I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just that it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just that it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
Because if you are upgrading it without an active network, it may effect the installer from completing successfully. If you are installing fresh, mc is one of your primary tols for setting up your files initially or dealing with files in general. nano has a problem for me with wrapping text on long line entries, mcedit on the other hand is not prone to the nano flaw.
No big deal, it just lacks rationality.
Jim
Jim Cornette wrote:
nano has a problem for me with wrapping text on long line entries, mcedit on the other hand is not prone to the nano flaw.
That's not a flaw, it's a feature. If you don't want it to wrap, then the manpage reads:
-w (--nowrap) Disable wrapping of long lines.
You -DID- read the manpage, right?
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Jim Cornette wrote:
nano has a problem for me with wrapping text on long line entries, mcedit on the other hand is not prone to the nano flaw.
That's not a flaw, it's a feature. If you don't want it to wrap, then the manpage reads:
-w (--nowrap) Disable wrapping of long lines.You -DID- read the manpage, right?
No, I did not read the man pages for the program. If breaking a line for a config file is the default, I would rather have mc available. The program is broken if it does not work in a sane manner with initial setup. I doubt seriously that I would use nano to write documents where the next line break would be advantageous.
Who reads directions until all other attempts fail? :-)
Thanks for the note regarding nano having man pages. I would not have guessed a b/w editor with no function keys for functions would have a man page on assumption.
Jim
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just that it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
no, I didn't see it anywhere in the list of packages, and its not on the ISO. I think either someone forgot to include it or, they're ready to save space and drop it from the distro.
On 03/07/07, Justin Zygmont jzygmont@solarflow.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just that it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
no, I didn't see it anywhere in the list of packages, and its not on the ISO. I think either someone forgot to include it or, they're ready to save space and drop it from the distro.
It's irrelevant to the primary target group of the current install images. As long as it is still included in the online "Everything" repository, it has not been "removed".
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On 03/07/07, Justin Zygmont jzygmont@solarflow.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would
want
to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just
that
it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
no, I didn't see it anywhere in the list of packages, and its not on the ISO. I think either someone forgot to include it or, they're ready to save space and drop it from the distro.
It's irrelevant to the primary target group of the current install images. As long as it is still included in the online "Everything" repository, it has not been "removed".
if its not in the ISO, its been removed. Soon it may be removed completely.
Justin Zygmont wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It's irrelevant to the primary target group of the current install images. As long as it is still included in the online "Everything" repository, it has not been "removed".
if its not in the ISO, its been removed. Soon it may be removed completely.
No, that's not correct Justin. The ISO[1] is a subset of the packages available in Fedora. The Gnome desktop isn't included in the KDE Spin, yet that doesn't mean it's soon to be removed. Similarly for KDE in the Fedora Spin.
I have no idea whether someone will continue to maintain mc or not, but that is an entirely sepearate matter from whether or not it's included on any of the disc images that Fedora releases.
[1] I assume you refer to the Fedora Spin, which is one of several created from the larger Fedora Collection.
On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Justin Zygmont wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On 03/07/07, Justin Zygmont jzygmont@solarflow.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would
want
to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just
that
it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
no, I didn't see it anywhere in the list of packages, and its not on the ISO. I think either someone forgot to include it or, they're ready to save space and drop it from the distro.
It's irrelevant to the primary target group of the current install images. As long as it is still included in the online "Everything" repository, it has not been "removed".
if its not in the ISO, its been removed. Soon it may be removed completely.
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:46:18 -0400, Gene Heskett scripst:
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
I would personally strongly against removing mc ever (krusader, gnome- commander etc. suck when used through ssh), but I would be very much interested in knowing what 90% (repeat 90%!!!) of mc functionality is not covered by krusader. Would you englighten me, please?
Matěj
Matej Cepl wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:46:18 -0400, Gene Heskett scripst:
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
I would personally strongly against removing mc ever (krusader, gnome- commander etc. suck when used through ssh), but I would be very much interested in knowing what 90% (repeat 90%!!!) of mc functionality is not covered by krusader. Would you englighten me, please?
What kind of operations are you trying to do? There are a lot of options, including using freenx and the free NX client to get good GUI performance through a remote ssh connection. Or, use the command line tools that cover 100% of file management functionality and are faster/easier if you use some conventions when creating files and use names that will match wildcards or put things under directories that can be manipulated in one step.
