the unfortunate effect of bringing out all the Gnome-haters to, once again, cry that Dolphin is somehow Gnome-ifying KDE. I wouldn't let it bother me too much if I were you. For every one making noise there are dozens withholding judgement for the actual finished product, and some that offer constructive suggestions.


By Louis at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

And the funny part: Many here complain Nautilus being a bad filemanager. But no one could tell me what Nautilus is doing wrong.
I guess the only answer is: "it's GNOME" ;-)


By birdy at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

well, Nautilus is (or maybe was, didn't try it lately) a little too barebones for most of us. Compared to Nautilus, Explorer was/is a powerfull filemanager, so imagine the difference between Konqueror and Nautilus. I guess ppl where afraid KDE would loose konqi, the powerfull filemanager, and go for something dumbed down. I can see that, but it has been stated over and over and over and over again: Konqi won't go anywhere but in KDEbase. So the flamers really don't know how to read...


By superstoned at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Funny how having redundant apps is such a bad thing when it's text editors. Yeah Konqueror isn't going anywhere, but now there are two file browsers. This is somehow good now. People who apt-get kde instead of picking and choosing parts are going to have one more redundant app to complain about.

Leaving that aside, Dolphin was created in response to problems with Konqueror. By creating Dolphin, they've ensured the problems in Konqueror will never be fixed *in Konqueror*. To then turn around and tell us we can continue using Konqueror if we don't like Dolphin? Thanks for nothing. We have the choice of putting up wioth the same old problems that we can guarantee will now never be fixed, or using an app we don't like.


By Cliffton at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> Funny how having redundant apps is such a bad thing when it's text editors.

That situation was somewhat different - KEdit was around purely because the editing component used in KWrite and Kate didn't support bi-directional text. That's now fixed in KDE4, and thus KEdit is gone. Kate, the editor with more multi-file workspace type features, was moved to kdesdk (IIRC) since it's more of a tool for software developers, thus moving it out of the way of general users.

> Leaving that aside, Dolphin was created in response to problems with Konqueror.

Actually, a specific problem, which is new users are uncomfortable with it. As Aaron has mentioned several times it was a response to *actual user testing* and research. They aren't just doing this on a whim.

> By creating Dolphin, they've ensured the problems in Konqueror will never be
> fixed *in Konqueror*.

Rubbish. Seeing as Konqueror and Dolphin share a lot of code there are going to be improvements that affect both applications, so that's patently false.

> To then turn around and tell us we can continue using Konqueror if we don't
> like Dolphin? Thanks for nothing.

They're giving you a choice. Use more or less what you currently use, or try out the new thing. Hell, you can even do both at once. How can that be bad?

> We have the choice of putting up wioth the same old problems that we can
> guarantee will now never be fixed, or using an app we don't like.

Hang on a second, do you actually like Konqueror or not? Perhaps you are just trolling. With all the vitriol in your post it's hard to tell.


By Paul Eggleton at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I guess that I just don't get it. Is there anything in Dolphin that isn't just the KFM part in Konqueror with a lot of features removed?

The answer is probably yes. If these are useful features:

The bookmark and information sidebar.

Preview mode.

But I still don't get it. Does removing features and reducing usability really represent an improvement?

Also, this is going to further confuse the issue of what is a browser vs. what is a file manager since Dolphin is a stand alone file manager that -- at first glance -- looks like a file manager running IN Konqueror.


By James Richard Tyrer at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Geez. Who said about removing features; Dolphin wil just lose the ability of a web browser, but as a file manager it isn't just Konqueror Light.


By Lans at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I see a lot of missing features -- lots of stuff missing from the menus.

Wasn't that the point? Less features that "confuse" users. :-(

As I have said many times, there is no such thing as a web (only) browser. What Dolphin doesn't have is the ability to function as a browser -- it won't open files as a browser does -- you have to open stuff in a separate app which means that there is no way to view some files (except to open a browser!!).

It would be nice to be able to set the background. I am going snow-blind just trying it.


