5 ms·

I am picky about file managers. Since switching to Linux on my primary desktop a few years ago, a file manager remains the only thing I miss from Windows. I u

I am picky about file managers. Since switching to Linux on my primary desktop a few years ago, a file manager remains the only thing I miss from Windows. I used Directory Opus. It wasn't perfect, but was damn close for me (admittedly a power user as far as file management tasks is concerned). The one key feature that I have been unable to find in any Linux file manager is extensibility. I also dislike the lack of a queueing mechanism. I shouldn't have to sit around and wait for a 40GB copy to move from one network location to another before I can start another bit of data movement. And I should definitely be able to create a custom button that launches tools or performs certain common operations like flattening a directory tree or creating an ISO from a VIDEO_TS folder. In Linux I rely on the commandline, and don't mind that terribly, but if I had the time I would create a file manager that was easily extensible with Python taking design cues from something like Sublime Text. Should anyone do this I am certain it would be a successful product. I paid something like $95 for Directory Opus, and Opus is a fairly successful product despite its high price (a good bit of that high price comes from the company being based in Australia). I contacted them when I switched, telling them that a Linux port would be profitable for them, but they are not interested.

sigmaml 12y ago
> I shouldn't have to sit around and wait for a 40GB copy to move from one network location to another before I can start another bit of data movement. KDE and Dolphin send the transfer into the background immediately. You can track the progress in the system tray. Meanwhile, you can begin your next operation.
- sliekasbekelniu 12y ago
  I think what he means is that transfers wouldn't be concurrent but sequential - quable. For example - you start transfer from A to B (in KDE and Dolphin it goes to background), then you would like to do a transfer from C to B - in reality they would be transferred simultaneously, but what the author above wants is queue - that transfer from C to B would start automatically AFTER A to B finishes. At least I'd like this feature..
  - otakucode 12y ago
    Yes, that is precisely what I mean. I should have been clearer. Ideally if a copy operation involved busy devices that would be the only time they would queue, but I would settle for a background processing queue that prevented long-running operations from running concurrently. I've never seen anything smart enough to base 'concurrent or not' off of what device a piece of the filesystem is on though, so I'll give that a pass. I'd also really like a file manager that had a little daemon (or interacted with an rsync daemon or such already running) on boxes over the network so when I say 'copy from network share A to share B' the data never has to transit my desktop but goes directly from A to B. I think about file manager a lot. I have a long wishlist...

sigmaml 12y ago

> I shouldn't have to sit around and wait for a 40GB copy to move from one network location to another before I can start another bit of data movement. KDE and Dolphin send the transfer into the background immediately. You can track the progress in the system tray. Meanwhile, you can begin your next operation.

sliekasbekelniu 12y ago
I think what he means is that transfers wouldn't be concurrent but sequential - quable. For example - you start transfer from A to B (in KDE and Dolphin it goes to background), then you would like to do a transfer from C to B - in reality they would be transferred simultaneously, but what the author above wants is queue - that transfer from C to B would start automatically AFTER A to B finishes. At least I'd like this feature..
- otakucode 12y ago
  Yes, that is precisely what I mean. I should have been clearer. Ideally if a copy operation involved busy devices that would be the only time they would queue, but I would settle for a background processing queue that prevented long-running operations from running concurrently. I've never seen anything smart enough to base 'concurrent or not' off of what device a piece of the filesystem is on though, so I'll give that a pass. I'd also really like a file manager that had a little daemon (or interacted with an rsync daemon or such already running) on boxes over the network so when I say 'copy from network share A to share B' the data never has to transit my desktop but goes directly from A to B. I think about file manager a lot. I have a long wishlist...