Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Feb 2007 09:52 UTC, submitted by anonymous
KDE In the transition from KDE 3 to KDE 4, a new file manager, Dolphin, was often discussed and now officially moved to the base part of KDE. "I just stumbled over this message saying that the file manager Dolphin is now part of kdebase (of KDE 4): 'Moving Dolphin to kdebase, as discussed with Peter and others. The big plan is: Dolphin will become the default file manager (kicker buttons and file:/ links bring it up).' The question remains what now happens with Konqueror - keep in mind that one of the goals of KDE 4 was to only keep one app for each task inside the base packages. But with Dolphin as the potentially new file manager and Webkit as the new browser we may see Konqueror vanish."
Order by: Score:
WebKit is no browser
by KugelKurt on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:17 UTC
KugelKurt
Member since:
2005-07-06

"[with] Webkit as the new browser we may see Konqueror vanish."

WebKit is a rendering engine, not a browser. I'm sure Konqueror will stay -- at least as pure web browser.

Reply Score: 5

RE: WebKit is no browser
by superstoned on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:50 UTC in reply to "WebKit is no browser"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Sure konqi will stay, it's just a shell anyway. Dolphin will provide the filemanager kpart (which I'll be using in konqueror, I like dolphin but it's not for me...) and webkit might provide the html engine (but who'll notice?).

Reply Score: 5

I don't mind
by adiwibowo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:25 UTC
adiwibowo
Member since:
2005-07-15

Well, I don't mind if konquror gone as long as devs have reasons to replace it, may be to suit kde 4 philosophy better. And all features of konqueror as file manager !are available at dolphin.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Symbian OS; UIQ; 316) Opera 6.31 [en]

Reply Score: 2

One app per task
by arooaroo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:35 UTC
arooaroo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed, the introduction of a standalone filemanager, whilst leaving Konq as the web browser still fits within the goal of one app per task, because previously konq was doing more than one!

I think Konquerer suffered a bit, usability-wise because it was two large apps in one - just looked a mess at times. Still, I used it a lot because it was powerful and I loved all the protocols it supported.

So, as long as all the good file manager functionality makes it to Dolphin, then I think this will be step forward for KDE in this area.

Reply Score: 5

RE: One app per task
by KugelKurt on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:50 UTC in reply to "One app per task"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Now they have to agree on either Okular or Litagure as document viewer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: One app per task
by superstoned on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE: One app per task"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

They only have to decide this before they SHIP anything, so we'll be seeing both of them for some time... ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE: One app per task
by Headrush on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:20 UTC in reply to "One app per task"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

I don't see a remarkable difference in functionality between using konqueror or Dolphin as the file browser.
The addition of per directory view settings is eagerly awaited.

There is no doubt that the default view settings for file browsing needed attention and this could have been done with konqueror also.

Since Dolphin also uses the kio slaves for extendability, what exactly needed an entire code rewrite for a file browser? A few buttons more applicable to filesystem browsing?

So essentially, like konqueror, Dolphin is a small GUI shell with MOST of its functionality coming from other plugins, libraries, etc.

So inthe grand scheme of things, who cares. Other than a few cosmetic fixups it will be just the same as using konqueror was.

Reply Score: 2

one app per task
by spikeb on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:44 UTC
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

horray for sanity. about time.

Reply Score: 5

Well, I dont like it
by PotajiTo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:50 UTC
PotajiTo
Member since:
2006-10-23

It feels like a gnome app, konqueror may look a mess sometimes, but you can tweak it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Well, I dont like it
by superstoned on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:54 UTC in reply to "Well, I dont like it"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, it has some nice ideas, but I won't use it either. You'll still be able to use konqueror the way you use it now, though, so don't worry ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Well, I dont like it
by JamesTRexx on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Well, I dont like it"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

As long as I can keep on using Konqueror as long as dolphin has no multi column view.
That view is the one I use most of the time as I don't like the larger icon views, and the detailed view just gives me unnecessary info.
Splitting the functionality of filebrowser and web browser is a good idea though as it could give the same trouble Windows has with IE and explorer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, I dont like it
by nutshell42 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well, I dont like it"
nutshell42 Member since:
2006-01-12

Without ever having used Dolphin I'd say choosing a vertical instead of horizontal arrangement in this config dialog should do the trick:
http://enzosworld.gmxhome.de/setting_02.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Well, I dont like it
by JamesTRexx on Wed 21st Feb 2007 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Well, I dont like it"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

That might be it. I'll have to remember it when KDE 4 is released as a FreeBSD port.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Well, I dont like it
by anda_skoa on Wed 21st Feb 2007 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Well, I dont like it"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I'll have to remember it when KDE 4 is released as a FreeBSD port.

