Talk:Comparison of file managers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Add column for the "synchronize" feature

Total Commander has a "synchronize" feature that is a very powerful tool for comparing (bit by bit or just by file attributes) the files in two directories (or drives). It shows what is unique to either and can automatically copy files (to synchronize the directories) in either direction or in both directions. The "Synchronize" feature should be added as a column so we can see what other file managers have this powerful feature. Since TC only runs on Windows, it would be nice to find an Linux/OSS alternative. 75.45.177.91 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Davem at Mich Dot Com

[edit] Add to list

This is the default XFCE filebrowser in linux and should be added to the list by someone who's experienced with it

I'm working on it. --I80and 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Xfm" the default file manager of Xandros Linux seems to be missing too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros_file_manager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfm_%28file_manager%29

[edit] Nautilus

about nautilus: does it support more operating systems? are helper programs considered part of the file system? What about the 'medusa' file searching project that was origionally part of nautilus?


[edit] Rather meaningless?

Unless you are using platform like Linux, users are most likely stick with the one provided by the OS, right? File manager, unless web browser, is much a fundamental OS feature... Its feature set is limited by factors like file systems. --minghong 09:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only if you use Windows, but then again, if you use Windows, you don't really have many choices since Explorer is the only file manager available for that platform. While I think most Mac users would use Finder, Linux, BSD and Unix users have quite a few choices, so it's not meaningless. Explorer and Finder should be included just for the sake of comparison, even if they're proprietary and come boxed with a particular OS. Also, with how the EU forced MicrosoftWhat will i work with? to release a version of Windows without Windows Media Player, it is possible (albeit unlikely) that Windows will in the future be the host of other file managers, as it is now the host of other media players. Tavris 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
What about orthodox file managers (see OFM) such as Total Commander? Personally I use Total Commander all the time on my Windows box, and will add the program to this article once I find the time for it.

Yes, most users of any platform just stick with the defaults. But that is sad and bad! Other file managers have many potential advantages to offer. Read about OFMs to find out more.69.87.200.120 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think platform has anything to do with use of alternate file managers. If you have a quick google session, I think you'll be amazed by the number of alternate filemanagers (both pay, and free) which are available for Windows and even OS X. This is deffinitely a useful article, although I have to think it would be more useful if it were broken up by OS with special mention given to cross-platform file managers. Most users are going to be looking for a comparison of file managers for their particular platform. --Jaykul 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manager Views

Windows Explorer is listed as a "no column view" right now, but I'm unsure what that layout mode even means. Windows Explorer definitely natively supports a column view of the kind of the output of *nix 'ls' or MS-DOS 'dir' commands anyway, and it also supports columns of icons, if that's what's spoken of. -- Jugalator 08:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain "list view", "column view" and "groups"? -- Peter 13:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
List view is all of the files displayed in some sort of list. Column view is when different columns are different directories, meaning The first column could be Documents the second School Documents, the third 2004 School Documents etc... Groups are when instead of files just being a list there are groupings. That is, you can group files by kind or size. --Ctachme 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Basic features

I dont know about the Gnome or KDE file managers, but compression on Finderis not handled by the file manager, slideshow and printing pictures are not handled by Finder or Explorer, but by external applications. Compressed folders in Explorer are really not part of explorer but an add-in DLL microsoft provides.

Nautilus and Konqueror most likely just use another tool, too. So the category should be fine. ¦ Reisio 00:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] OFM managers are not file managers???

This item should be either renamed “Windows Explorer-like file managers” or substantially expanded. Mostly I am concerned with missing OFM file managers--Total Commander, Norton Commander, Midnight Commander, Krusader, there is one for GNOME as well). I have no idea whether there is anything like that for Apple Mac OS X.

This item should be ... substantially expanded.
...then get to work. ¦ Reisio 21:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

We should get something straight! Konqueror is NOT a twin panel file manager, nor is a multipanel file manager, since all managers have at least two panels, one tree view and one file view. Twin panel file managers have OBLIGATORY connected file panels usually left-right or top-bottom. Konqueror, Explorer, Nautilus and similar are not OFM's, but TC, Krusader, Tux Commander... are! There are a lot of links clearing this issue! Search the web.

You seem very passionate about this, but the fact is that you can use konqueror as a twin panel OFM file manager. See below.

Not passionate, just dont like mixing the two brands. :) Please take a look at: blogspot under "What's an asymmetric single panel file manager?". I see it very important, that the twin panel and single panel get separated in comparisons and polls. Ideology behind them is totally opposing and each serves their own users and also functionality.