By James Richard Tyrer at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> Wasn't that the point? Less features that "confuse" users. :-(

No, "less features" never was a goal of Dolphin. Please just check the following links for a little bit more background information:
http://enzosworld.gmxhome.de
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-oxygen-on-dolphin.html
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2007/02/konqueror-not-vanishing-news-at-11.html
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2007/03/dolphin-gets-treeview-krunner-gets.html

> It would be nice to be able to set the background. I am going snow-blind just trying it.

We'll do our best to prevent you from getting snow-blind and might add the capability to set a background. Hope you did not get blind already by reading this reply because of the white background of the dot ;-)

Cheers,
Peter


By Peter Penz at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> Hope you did not get blind already by reading this reply because of the white
> background of the dot ;-)

Yes, the background is White, but the text is NOT Black (it is 333333).


By James Richard Tyrer at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Also. please remember that Dolphin isn't complete, features will be added.
People complained that Dolphin didn't have tree view - well, read Peter's last link.

I think one of the factors to the flamewars is this misunderstanding. "Oh no, less features to confuse user - we don't want another Gnome". Or something along these lines.

I still prefer Konqueror, but have tried Dolphin under KDE 3.5.x. It's nice, and seeing screenshots from the development versions, I can just say that it's getting better and better (no surprise, eh?).

I think the devs deserve much more than all the rant om the dot; if you don't like something, at least try to come with constructive criticism.


By Lans at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> if you don't like something, at least try to come [up] with constructive
> criticism.

I said that I didn't think that removing features was an improvement. That was a constructive criticism.

Given that Dolphin will only support file management without browsing and won't have tabs, why does it improve it to remove relevant Konqueror features?


By James Richard Tyrer at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> I said that I didn't think that removing features was an improvement.
> That was a constructive criticism.

Well, it would start being one if you said which features that should be in a file manager have been removed...


By ac at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Sorry if I was unclear. That wasn't directed at you, I am just tired of the Konqueror vs Dolphin flamewars.

It would also be good if dissatisfied persons tell others what they miss, not only "Dolphin lacks so many features". You mentioned one thing - tabs - and who knows, maybe they will be implanted.


By Lans at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> I am just tired of the Konqueror vs Dolphin flamewars.

I agree. The whole "Dolphin is garbage" thread is useless. What we need is objective statements of what people like and what they don't like. Even if you don't like an app, you can offer an objective analysis of it.

I must admit that "lacks many features" was my first impression and a bit subjective. I will e-mail Peter with my actual thoughts on this since it will be a list of minor features with comments.

One thing that I really missed is: "Folders First". Sometimes I want to turn this off. Unix types may miss the two types of alphabetical sorts.


By James Richard Tyrer at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

"I see a lot of missing features -- lots of stuff missing from the menus."

Good, because quite honestly, menus in Konqueror are an utter mess. I mean, really. There are too many menus, and those menus contain way too much stuff. Also, UI-wise, Konqueror is not pretty. It's functional, but it's not pretty. Maybe it could have been fixed, but I haven't seen it get fixed in several years, so maybe it's better to start over from scratch?

By "not pretty" I mean stuff like borders and lines everywhere, toolbars, sidebars, humungous context-menus etc. etc. Some improvements have been made (thank you AJS!), but a lot remains to be done. and, for some reason, they do not get done.

But hey, don't like Dolphin? Then don't use it. The point is that users are presented by an simple app by default, The newbies can handle that app just fine, and so can power-users. But if power-users want something more powerul, they can alwys switch to Konqueror. Why should we present an overtly complex app to users, and the expect newbies to either

a) learn to cope with Konqueror
b) figure out how to switch to Dolphin

Power-users can manage things like A and B (well, replace "Dolphin" with "Konqueror" in B), newbies cannot. Why do you want to make newbies suffer for the sake of your own comfort? Especially since you could get that comfort back through 10 seconds of work? Why make newbies do all the work, while powerusers can just sit on their laurels?