KDE/X11 should always be (more or less fully) available on BSDs, since a couple of KDE developers are BSD based, PCBSD uses it as its desktop, etc

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, I dont like it
by Priest on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well, I dont like it"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

"As long as I can keep on using Konqueror as long as dolphin has no multi column view.
That view is the one I use most of the time as I don't like the larger icon views, and the detailed view just gives me unnecessary info."


Would this do the trick? http://kde-apps.org/CONTENT/content-pre3/40491-3.png

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Well, I dont like it
by JamesTRexx on Wed 21st Feb 2007 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Well, I dont like it"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

Almost, but it still gives me more than a list of filenames. Only in certain instances do I need to know the size and date of the file.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, I dont like it
by segedunum on Tue 20th Feb 2007 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well, I dont like it"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Splitting the functionality of filebrowser and web browser is a good idea though as it could give the same trouble Windows has with IE and explorer.

It's the other way around actually. Microsoft wanted to make Windows and Internet Explorer the same app, but they obviously quickly realised that both use cases needed pretty much a different application so you get elements of one in the other.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Well, I dont like it
by nzMM on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "Well, I dont like it"
nzMM Member since:
2006-06-22

I was thinking a similar thing, it looks a lot like Nautilus but with a few more features.

Reply Score: 1

Finally ...
by el3ktro on Tue 20th Feb 2007 10:52 UTC
el3ktro
Member since:
2006-01-10

... a KDE application *not* looking cluttered. I like it's pretty simple main window, though it has to prove how it acts in real life. This is what I don't like most about KDE - modt apps have such a heavily cluttered toolbar, it's really not nice to work with.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Finally ...
by Morty on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:02 UTC in reply to "Finally ..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally I find the rather undefined cluttered statments just ridicilus, as a rule most KDE applicatons have well thought out interfaces. With a few exceptions the parts of the toolbars and other UI elements are there for a reason.

But if you want simple main windows, KDE has had such applications for a long time too. Two greate examples are the multimedia applications Koboodle and Codeine.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Finally ...
by Havin_it on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Finally ..."
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

Right. Konq is definitely a bit button-heavy in its default state, but it takes no longer to whip it into shape than it took me to find a nice theme and move a few widgets around to get Firefox's UI to my liking. I think this criticism is undeserved; personally I'd rather know what buttons are available and then delete some, than be met with a bare UI and have to hunt around to see what else I can add.

Some other KDE apps (Kaffeine for one) actually strike me as quite sparse in their default state.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Finally ...
by zombie process on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Finally ..."
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Funny you'd mention kaffeine. I'd have to say it's gone from being one of the most easy to use, well thought out, highly intuitive apps that "just behaved the way you'd expect it to" to being a complete UI nightmare. It used to be a joy to use since it was both highly customizable and simple as you'd like at the same time - now it seems to personify the "cluttered mess" people describe when talking about KDE.

I still think it's a fantastic player *playerwise* but I really don't enjoy using it anymore.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Finally ...
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Finally ..."
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Indeed. I switched to Codeine, which is what, a million times better? The Kaffeine dev's are building a big beast/monster of a video/audio/whatever player. I'm actually waiting for them to add documents and pictures to the mix... Of course, with annotation support, a cd ripping function (doesn't it already have that?), cd burning, including files of course (let's replace K3b) etcetera.

I've vented my frustration about the loss of a great Video player before (when they started this mess) and it's only getting worse, so I'll shut up again and go back to Codeine.

Reply Score: 2

Looks good...
by atezun on Tue 20th Feb 2007 11:46 UTC
atezun
Member since:
2005-07-06

You know, I'd say it's got pretty much all I want for a file manager, but I don't find it very appealing for some reason. Admittedly though, I'm not much of a KDE fan. Maybe it'll win me over like Amarok eventually did. I wouldn't be surprised if I end up prefering it to nautilus though, but lately Rox and Thunar have been wooing me away from it anyways.