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:36:34 -0500, Les Mikesell scripst:
What kind of operations are you trying to do? There are a lot of options, including using freenx and the free NX client to get good GUI performance through a remote ssh connection. Or, use the command line
No thank you -- ssh just works and I don't have to fiddle with another complex stuff. Moreover, I have limited bandwidth, so graphic applications are out for me.
tools that cover 100% of file management functionality and are faster/easier if you use some conventions when creating files and use names that will match wildcards or put things under directories that can be manipulated in one step.
OK, just if understand correctly -- instead of mc which I like and use, you are suggesting either to use Krusader (I don't have KDE installed anymore, but that's another matter -- gnome-commander would fit as well) or {cp,mv,rm,etc.}? What so terrible and horrible about mc that you are not willing to accept that as an option?
Matěj
Matej Cepl wrote:
What kind of operations are you trying to do? There are a lot of options, including using freenx and the free NX client to get good GUI performance through a remote ssh connection. Or, use the command line
No thank you -- ssh just works and I don't have to fiddle with another complex stuff. Moreover, I have limited bandwidth, so graphic applications are out for me.
Freenx/NX work surprisingly well over low bandwidth connections - and you have the option to suspend your desktop session when you disconnect so long-running operations can continue and you don't have to wait to open frequently-used applications, you can just leave them running. Try it before deciding that it won't be usable on your connection.
tools that cover 100% of file management functionality and are faster/easier if you use some conventions when creating files and use names that will match wildcards or put things under directories that can be manipulated in one step.
OK, just if understand correctly -- instead of mc which I like and use, you are suggesting either to use Krusader (I don't have KDE installed anymore, but that's another matter -- gnome-commander would fit as well) or {cp,mv,rm,etc.}? What so terrible and horrible about mc that you are not willing to accept that as an option?
I didn't say I wasn't willing to accept it as an option - I asked what operations you were doing. Generally I'd use cp/mv/rm myself - or maybe rsync for copying, but prefer a GUI desktop with several windows visible at the same time. I just don't like the user interface of mc very much and haven't had any problem without it.
On Wednesday 04 July 2007, Matej Cepl wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:46:18 -0400, Gene Heskett scripst:
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
I would personally strongly against removing mc ever (krusader, gnome- commander etc. suck when used through ssh), but I would be very much interested in knowing what 90% (repeat 90%!!!) of mc functionality is not covered by krusader. Would you englighten me, please?
Matěj
For starters, it *(Krusader) doesn't unpack or install/update package files, in my case rpms. It doesn't view a graphic file nearly as fast or well. There were a lot of things that mc does just by hitting the enter key, but Krusader seems to just ignore.
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:32:26 -0400, Gene Heskett scripst:
For starters, it *(Krusader) doesn't unpack or install/update package files, in my case rpms. It doesn't view a graphic file nearly as fast or well. There were a lot of things that mc does just by hitting the enter key, but Krusader seems to just ignore.
That's matter of preference (I guess fixing MIME associations to suite your needs would help), but what I was most concerned was an obvious distortion of your proportionis -- is opening RPMs 90% of mc functionality for you?
Matěj
On Wednesday 04 July 2007, Matej Cepl wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:32:26 -0400, Gene Heskett scripst:
For starters, it *(Krusader) doesn't unpack or install/update package files, in my case rpms. It doesn't view a graphic file nearly as fast or well. There were a lot of things that mc does just by hitting the enter key, but Krusader seems to just ignore.
That's matter of preference (I guess fixing MIME associations to suite your needs would help), but what I was most concerned was an obvious distortion of your proportionis -- is opening RPMs 90% of mc functionality for you?
Matěj
If I mung a file trying to get something to work, the ability to open the rpm it came from and simply copy the original file over the broken one is worth more than all of Krusaders pretty but helpless face.
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 09:46 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
Hmm, it's so 1980s... I find it awful, even worse than the GUI file browsers I've seen on Linux. Yes, browsers, not managers. I've yet to see one that has the features needed to earn that title.
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
Tim wrote:
Hmm, it's so 1980s... I find it awful, even worse than the GUI file browsers I've seen on Linux. Yes, browsers, not managers. I've yet to see one that has the features needed to earn that title.