[edit] Total Commander

Well, I think that in this comparision someone has ignored well known Total Commander file manager. It could be inserted into this comparision. Hołek ҉ 17:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

...um, read the section immediately above this one. ¦ Reisio 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] ADS Streams

Could we add a comparison to indicate which file managers are capable of manipulating ADS Streams (for security reasons)?

—gorgan_almighty 14:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead. ¦ Reisio 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL I would. I know Windows Explorer can't but I'm not sure about the others. It doesn't really apply to Linux file managers. —gorgan_almighty 15:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually Windows Explorer has limited stream handling capability. This does not extend to actually manipulate arbitrary streams but meta info like author, keywords, etc. are stored in streams so that I wouldn't say that Explorer does not have any stream handling at all. Joey-das-WBF 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Forbidden Characters

Isn't that actually a feature/flaw of the underlying file system and/or shell? As far as I know at least for Windows Explorer this restriction is not inherent to the Explorer itself but rather to the entire Win32 API (if not even the Native API) Joey-das-WBF 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup

I removed Forbidden Characters, Slideshows and Print Pictures. The first one seems to me to be a Shell characteristic, the other two seem to me to be always performed by external applications.


[edit] Addition

Could someone add in Dired? I'm not familiar with this whole table system. --maru (talk) contribs 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Start by adding such to the "List of file managers" article -- that is easy! Then maybe someday someone will feel like doing all the work to add it to the Comparison article. (It is not just the format that is the problem -- it is a great deal of work to track down all the information to fill out the tables.) 69.87.204.177 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations

Many of the tables here could really benefit from some explanation of terms. Some specific examples:

  • File Features
    1. What does "File preview" mean?
    2. Isn't "rename busy files" a property of the filesystem?
    3. Does "file compression" refer to the ability to browse inside archives, or to transparent filesystem-level compression (NTFS, etc.)? (If it is the former, then the whole column is redundant, since there's a "browse compressed folders" column in the next table.)
  • Search Features
    1. What is the difference between "basic" and "all" metadata search?
Suggestion: Set all cells in both colums to ? and define both columns exactly. Then, see which fm is meeting the newly added defintion. Proposed def: "basic metadata" all file metadata, like attributes supported by the file system (hidde, directory, compressed, system,...), upper and lower bound for file size, upper and lower bound for modification date etc. "additional metadata" are file format specific metadata, like PDF/Word/... author/title/keywords/... or MP3 ID3 tags. Whether they are supported by the OS/file system/daemons/services (like desktop search engines) or by the fm itself does not matter, only that one can find information stored in this metadata. Thoughts?
  • Extensibility
    1. "File preview" again

Equalpants 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


"Paste clipboard as file": What does this mean? Having 20 files in clipboard and pasting them? I guess all support this. Or having some file content (eg some piece of picture or text) and then creating a file and directly pasting the cclipboard content into that file?


  • Browse Features
    1. Directory Sizes means showing the sizes of multiple directories/folders/subdirectories. Either selected items, or all of them. Ideally, this would be a mode that could be turned on and off. This is one of the biggest lacks of Windows Explorer. NDN and Total Commander offer this feature, but not well, not as a mode that can be turned on. 69.87.193.54 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

Certain fields are uncommon among other file managers and some of them are not defined:

(Manager views) Details + Thumbs; (File features) File coloring filter, File selection filter, File and folder reports, ACL; (Browse Features) Branch Sizes; (Search features) Boolean (nesting levels), Fuzzy logic

They serve nothing but to make one or two file managers stand out. They should be removed, or at least only append as notes.

+1. And even worse: I have absolutely no idea what "File coloring filter [7]" and "File and folder reports [7]" shall do/mean. At [7] there is no hint. IMHO delete this stuff.
"report" in XYplorer just means configurable file lists. In Servant Salamander, this is called "make file list" (CTRL+M). Any other hints?

[edit] Network protocols

At least in the case of the Finder, all the file systems listed as being supported by the Finder are really supported at the Darwin layer and the "mount by URL" mechanism - the Finder, to a large degree, doesn't know it's dealing with an NFS or SMB or WebDAV or FTP or AFP file system. The Windows Explorer works the same way for SMB and, if you have an NFS client installed, NFS.