Reply Score: 1

Configuration
by Darkelve on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:21 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

As far as I understood it, both will still be there. And in the end, I guess it's up to your distribution which of the two they want to default to.

Reply Score: 3

Fingers crossed
by Havin_it on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:26 UTC
Havin_it
Member since:
2006-03-10

I haven't looked at Dolphin in a while, the Ui is coming on nicely. I like the addressbar technique (switch between trad text-bar and Gnome-style button-bar) and it has the split-view capability and KIOslaves support, without which I'd never consider it over Konqueror. I've grown deeply fond of Konq, and I'm still rather nervous about this kind of change, but it looks like a capable replacement. I'll have to give it a whirl...

One thing: will it be possible to disable the dropping of those .dolphin folder-view files everywhere? I can do without those!

Also I'm confused why WebKit would take over as HTML engine. Does this mean KHTML as a separate project is being dumped in favour of directly working the same codebase with Apple?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fingers crossed
by ppenz on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:55 UTC in reply to "Fingers crossed"
ppenz Member since:
2007-02-20

> One thing: will it be possible to disable
> the dropping of those .dolphin folder-view
> files everywhere? I can do without those!

The KDE3 version of Dolphin stored a hidden .dolphinview file in each directory where the view mode has been changed. Aaron J. Seigo has fixed this for the KDE4 version, so like in Konqueror the standard .directory file is used instead. Additionally it is configurable whether Dolphin should remember the view properties at all; this means no .directory files if this feature is turned off.

Best regards,
Peter

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fingers crossed
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Fingers crossed"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Cool. All they need is better HIG and they are in business. All KDE needs is more space between buttons (less buttons?) and a default that all kde apps can use and I will be the first in line to dump gnome for kde. At the moment KDE is way to "noisy" for me and no amount of tweaking can get rid of how "ugly" it is. I happen to like quite a lot of things in gnome, but even I know that in terms of technology KDE is far superior and the quality of development far outshines gnome in many respects. Maybe the Gnome camp should just focus on providing a HIG that other desktops can follow and drop Gnome all together. There are far to many things missing in gnome and considering the resources given to that project I don't really see any excuse why (I'm a Gnome user BTW).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fingers crossed
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fingers crossed"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

the new theme they're developing (Oxygen) is a bit larger, like the gnome themes. I'm not sure if I like that, it's less efficient and less will fit on the screen - but I think you'll like it ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fingers crossed
by werfu on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Fingers crossed"
werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

Why not simply put all those directory view scheme inside your .kde directory in your home? I mean, I dont care to edit them and I dont want to see those file inside my directories. Having them inside the directory doesn't make sense too on read-only partition (ie. ntfs) while I would still want to customize my folder viewing experience.

A good file manager do need a directory tree view and the possibility to edit the url. I wouldn't mind leaving Konq for Dolphin, as long as usability and flexibility is there. Remember why we all love KDE: because of it's configurability and it's power! We are power users.

Reply Score: 2

hope
by collinm on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:27 UTC
collinm
Member since:
2005-07-15

I hope we will be able to continue to use konqueror like a file manage like we can do with internet explorer

Reply Score: 3

RE: hope
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:05 UTC in reply to "hope"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Don't worry, you will. Really removing functionality has never been very 'KDE', they'll always try to just arange it smarter so it's more usable but still powerfull and flexible.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: hope
by collinm on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: hope"
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

i think if kde was so hard to use, people would not use it

Reply Score: 2

v OMG!
by shapeshifter on Tue 20th Feb 2007 12:38 UTC
RE: OMG!
by Darkelve on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:10 UTC in reply to "OMG!"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Ehm... no one is stopping you from continuing to use Konqueror you know.

Edited 2007-02-20 13:13

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OMG!
by panzi on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE: OMG!"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

The "we may see Konqueror vanish" is what frighten us all! Not the defaults. The distribution-defaults are always bad (at least I never saw good ones). Now they would be a lot worse, but still changeable. But when konqueror vanishes (-> no maintained KDE4 version of konqueror), then the nightmare begins!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: OMG!
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OMG!"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

This probably won't happen. Konquerer will probably turn into the web browser and dolphin will get all the kparts not related to internet browsing. This will only strengthen KDE as both of them together was a horror and this has been an idea that has been thrown around since the early days of KDE4's development. I'd rather not have one huge app do everything, even MS doesn't have the windows explorer access the internet like it used to. Different applications for different tasks is the unix way and I think its the right way.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OMG!
by renox on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "OMG!"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, why do you care?
I'm certainly not going to use Dolphin, but as long as Konqueror stay, I couldn't care less whether Dolphin is added or not.