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
You're all on crack. The coreutils package provides proper tools for file management (ls, cp, mv, rm, chmod, etc). ;)
On 04/07/07, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
Tim wrote:
Hmm, it's so 1980s... I find it awful, even worse than the GUI file browsers I've seen on Linux. Yes, browsers, not managers. I've yet to see one that has the features needed to earn that title.
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
You're all on crack. The coreutils package provides proper tools for file management (ls, cp, mv, rm, chmod, etc). ;)
And bash to tie it all together of course.
Ian Malone wrote:
And bash to tie it all together of course.
Well yeah, that's what I use. But there are some decent people here that use zsh as well and I didn't want to offend them. I try to be tactful you know. ;-)
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 11:26 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
You're all on crack. The coreutils package provides proper tools for file management (ls, cp, mv, rm, chmod, etc). ;)
LOL... But that makes you do all the work, *it's* the bloody computer.
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 11:26 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
You're all on crack. The coreutils package provides proper tools for file management (ls, cp, mv, rm, chmod, etc). ;)
LOL... But that makes you do all the work, *it's* the bloody computer.
How much work is it to type a 2 character command?
Les Mikesell wrote:
How much work is it to type a 2 character command?
I had a friend that aliased ls to l because he was lazy. :)
(In fairness, he added various options to ls.)
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:38:51 -0500, Les Mikesell scripst:
How much work is it to type a 2 character command?
You have apparently never saw somebody who is proficient in OFM do their work -- educate yourself on http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml
Matěj
Tim:
LOL... But that makes you do all the work, *it's* the bloody computer.
Les Mikesell:
How much work is it to type a 2 character command?
But that's not it, is it? It's far more than typing in a command. Typing ls, or mv, doesn't get me anywhere. I have to cd to where the files are, probably do mkdir a few times with a cd or two thrown in. I've got to come up with a sane wildcard to move a collection of files, or individually list a slew of files with no commonalities between them, type in paths to move them too, ad infinitum.
Anybody who suggests that using the command line is far less work than using a GUI has never used a decent GUI-based file manager. A GUI tool is about the only way to easily move arbitrary files about. The fact that Linux has crap GUI file tools, in general, doesn't make the CLI superior in itself.
Tim wrote:
How much work is it to type a 2 character command?
But that's not it, is it? It's far more than typing in a command. Typing ls, or mv, doesn't get me anywhere. I have to cd to where the files are, probably do mkdir a few times with a cd or two thrown in. I've got to come up with a sane wildcard to move a collection of files, or individually list a slew of files with no commonalities between them, type in paths to move them too, ad infinitum.
But, but, but... Having a slew of files with no commonalities doesn't just happen by itself. Complaining about that is like throwing all your papers on the floor together and then wondering why they are hard to organize. If you name files sanely or group them in directories related to how you want to manipulate them, a simple command and wildcard will likely do what you want with them in one quick operation.
Anybody who suggests that using the command line is far less work than using a GUI has never used a decent GUI-based file manager.
Or they use naming conventions and more than one directory.
A GUI tool is about the only way to easily move arbitrary files about.
Yes, if you have to clean up an existing mess, pointing and clicking on each file individually may be the best you can do. If you have a lot of files, that's still going to be slow and painful. Maybe you don't actually have a large number of files.
The fact that Linux has crap GUI file tools, in general, doesn't make the CLI superior in itself.
What's the problem with opening several nautilus windows, control-clicking a bunch of files in one window and dragging to one of the others? Unless you have thousands of files, of course. On my desktop box: find / | wc -l 3202471 so I'm not that interested in clicking on all of them or even trying to read the names in a GUI tool.
Tim:
But that's not it, is it? It's far more than typing in a command. Typing ls, or mv, doesn't get me anywhere. I have to cd to where the files are, probably do mkdir a few times with a cd or two thrown in. I've got to come up with a sane wildcard to move a collection of files, or individually list a slew of files with no commonalities between them, type in paths to move them too, ad infinitum.
Les Mikesell:
But, but, but... Having a slew of files with no commonalities doesn't just happen by itself.
Ooooh yes it does (panto voice)... You don't get a say in the naming of some things, not every file is one that you've created yourself. Even when you do have control, you may not want to similarly name two (or more) files that *may* get used together in something else.