By Janne at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

+1


By superstoned at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

> Good, because quite honestly, menus in Konqueror are an utter mess.

My comment was only about the menus on the MenuBar. If the items were removed from those menus, then the feature was removed.

> By "not pretty" I mean stuff like borders and lines everywhere, toolbars,
> sidebars ...

Actually, you can reduce Konqueror to the same ToolBars as Dolphin and then it looks almost identical except for the MenuBar.

> But hey, don't like Dolphin?

This isn't about not liking Dolphin. I didn't say that I don't like it. What I said was that I didn't think that removing features from Konqueror was a great improvement.

That said, I agree that there are things in Konqueror that need improvement and I have suggested several improvements. I notice that something very similar to one of my suggestions is a feature of Dolphin. Why can't Konqueror be improved? What I ran into was an irrational reactionary response to my suggestion. This is unfortunate since this problem doesn't just apply to Konqueror. This mindset is the antithesis of good software engineering.

I see some good new features in Dolphin that should be included in Konqueror.


By James Richard Tyrer at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

And now they never will be since they are in Dolphin. And people wonder why Konqueror users don't like the idea of Dolphin?

In response to people saying Dolphin lacked critical stuff (tree view) some of it is added, bringing it closer to Konqueror. Konqueror can be simplified, bringing it closer to Dolphin. Why aren't people aiming for something in the middle instead of having two filebrowsers, one too complex and the other two simple?


By Cliffton at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Well, features will be added, thus making it aim for the middle position?
And "simple" doesn't have to mean less (file manager) features.


By Lans at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

why KDE doesn't go for the middle? because that ensures nobody is happy. Konqi-middle will lack features for powerusers, and still be confusing for average users. Now we will have a dedicated filemanager (Dolphin) and a (web) browser (Konqueror) which also happens to be able to browse filesystems, documents, music etcetera (like it does now).

That's the difference between Dolphin and Konqi: Dolphin is a Manager, Konqi a Browser. Both can do file, but Konqi, as a browser, can also browse documents (embedded Okular), pictures (Gwenview), websites (Khtml), Video's (kaffeine, Kmplayer) etcetera.


By superstoned at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

"My comment was only about the menus on the MenuBar."

And my comment was about the menus in the menubar. They are a total disaster.

"If the items were removed from those menus, then the feature was removed."

In that case Konqueror is filled with next to useless features that do nothing but make the UI a complete and utter mess. What if we don't talk about features? I'm not at a Linux-machine right now so I can't test it, but IIRC the "Settings"-menu in Konqueror is a total mess as well. There were entries titled "Configure Konqueror", "Configure Shortcuts", "Configure Shortcuts", "Configure View Profiles" etc. In short: A confusing mess. Instead of that disaster, there should just be "Configure Konqueror".

"Actually, you can reduce Konqueror to the same ToolBars as Dolphin and then it looks almost identical except for the MenuBar."

I'm not talking about just the toolbar. I'm talking about frames around different views and such.

"Why can't Konqueror be improved?"

Who says it coudn't be? But fact is that Konqueror is a certain type of app. And no matter how much it's tweaked, it wont change the basic premise of the app. If it did, then it wouldn't be Konqueror anymore. Many people want a straightforward and easy app to use. Instead of trying to make Konqueror fit both roles, we might as well create two separate apps. Having a "Simple Konqueror" and "Advanced Konqueror" would just make things even more confusing. And if those two modes of one app would have different menubars (simple menubar and complex menubar), different toolbars (simple and advanced), different layouts, different context-menu's... why not simple create two separate apps? If we didn't, we would just confuse people. It's like changing settings with Windows XP. Have you tried talking someone through that on a phone? You are looking at the "Classic View" on your computer, and the other person is using the "Category View", and it all gets very confusing very fast.


By Janne at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

You're so right. cleaning up konqi would make it less attractive to many users, for many usecases - and why would we want that?