Edited 2007-02-20 13:29

Reply Score: 2

RE: OMG!
by segedunum on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:50 UTC in reply to "OMG!"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I missed this:

That thing even has the idiotic GTK buttons instead of real path field!

http://enzosworld.gmxhome.de/features.html

Read this and look at the manual URL field.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OMG!
by g2devi on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: OMG!"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Actually, it's the same with GNOME. The "turn buttons into path" is the key thing that makes the directory buttons usable by power user while still having the convenience of the buttons (which actually grow on you after you user them).

Reply Score: 3

RE: OMG!
by phoenix on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:04 UTC in reply to "OMG!"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

That thing even has the idiotic GTK buttons instead of real path field!

Click the little blue button to the left of the breadcrumbs ... presto! You have a text path bar to play with.

And no left navigation tree!

Dolphin 0.8 includes the sidebar, same as Konqueror.

Please at least pretend to look at the software before criticising it. ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: OMG!
by TheMonoTone on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE: OMG!"
TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

Can I just disable the stupid button path altogether?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OMG!
by phoenix on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OMG!"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, the default is configurable for either the address bar or bread crumb buttons.

Reply Score: 2

What the hell?
by panzi on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:16 UTC
panzi
Member since:
2006-01-22

What the hell?

I love konqueror! It's one of the main reason myself and my sister are using KDE! All the embedded viewers, KIO-Slaves, the embedded shell! The configurable sidebar, the Addressbar which supports things like /path/*.jpg !!!! THE UP BUTTON (where is the up-button in dolphin?), the fact I really see the path like it's on the harddisk! Multiple splitviews and tabs!!! If konqueror goes, I go! Or I might start maintaining konqueror.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What the hell?
by Darkelve on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:20 UTC in reply to "What the hell?"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

(Once more, Fire Brigade for the rescue!) Robin, go get the AntiFlameMobile.

Konqueror is NOT going away. Probably you'll be perfectly able to choose either Dolphin OR Konqueror as your default file manager.

So please stop the unnecessary flaming and hysteria.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: What the hell?
by TheMonoTone on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE: What the hell?"
TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

So then isn't this breaking the 1 application per task?

It seems once again my menu will have numerous items for the same task...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What the hell?
by re_re on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What the hell?"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

>So then isn't this breaking the 1 application per task?

It seems once again my menu will have numerous items for the same task...<

That is one application per task by default. There will always be numerous apps to do a given task, but you have the option to install them or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What the hell?
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What the hell?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

No, Konqueror will be used as default webbrowser, Dolphin for filebrowsing. But Konqi won't lose it's power and you can still use it for filebrowsing (with the Dolphin Kpart) and even use it by default (and yes, then you could remove Dolphin from your menu).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What the hell?
by TheMonoTone on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 04:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What the hell?"
TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

That clears things up quite a bit actually. That doesn't sound too terribly bad :-) Actually it might make konqueror a better program!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What the hell?
by superstoned on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What the hell?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Exactly, that's the idea. Dolphin was first meant to be a 'playground' for new filebrowsing technology; but now they decided a seperate filebrowser makes sense, as long as as much as possible code is shared.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What the hell?
by panzi on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:15 UTC in reply to "RE: What the hell?"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

I'm sorry if I did flame, but hysteria... if I here that "we may see konqueror vanish", I think it's understandable that I get a bit, hysteric (panic).

Reply Score: 2

RE: What the hell?
by miscz on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:53 UTC in reply to "What the hell?"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

The up button is not really needed because you can choose the directories via location bar thing. And like most KDE apps it includes options to fix them, you can add that button if you wish.

I think that Dolphin doesn't belong in KDE. I'm a Gnome user but I understand why people like it and why they won't like Nautilus/Finder clone. I also think that it's still too buggy to be included as default after trying to use it recently.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What the hell?
by Headrush on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE: What the hell?"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

I find using the "UP" bottom much more useful than needing to use the location bar.