The fact that Linux has crap GUI file tools, in general, doesn't make the CLI superior in itself.
What's the problem with opening several nautilus windows, control-clicking a bunch of files in one window and dragging to one of the others?
It has little more than browsing features (drag and drop, copy and paste). If you want to actually manage things, you've got to add in features all over the place, and put up with the awful un-user-friendly right-click menu/properties technique, or resort to using another program, as well. Nautilus is not quick, nor does it make it easy to do many file managing tasks (rename, chmod, chown, pattern select, etc.).
Tim wrote:
But that's not it, is it? It's far more than typing in a command. Typing ls, or mv, doesn't get me anywhere. I have to cd to where the files are, probably do mkdir a few times with a cd or two thrown in. I've got to come up with a sane wildcard to move a collection of files, or individually list a slew of files with no commonalities between them, type in paths to move them too, ad infinitum.
Les Mikesell:
But, but, but... Having a slew of files with no commonalities doesn't just happen by itself.
Ooooh yes it does (panto voice)... You don't get a say in the naming of some things, not every file is one that you've created yourself. Even when you do have control, you may not want to similarly name two (or more) files that *may* get used together in something else.
I can't think of anything on my computer other than the OS distribution where I did not have the choice of the directory where it was stored, but in those cases you probably also can't decide by seeing the name in a GUI view what the files do have in common or why you'd pick some of them for a certain operation. You'd probably need to let grep or find generate a list for you based on something in the files contents or attributes. And then xargs will run a command on each one in the list for you.
The fact that Linux has crap GUI file tools, in general, doesn't make the CLI superior in itself.
What's the problem with opening several nautilus windows, control-clicking a bunch of files in one window and dragging to one of the others?
It has little more than browsing features (drag and drop, copy and paste). If you want to actually manage things, you've got to add in features all over the place, and put up with the awful un-user-friendly right-click menu/properties technique, or resort to using another program, as well. Nautilus is not quick, nor does it make it easy to do many file managing tasks (rename, chmod, chown, pattern select, etc.).
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions." --Doug Gwyn (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards) This has not changed - and probably can't.
Les Mikesell:
But, but, but... Having a slew of files with no commonalities doesn't just happen by itself.
Tim:
Ooooh yes it does (panto voice)... You don't get a say in the naming of some things, not every file is one that you've created yourself. Even when you do have control, you may not want to similarly name two (or more) files that *may* get used together in something else.
Forgot the obvious to this sort of thing: You'd be using a file manager to try and bring chaos back into something easier to deal with.
Les Mikesell:
I can't think of anything on my computer other than the OS distribution where I did not have the choice of the directory where it was stored, but in those cases you probably also can't decide by seeing the name in a GUI view what the files do have in common or why you'd pick some of them for a certain operation. You'd probably need to let grep or find generate a list for you based on something in the files contents or attributes. And then xargs will run a command on each one in the list for you.
And doing all that paraphanalia is easier than opening a directory or three in a file manager and looking at what's there?
Plugging two or three drives into a system, that have been ripped out of others, to get bits and pieces from all over them onto a new system is a right pain in the bum to do through the command line. But very easy to do graphically.
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions." --Doug Gwyn (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards) This has not changed - and probably can't.
Have you tried DOpus 5 (or later) on a Windows environment? If you have the opportunity, do so. Then you'll see what can be done with a decent GUI file manager.
Tim wrote:
I can't think of anything on my computer other than the OS distribution where I did not have the choice of the directory where it was stored, but in those cases you probably also can't decide by seeing the name in a GUI view what the files do have in common or why you'd pick some of them for a certain operation. You'd probably need to let grep or find generate a list for you based on something in the files contents or attributes. And then xargs will run a command on each one in the list for you.
And doing all that paraphanalia is easier than opening a directory or three in a file manager and looking at what's there?
Yes, at least on my machine - typing a couple of commands is easier than visually scanning 3 million filenames and clicking/dragging a substantial subset of them. Plus, the operations I want may involve rsync'ing to or from remote machines that a GUI would know nothing about. Whether a command/tool approach is easier will depend on how well the tool handles the job you want, though. If the task was to locate all pictures of Joe Smith, a GUI/visual approach is probably going to be your only option. If you want to find all files that contain the text "Joe Smith", grep will do it a lot faster than I can. If you want to find something based on file names, timestamps or other attributes, find will get the list quickly and can either execute
Plugging two or three drives into a system, that have been ripped out of others, to get bits and pieces from all over them onto a new system is a right pain in the bum to do through the command line. But very easy to do graphically.