By superstoned at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

"Why do you want to make newbies suffer for the sake of your own comfort?"

Well, I don't really think that it's "suffering", as you put it, but the real answer is that because KDE (like any free software project) is for its users and developers. We're not in the business of trying to sell things to people because they represent a larger target market than our current user-base (whom we can therefore afford to lose).

You don't make all your friends from the Horror Movie Club go to watch Disney because you might make new friends.


By Peter Lewis at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

"Well, I don't really think that it's "suffering","

Yes it is. The system is unsuitable for them, and they are required to do something that they do not want to do

"but the real answer is that because KDE (like any free software project) is for its users and developers."

Newbies are users as well. People with limited computer-skills are users as well. And the point is that power-users CAN change things in the desktop to suit them, newbies cannot. I can change the windecs to suit my needs, I can arrange the taskbar till I drop, I can tweak the window-specific settings to my hearts content. My wife can't. She just wants to use the desktop, and she wants it to be idiot-proof, straightforward and pretty. She's not dumb by any stretch of the imagination, she just doesn't have the time, skills or the interest to go around tweaking her desktop. Powerusers (like myself) actually enjoy doing that. So why do we have this the other way around? We cater to the powerusers so they wouldn't have to change things (and yet they do), while making the system so complex that either we force newbies to learn the ins and outs of the system or we expect them to change things to suit them. And they have no interest in doing either of those things.

Many moons ago I wrote a text about this issue. By default, the desktop should be as easy, clean and straightforward as possible. For newbies, that kind of system would be ideal. Their needs are not as extensive as powerusers needs are. they would feel comfortable with such a system since it wouldn't overload them with it's complexity and power. What about powerusers? They could change that simple foundation to suit their needs. They are comfortable at doing that, and they like changing things. This way both groups would be happy. But as things are right now, we are trying to make the powerusers happy (and failing at it somewhat, since they still tweak things to their liking), while throwing newbies to the wolves.

In short: why do we insist on taking advantage of the weakness of the newbies (their lack of skills/interest in changing the system), instead of trying to cater to that weakness, while taking advantage of the strength of powerusers (their willingness to tweak the system)? Why do we insist that newbies must adapt to overtly complex system, instead of simply providing them with an easy and simple system that they can actually use comfortably, while making it possible for powerusers to change that system to suit their more advanced needs?

If KDE is primarily meant for it's developers, then we can just drop this crap about KDE being "easy to use". Developers are powerusers, their wants and needs are not similar to regural users. Fact is that if we want more people to use free software and free operating systems, we need to drop this crap about "free software is primarily for it's developers". With that way of thinking we will never make Joe Sixpack see the light on this issue.


By Janne at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

I've tried Dolphin, and at first I thought "I've set Konqueror to work exactly how I want it, I'll never use Dolphin very much".

I ended with using Dolphin exclusively for files, because it's simply better to use.

It is mostly a different GUI to functionality from Konqueror, and they use the same backends, so it isn't competition to Konqueror, but rather a complement, which is better to use for some people (like me).

Other users don't lose functionality, and everyone cand ecide not to go with the decision of the KDE team (and distros can do the same), but I think the KDE Team is right in choosing Dolphin as default File-Manager.

And in my opinion, the KDE team should choose defaults themselves. Distros can still change them, but they shouldn't have to change them to get teh system which the KDE team thinks best.


By Arne Babenhause... at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

i consider myself a poweruser and have never really liked konqueror (the file-manager): the easy stuff is hard, while the hard stuff is easier in the console.

i for one, welcome our new animal overlords.

go PP, AS and the rest of the bunch.