When you sitting in your reclining chair with you feet up, any need to lean forward to use the keyboard instead of the mouse is not preferred.

And as someone playing with speech recognition, manipulating an "UP" button works, but editing a location bar doesn't.

Edited 2007-02-20 14:28

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What the hell?
by lindkvis on Tue 20th Feb 2007 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What the hell?"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

"I find using the "UP" bottom much more useful than needing to use the location bar.

When you sitting in your reclining chair with you feet up, any need to lean forward to use the keyboard instead of the mouse is not preferred."

That has to be the weakest reason for including another button in the user interface, ever. The location button bar does everything the UP button can do and more. Both achieve the same functionality in the same amount of mouse clicks and the button bar can go several UP's in one go, in addition to making the file hierarchy more obvious to the user.

If you friviously add buttons to the interface without considering whether or not they are necessary, you will have far too many buttons in the end.

Your speech recognition argument is also pretty weak, as you can easily still have the UP command available for the user even if the button isn't on the toolbar.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What the hell?
by Headrush on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What the hell?"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

lindkvis, don't take things so seriously.

Obviously the feet up comment was a joke.

The point was not that the location bar can't navigate up, it was it wasn't as easy. If you navigate a lot through FTP directories "Up" is invaluable. I'm sorry, but if you think selecting part of the address and hitting deleting on the last directory is as easy, you are wrong. Now if konqueror adapts the url that Dolphin is to have, and I have seem patches to konqueror, so you can click individual directories that are part of the URL in the location bar, that would be work and would be a great replacement that doesn't remove the same functionality.

And your 100% wrong with the speech recognition I am using. You have to have a visual widget for it to work.

You also jumped to the conclusion about adding frivious buttons. Although you might not use it, some of use were just stating we use it a lot. Maybe more people use it than you assume. If the method I mentioned above was implemented, everyone would be happy.

If konqueror removed the last five buttons by default, the konqueror interface would be just as slim and clean as all the other browsers. (Remove print, find, enlarge, shrink, security)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What the hell?
by lindkvis on Wed 21st Feb 2007 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What the hell?"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

"I'm sorry, but if you think selecting part of the address and hitting deleting on the last directory is as easy, you are wrong. Now if konqueror adapts the url that Dolphin is to have, and I have seem patches to konqueror, so you can click individual directories that are part of the URL in the location bar, that would be work and would be a great replacement that doesn't remove the same functionality. "

I think you will find that this is EXACTLY what Dolphin offers. Look at the screenshots for the location button bar.

You don't do any selection or deleting, you simply click the button representing the parent directory (or the grand parent, or the great grand parent). It has all the functionality of the UP button with the same amount of clicks, but in addition it allows you to go up more than one directory in one go.

Reply Score: 1

Here too got to love Konqueror
by acobar on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:17 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

It's one of the main reasons I use KDE. It's powerful, have very nice network browsing capabilities and, despite of what some people say, is very easy to use.

I don't like Dolphin. The balance between power/simplicity is not easy to master and I don't think it was achieved.

I also think that they should just have an option to switch Konqueror to master/basic functionality if the intent is to please the "simplist" concerned horde. If simplicity was my main reason to choose a system I would go instead with gnome, or even better, with xfce (what I like and use) what I didn't.

Hope they don't do that. Would be a big regret in my opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Here too got to love Konqueror
by KugelKurt on Tue 20th Feb 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "Here too got to love Konqueror"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Dolphin is a KDE app. It will have the same network browsing capabilities as Konqueror.

Reply Score: 2

Konqueror is Dead, Long Live Konqueror
by segedunum on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:35 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is a nightmare! Red Alert! Gnome monkeys infiltrated KDE!

Well, believe it or not, it's still Konqueror. KDE is so chock full of reusable components that we'll still see Konqueror elements crop up in Dolphin. Gnome can only dream of doing stuff like that sadly.

That thing even has the idiotic GTK buttons instead of real path field!

The navigation bar is still a work-in-progress, so I would hope people would be able to simply type in their path. I'm not especially familiar, as the last version of Dolphin I used was 0.2 or 0.3 or something. People still need a way to get to KDE's IO slaves easily, so no, I don't think they'll dispense entirely with a type-in path field.