Maybe, for some small number of files that have somewhat sensible names or iconic representations in your GUI viewer. If you are doing this a lot I'd recommend a network share to organize things you want to keep before the machines are disassembled and a central backup system to fall back on.
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions." --Doug Gwyn (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards) This has not changed - and probably can't.
Have you tried DOpus 5 (or later) on a Windows environment? If you have the opportunity, do so. Then you'll see what can be done with a decent GUI file manager.
No, but I'll look at it. GUIs do only what the author(s) anticipate you might want to do though, where the tool/command approach lets you combine operations that you want whether their authors anticipated it or not. If the GUI doesn't provide an easier way to rsync groups of files or directories across remote machines, it won't be better for me than commands.
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 12:58 +0930, Tim wrote:
Tim:
LOL... But that makes you do all the work, *it's* the bloody computer.
Les Mikesell:
How much work is it to type a 2 character command?
But that's not it, is it? It's far more than typing in a command. Typing ls, or mv, doesn't get me anywhere. I have to cd to where the files are, probably do mkdir a few times with a cd or two thrown in. I've got to come up with a sane wildcard to move a collection of files, or individually list a slew of files with no commonalities between them, type in paths to move them too, ad infinitum.
Anybody who suggests that using the command line is far less work than using a GUI has never used a decent GUI-based file manager. A GUI tool is about the only way to easily move arbitrary files about. The fact that Linux has crap GUI file tools, in general, doesn't make the CLI superior in itself.
--
Actually GUI's exist because programmers hated writing the code necessary for command line commands to be properly recognized, have decent error messages and other support tasks. By handcuffing the interface to a "GUI" they limit input, restrict user options and only offer the user what they think is required. That is why Microsoft loved it. I still back out to the command line for bulk tasks, because I can write a script and have a whole sequence of things done in a single command. And where it is something done frequently I can work for a few minutes to create a script that will do it all automatically and even do it as a timed or periodic job if I choose. It is not that you cannot do this with a GUI, but that GUI's generally don't give you too many options, thus make it difficult to occasionally get the exact options in play that you wanted. Also the GUI itself is slow, and therefore for large tasks means that the horsepower you paid for is doing cute things with screen displays rather than doing the work you need done. However I do use a GUI for email (it is a simple, well understood task and has been pretty well thought out, and the gui works OK for that type of very repetitive task where everyone needs the same subset of the computer's power. I also like GUI development platforms if I am doing developement for a computer task for non computer literate folks. Given my druthers, though I would give them a button that invokes a script. And I am not alone in that. TCL and TK came out of that desire by other programmers.
Most system Admin types I know use CLI because it prevents some holes that could potentially give others access to the systems. If you run a GUI as root, you are opening lots of paths into the system, even on UNIX and Linux. As a Windows user, at least up to XP, you were probably at root access level, so running the GUI opened the system in lots of ways. This is one of the reasons that there are so many Virus and Worm attacks on Windows systems. It is easier in that form of environment.
Regards, Les H
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 11:26 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
You're all on crack. The coreutils package provides proper tools for file management (ls, cp, mv, rm, chmod, etc). ;)
LOL... But that makes you do all the work, *it's* the bloody computer.
In all seriousness, I am convinced that I spend less time using ls, mv, etc for file management than I would if I used a GUI file manager. Tab completion and other shell goodies help a lot with that.
It's a rare occasion that I open something like Nautilus. The trade off, of course, was the time I spent learning the commands. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. :)
I do know what you're saying about making the computer do the work. I try real hard to recognize if I'm doing something boring and repetitive and remind myself that is what computers were meant to solve, not create. Usuaully, I'm laughing at friends and family for letting their computers abuse them like that.
Todd Zullinger wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 11:26 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
You're all on crack. The coreutils package provides proper tools for file management (ls, cp, mv, rm, chmod, etc). ;)
LOL... But that makes you do all the work, *it's* the bloody computer.
In all seriousness, I am convinced that I spend less time using ls, mv, etc for file management than I would if I used a GUI file manager. Tab completion and other shell goodies help a lot with that.