By Anonymous at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Well, usually I tend to love new applications and like to try them out first-hand. New applications that make everything simpler and better? Great!
So, recently, I tried out Dolphin instead of Konqueror. But I found that it doesnt really live up to the hype. It's interesting nevertheless because now I know what I really miss about Konq and why it's generally a good idea to accept half a second more start-up time to have a decent application. The only thing I really missed about Konq all the time was separate bookmarks for filemanagement and web-browsing. Dolphin gives me that but brings LOTS of bad things with it at the same time. The #1 issue: You cannot click right next to a file in order to select it without opening it. So no more click+F2 to rename, no more click+Del to delete, no more click+Ctrl+C to copy and so on. Virtually all keyboard commands become worthless. The only option is to right click and then close the context menu with Esc. Even more annoying: When you try to insert a file by pressing Ctrl+V and sth. happens to be already selected Dolphin always wants to overwrite the selected file instead. So right now, I cant really see what advantage all this brings. There might be some one day but I fear right now that really needed improvements for Konq just wont happen because all the major development goes into Dolphin. So Konq stays with its problems forever and Dolphin just isnt good enough because it has lots of bugs, missing functionality, etc. It's like KDE 1.0 all over again.


By Michael at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Konqi will partly profit from the work on Dolphin, as they share a lot of code. Second, I can imagine Dolphin will get some improvements in the following months. And last, Konq can't really be improved in the filebrowsing area if you don't want to touch the webbrowsing part. A big part of usability is, after all, not having useless stuff in the interface. Konqi already has a interface which changes all the time, and the only way to improve one part is to change the interface even more, OR remove stuff from another part. Both things would suck. For many powerusers (like me, and probably you) the overloaded interface in konqi isn't much of a problem, and we love the features. But for some, the features just make it harder to use (and they don't use those features anyway). The dev's try to keep us all happy by introducing dolphin...


By superstoned at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I would like to see a dockable Dolphin which can be shown and hidden with a simple shortcut (e.g. F11), similarly to Yakuake (which is a dockable konsole). Then, no matter in which desktop you are working and no matter how many windows are open, you press F11 and a file management program pops up. This would be much easier than first closing all windows and pressing that "Home" icon on the desktop or selecting "Home" in the System menu on the kicker. Also it would avoid to have to search the file manager in your Alt-Tab list or on the taskbar when it loses the focus: whenever you want the file manager back in front, just press F11.


By Vlad2 at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

++


By anon at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Err... Sounds like something you can easily do with a little DCOP magic and configuration. Binding F11 to show and hide a Konq window should be easy enough. Still, there are already easy ways to get yourself a file manager. I for one just click the button next to the start button.


By Andre at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

There were some talk about a general application based on Yakuake for this. An application that works like a container for other apps. That would be super sweet. :)

I wouldn't use it for file management though. I've always got a system:/ tab open in Konqueror, and Konqi is also the only application that shows up in my taskbar except dialogs. I've set the rest to skip the taskbar and show up in the systray. It works very good.


By mirshafie at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I was wondering if in KDE4, it may be possible to click on an empty area of the desktop and the default file manager shows up? Or draw a rectangle with your mouse on an empty space, and the file manager launches with the dimensions of that rectangle.

Or you draw you click your left mouse and draw a line and depending on the lenth of the line and perhaps the shape, a a file manager window shows up.

For example:
- the shape \ (upper left->bottom right) starts drawing the window in the upper left corner, growing while you keep dragging (making the virtual line 'longer')
- the shape / (bottom left->upper right) starts drawing the window in the bottom left corner, growing while you keep dragging.
- etc. for the other 2 directions
- if you draw a circle/spiral, the window starts centered and grows while you keep drawing the circle/spiral

This has the advantage that you do not need a lot of empty space in order to control your windows precisely. The disadvantage is, that perhaps it's more difficult to perform for some people (especially RSI etc I guess).


By Darkelve at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Those are features of Directory Opus, something that is slightly amiga-related. Hence KDE will never support it. Just like multiselect in menues. I also would like another DOpus feature, being able to mark out rectangles on the desktop where I want certain types of icons to be grouped. Cancelling drag&drop actions from mouse would also be nice (now I have to hit esc - why not also rmb). SuperKaramba "applets" should be in the same z-level as desktop icons (so that icons dont vanish under them) - just like app-icons on amiga, so I guess it wont happen.