Konqueror might do that with userland kioslaves (although, given that Linux and FreeBSD both have NFS and SMB client support at the kernel's VFS layer, one would hope they could browse mounted NFS and SMB servers transparently), and Nautilus might use userland GNOME VFS for that; I can't speak for the other file managers. Guy Harris 06:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konqueror OFM

Konqueror does support dual panel mode (OFM) mode, and it has for quite some time. There is actually a preset that you can select that emulates the feel of MC. In the "window" menu there are options to split the screen, and an option to show a term emu. In the "settings-loadViewProfile" you can actually select MC mode.

Please take a look at: blogspot under "What's an asymmetric single panel file manager?". We all work together so some conclusion will have to be made. If not othervise, then I propose two different columns one named OFM and other "Two Panels".

[edit] Konqueror column view?

Does Konqueror actually support column view? It has something called "multicolumn view," but this appears to be just like "icon view" except oriented horizontally rather than vertically. Theshibboleth 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List/Comparison

What's happening with the merge of these two articles? I can't see much point in having both linked on Nautilus file manager and I'd to know what's happening? - Motor (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Merge

This article should not be merged with the List of file managers or Orthodox file manager article. The List article is simple and inviting for anyone to contribute to. This Comparison article is almost all tables. Very valuable. Very awkward -- very daunting to contribute to. It is also difficult for the reader to get the information they want, because it is spread out in multiple tables, but there seems no help for that. Until there is a WYSIWYG editor readily available for this article, many potential contributors will be scared off. We need to make sure they have other easier places to make some contributions. (All I want to know about is the best opensource multiplatform currently supporting OFM. But that is leading me into many hours of research, trying to update the relevant web of Wikipedia articles.)69.87.200.120 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I concur.

The two articles serve a different purpose; linking to each other ought to be enough.

-- Vor0nwe 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I concur

It should remain as is. You have "File Manager" --> "List of file manager" --> "Comparison of file managers". These are individual entities. I am all about organizing things and having all of this on one page is too much.

3 to 0 Vote --Rilloyd 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I concur

Merging the articles would be inappropriate. Separating large articles into multiple articles is part of the technical writing process. --Goa103 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operating system support table Simplification

The Operating system support table could be reduced to just three columns. The Windows Mobile column could be deleted, and footnotes added for FMs that support this. Linux/BSD/Unix could be one column. If any case arises where "yes" or "no" would not suffice, notes could be added appropriate to that special case. (It may seem like there is no good reason to simplify this table, but the bigger the tables are, the more afraid people will be of contributing. Or adding a column.)69.87.200.120 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? The item for Tux Commander asserts that it runs on Linux, "BSD", and "Unix", but if I go to the development page on the Tux Commander Web site it appears to indicate that it requires Kylix or, at least, some Pascal compiler - if it requires Kylix, it probably requires Linux binary compatibility in the OS in order to support building it and possibly to support running it. Or would that be a case where there'd be a "only if you have x86 and Linux binary compatibility" footnote? Guy Harris 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extensibility and file system plugins

To what does the "Filesystem support" column in the table in the "Extensibility" section refer? It shouldn't be used to refer to the ability of the OS core to be extended with new file system types, as those aren't file manager plugins, they're general file system plugins that add file system support to all applications, including the file manager - i.e., modules that plug in to the virtual file system layers in Solaris, OS X, Linux, Windows 95/98/Me, Windows NT, etc. aren't file manager plugins.

It should, instead, refer to what I infer are called "shell namespace extensions" in the Windows Explorer. Given that, the answer for the Finder is arguably "no", unless there's a documented and supported mechanism for adding plugins of that sort to the Finder or third parties have figured out how to do it and offer extensions of that sort. In addition, if KIO slaves are considered extensions of that sort, the answer for Konqueror is arguably "yes", although they plug into KIO rather than specifically into Konqueror, so one might argue they're closer to core OS VFS plugins than file manager plugins. Guy Harris 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table Tools Needed

We need good tools for working with large tables. This article is basically one giant table, of dozens of rows and dozens of columns, broken into pieces. Typical readers are interested in comparing a few of those rows and columns. It is currently very awkward to do that. Any programmers out there want to tackle this? 69.87.204.76 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paste clipboard as file?

(Repeating and extending an unanswered question from above) "Paste clipboard as file": What does this mean? Having 20 files in clipboard and pasting them? I guess all support this. Or having some file content (eg some piece of picture or text) and then creating a file and directly pasting the cclipboard content into that file? Who can do this? Windows Explorer e.g. cannot but has a "yes" in that column. Hmmm... --Pollin Fritic 15:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About feature comparison table

Can someone please add a new column "File Thumbnail Inside Floating Tooltip"? At least Dopus has this amazing feature.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparison_of_file_managers_cc11.html"