It's a rare occasion that I open something like Nautilus. The trade off, of course, was the time I spent learning the commands. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. :)
I do know what you're saying about making the computer do the work. I try real hard to recognize if I'm doing something boring and repetitive and remind myself that is what computers were meant to solve, not create. Usuaully, I'm laughing at friends and family for letting their computers abuse them like that.
Whenever you do something repetitive with command line tools, you can avoid it by putting the commands in a file and executing it as a script. It is easy to make the script take parts that change in the commands as options or prompt for them, then substitute into the correct places in the executed commands. With GUI tools it is a lot harder to avoid repeated mouse or cursor motion operations that take your full attention.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Todd Zullinger wrote:
In all seriousness, I am convinced that I spend less time using ls, mv, etc for file management than I would if I used a GUI file manager. Tab completion and other shell goodies help a lot with that.
It's a rare occasion that I open something like Nautilus. The trade off, of course, was the time I spent learning the commands. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. :)
I do know what you're saying about making the computer do the work. I try real hard to recognize if I'm doing something boring and repetitive and remind myself that is what computers were meant to solve, not create. Usuaully, I'm laughing at friends and family for letting their computers abuse them like that.
Whenever you do something repetitive with command line tools, you can avoid it by putting the commands in a file and executing it as a script. It is easy to make the script take parts that change in the commands as options or prompt for them, then substitute into the correct places in the executed commands. With GUI tools it is a lot harder to avoid repeated mouse or cursor motion operations that take your full attention.
I am not sure mc should be classed as a GUI. It is more of a mouse-aware CLI tool. You can use all of the functions without using a mouse. If you want to take the time, you can also create your own actions for a file type. (One action when you hit enter, another when you select view or edit.) The default actions are fairly nice.
You can also have your own menu of scripts/commands that is brought up with the F2 key. You can have both a default (home) menu, and a directory specific (local) menu. You also have the option of typing in commands, complete with command completion (Esc-Tab) as well as being able to insert the highlighted file, current directory, or other tab directory into the command line.
There are many more options - more then most people probably need. Things like being able to open one tab on a remote file system, virtual file systems that let you brows an .iso image, a .tar archive, or even access the file system on a Windows CE device. (But you can not run CLI commands on a remote file system.) Basic functions do not have much of a learning curve, but to mace full uses of the program is another story...
Mikkel
On Wednesday 04 July 2007, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 09:46 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
Hmm, it's so 1980s... I find it awful, even worse than the GUI file browsers I've seen on Linux. Yes, browsers, not managers. I've yet to see one that has the features needed to earn that title.
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
So was Dirwork2. So far, none of the filemanagers we have for linux is anywhere near as versatile as either of those two were in 1992.
Tim:
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
Gene Heskett:
So was Dirwork2. So far, none of the filemanagers we have for linux is anywhere near as versatile as either of those two were in 1992.
I dunno Dirwork2, and didn't get very far trying to quickly find out what it was. But for anyone else reading this, and not being familiar with Dopus 5, it was NOT a two-pane file program.
It's a *bit* similar to having the nautilus browser open several times (i.e. you can have several source and destinations), but you have the full array of file managing functions to play with regex or wildcard pattern selection for showing, hiding, selecting, files, the usual, move, copy, rename, open, delete, functions, custom functions, etc.
It made it blindingly simple, and fast, to move around a lot of files, any way that you wanted to.
What MC had against it was: Slow and tedious to use. Convoluted keyboard navigation, barely working mouse features. Convoluted configuration. Scrolling anything in a text-only environment is nasty. Even the Gnomified version of MC was hideous. And, the two-pane approach is a right pain in the bum if you're doing anything other than just working with two directories.
On Wednesday 04 July 2007, Tim wrote:
Tim:
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
Gene Heskett:
So was Dirwork2. So far, none of the filemanagers we have for linux is anywhere near as versatile as either of those two were in 1992.
I dunno Dirwork2, and didn't get very far trying to quickly find out what it was. But for anyone else reading this, and not being familiar with Dopus 5, it was NOT a two-pane file program.
It's a *bit* similar to having the nautilus browser open several times (i.e. you can have several source and destinations), but you have the full array of file managing functions to play with regex or wildcard pattern selection for showing, hiding, selecting, files, the usual, move, copy, rename, open, delete, functions, custom functions, etc.