In general, KDE wont support anything new, unless Windows does it first, so that one can bring up the "most users" argument.


By kolla at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

That is, unless you write it for inlcusion in kde.


By whatever noticed at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

"That is, unless you write it for inlcusion in kde."

The most advanced application I ever programmed is a Hello World program in C.

Well actually, it was a Carmen San Diego clone in Q-basic and so chock-full of spaghetti code that I ended up not understanding what much of the code did myself.

But hey, it worked and it even had a bit of sound and graphics! :p


By Darkelve at Wed, 2007/04/11 - 5:00am

Does anyone know of a kernel function or something that returns a list of all files a process has opened since it has been started?

AFAIK, the Linux lsof command displays the files that are currently open, but most programs close files once they have read them.

But if it would be possible to retrieve all files that has been read by a process it would be possible to make a Dolphin/Konqueror/... sidebar that displays a list of files that are open (or have been open recently), or highlighting those files and maybe even "directories" (if Konqueror/Dolphin sessions can be "seen"), when the list is filtered for those files that are assigned to the application (for kword only kword-compatible files are shown but not the configuration files etc)

It would be something like a system-wide "open files" list like in e.g. Kate (that works for Kate files only)

Hm, writing that, it may be hard to activate the right window when you have the pid only, especially with MD-Interfaces. Well, maybe someone has an idea to get around this...


By MM at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Like recent documents? Yes, it's desktop specific, but I don't think the kernel provides something like what you're looking for. To be more precise, I'm pretty sure the kernel doesn't. Any idea how big such a list could become, over time? The kernel dev's aren't really happy to include everything and the kitchensink, you know, they're quite the purists ;-)


By superstoned at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I get your point regarding the size of the list. Maybe it would be more useful as an option, with some configuration (file name patterns to be stored). But you are right, I have not heard of such a thing, except that some security solutions (SELinux?) provide access control lists by process, but I don't know if they have some kind of logging.

IMHO, the problem with recent documents is not that it's desktop specific, but iirc it only works when opening files from the desktop or konqueror and does not work when a document is dragged and dropped from konqueror to an already open instance of e.g. kword. There's also only the information that the document has been opened, but not, if it has been closed (well, that problem would persist with a kernel function if the document is just closed but the app not).


By MM at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

If Dolphin will allow me to set the default view to detail view, then I'm ready to switch now.

I like Konqueror for file management a lot, but this one thing drives me nuts. I hate opening a new tab, and then having to switch the view mode.

Arawak


By Arawak at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Yes, it's possible to set the default view in Dolphin. For the KDE 3 version of Dolphin select Settings -> Configure Dolphin... and select the default view mode under the 'General' settings.

Best regards,
Peter


By Peter Penz at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

I can't, for the life of me, understand what people want with all this file management that makes a new, simpler, more specialised file manager neccessary.
The only file management I do is usually done with a few clicks: opening a window here, another window (or a new pane) there, mark a few files here and drag them there. Heck, even my wife (who, at 57, is hard to learn any new tricks), has gotten good at this!

But then, we don't do much file handling. I have my little music collection with hardly 21,000 songs, and a diminutive picture collection of less than 10,000 pics. And, of course, a few thousand text and pdf documents that we've collected during the nearly 20 years we've used computers at home (I am, sadly, one of those people who can't throw anything away).

I've always thought that Konqueror was eminently capable of handling this - besides being a fairly good browser. But now it seems I've been wrong the whole time, and that one actually needs ANOTHER, more specialised, tool.
I guess I could handle that, if you give me a few years to getting used to it. But my wife - who supposedly is one of the poor user who supposedly needs this new, specialised tool even more than me, is crying already...


By Goran Jartin at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

KAudiocreator is also a good candidate for improvement. Lots can be learned from iTunes which does it all right.

Goran, try Dolphin and you will see that this tool does it all right.


By bert at Tue, 2007/04/10 - 5:00am

Pages