3 ms·
I think I agree. Treesize/windirstat’s list of folders in size order is just as useful as a treemap. Maybe the treemap lets you hone in on the big files quicke
by quickthrower2 3y ago
I think I agree. Treesize/windirstat’s list of folders in size order is just as useful as a treemap.
Maybe the treemap lets you hone in on the big files quicker but it only saves a few second’s really as you can expand a folder view to find the offending big files.
- xnyan 3y agoMaybe I am unique, but especially when you start dealing with many levels of nested directories, it is much faster to grok both the absolute and relative sizes of files and directories with a visual representation versus a textual representation like an indented list. expanding subdirectories is suboptimal for me, too disorganized and too many directories to click.
- taeric 3y agoTypically, `du -h . | sort -hr | head -n10` is more than sufficient to identify the large files for me to consider. Yes, it can be redundant, but I can't think of any time it hasn't helped me get the data I need. I'll note that the visualizations are neat. And I certainly want to like them. But I also almost always need to know the name of the files more than anything, as it can help me decide how important a file is. If I'm impatient, I can add a `-d3` to the beginning.