It made it blindingly simple, and fast, to move around a lot of files, any way that you wanted to.
What MC had against it was: Slow and tedious to use. Convoluted keyboard navigation, barely working mouse features. Convoluted configuration. Scrolling anything in a text-only environment is nasty. Even the Gnomified version of MC was hideous. And, the two-pane approach is a right pain in the bum if you're doing anything other than just working with two directories.
Warning rant:
Yeah, but it sure beats the hell out of trying to convince Konqy or any of the other one pane view tools to do what you want when you click on a subdir, and it insists on cd'ing the whole system to that tree. And before somebody yells that konqy can be made into a two pane tool, somebody should tell me howto save it so it always runs in that mode. I've not been able to effect that here as it always opens in web browser mode.
If you authors of this stuff want to call it a file MANAGER, then give us the tools to do it with, complete with to-from views at the same time. Otherwise come up with a new buzzword of the week to name it but don't call it a MANAGER. Yeah, I'm upset, Krusader I thought had some promise, till I found it takes 4 or 5 clicks to move one file, and hitting the enter key with a filename highlighted was a no op 99% of the time.
If whomever is doing Krusader wants so badly to see mc go away, then first explore mc and find out what it can do, then make Krusader do it as well and with fewer clicks or keystrokes. I suspect the pulldowns will also get ugly, but that is the price of versatility. Better yet by a heck of a long row of apple trees, get the mc src's and put some of Krusaders gui on top of it. Oh, and don't forget that all that stuff should take a silent exit stage left if it finds itself running in a ttyN environment where only ncurses can be used.
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 09:46 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
I call bs on that! For all the other fawncy file managers they've tried to paint a decent face on over the last 5 years, not one of them can even begin to compare with mc. Sure, the current Krusader is pretty, but it can't do 90% of what mc can. When it can, then talk about dropping mc, and not a millisecond before.
Hmm, it's so 1980s... I find it awful, even worse than the GUI file browsers I've seen on Linux. Yes, browsers, not managers. I've yet to see one that has the features needed to earn that title.
If only there was a DOpus 5 for Linux. That's a file manager.
It is a shell as well as a means to ftp files, change file permissions and more. Also you do not need a GUI to have a method for visual file manipulation and launching files with the appropriate application when you click on it. Being so 1980s does not say that it is no longer functional. Now nano might be from prehistoric times. :-)
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 03:51 -0700, Justin Zygmont wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just that it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
no, I didn't see it anywhere in the list of packages, and its not on the ISO. I think either someone forgot to include it or, they're ready to save space and drop it from the distro.
On my F7 machine I ran yum install mc
Not only did I get an mc: mc-4.6.1a-45.20070124cvs.fc7 installed it updated a version of mc already on the machine.
It came from RedHat. -- ======================================================================= Anything that is worth doing has been done frequently. Things hitherto undone should be given, I suspect, a wide berth. -- Max Beerbohm, "Mainly on the Air" ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 03:51 -0700, Justin Zygmont wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Justin Zygmont wrote:
I was surprised to see that the midnight commander was not included in FC7. I can install it through yum, but I don't know why anyone would want to remove a useful tool like that.
If you can install it via yum then it hasn't been removed. It is just that it wasn't initially installed. What is the big deal?
no, I didn't see it anywhere in the list of packages, and its not on the ISO. I think either someone forgot to include it or, they're ready to save space and drop it from the distro.
On my F7 machine I ran yum install mc
Not only did I get an mc: mc-4.6.1a-45.20070124cvs.fc7 installed it updated a version of mc already on the machine.
It came from RedHat.
how is that possible, its not even in the ISO.
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Justin Zygmont scripst:
On my F7 machine I ran yum install mc
how is that possible, its not even in the ISO.
As somebody said before -- there is only subset of packages in the Fedora repository on ISO. After all DVD has only couple of gigs of space -- Fedora repository is already bigger ;-).
Matěj
-
Aaron Konstam -
Ashley M. Kirchner -
Ed Greshko -
Gene Heskett -
Howard Howell -
Ian Malone -
Jim Cornette -
Justin Zygmont -
Les Mikesell -
Matej Cepl -
Michael Schwendt -
Mikkel -
Tim -
Todd Zullinger