And no left navigation tree!

Well, yes it does. You can still have a one pane view, or a split pane view as you like - and no, you don't need to change a bloody GConf key to get at it (it's in the settings dialogue), and there is no silly spatial philosophy behind it.

Instead of wasting resources and dev man hours on duplicating the functionality.

They're not. A lot of the functionality of Dolphin was simply pulled out of Konqueror (reuse!), and I would assume we'll see more of Konqueror's file manager functionality in Dolphin - but only Konqueror's file manager functionality.

Seriously, this is really what KDE needs. Konqueror is a fantastic application, but the crossover of where it is a file manager, a web browser or something else has got totally out of hand now to the point where it is holding back file manager and web browser functionality. Just look at Konqeror's settings dialogue. We need a great file manager that handles file management as wonderfully as Konqueror ever did, and we need a focused web browser that can really go head on as a fantastic alternative to Firefox. Konqueror and KHTML/Webkit is trying to do that now, but the problem is that Konqueror just isn't focused on web browsing.

It's nice to see some slow, steady and sensible progress.

Reply Score: 4

TheMonoTone Member since:
2006-01-01

I completely agree with this, so long as features aren't entirely ripped out.

It was nice sometimes to have a split pane view in konqueror with a web page and say the source to the webpage. Or the css of the webpage. Somehow I see this nice functionality going away.

If the apps are to seperated please give a tile window arrangement in kwin.

Reply Score: 2

zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

Yeah - right on. Konq is my absolute favorite file manager and browser, but I'm completely open to dolphin as well. I hope they include all the sidebar goodness, or at least most of it - I actually use several of those views.

In all seriousness, when was the last time the KDE devs took a wrong turn? Outside of bug injection or the occasional regression, I can't ever recall thinking "HELL - I wish they hadn't done that..." Sure some of the 3rd part apps can have issues, and I certainly disagree with what some of the distros are doing with KDE, but I've always found vanilla KDE very pleasing.

Reply Score: 2

Another vote for Konqueror
by DeadFishMan on Tue 20th Feb 2007 13:41 UTC
DeadFishMan
Member since:
2006-01-09

I hope that they at least move all the functionality of Konqueror over to Dolphin before replacing the former with the latter. Konqueror is perhaps the best file manager in existence right now and it would be a shame to drop it to the side ways in order to leave the way for an inferior replacement. I played with Dolphin a little bit and, quite frankly, I donīt see what this fuss is all about.

I too think that Konqueror (and other KDE applications) could have different profiles and make it leaner for those lethargic to options on their apps while leaving its full power for those that are willing to explore it.

And for those saying "No problem, it still will be there for you if you need" "It still will be maintained for those that care about it" I have just one word for you: Galeon - http://galeon.sourceforge.net/.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Another vote for Konqueror
by elsewhere on Tue 20th Feb 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "Another vote for Konqueror"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I played with Dolphin a little bit and, quite frankly, I donīt see what this fuss is all about.

Agreed. All it needs is a default spatial mode and it would be entirely unlikeable. ;)

I too think that Konqueror (and other KDE applications) could have different profiles and make it leaner for those lethargic to options on their apps while leaving its full power for those that are willing to explore it.

That was actually the first avenue they explored and found it wouldn't entirely be workable.

And for those saying "No problem, it still will be there for you if you need" "It still will be maintained for those that care about it" I have just one word for you: Galeon - http://galeon.sourceforge.net/.

Don't forget that Dolphin, Konqueror the file manager and the file dialog all share a common code base, it's not as if Konq needs to be maintained as a seperate tree, it's basically a wrapper for existing kparts and components; Konq may very well simply use a dolphin kpart as a file browsing, as it uses the khtml kpart for web browsing.

More importantly, the KDE team acknowledges that konq is the prefered tool for power users; power users should have no problem making konq their default. Besides, as long as the devs are using Konq, it will always exist.

Here's a post from Aaron back in December where the Dolphin / Konq split is discussed (second half of the post):

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-oxygen-on-dolphin.html

Reply Score: 3

RE: Another vote for Konqueror
by gilboa on Tue 20th Feb 2007 15:24 UTC in reply to "Another vote for Konqueror"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

/+1.

Maybe Dolphin/4 will turn out to be a real gem, but for now, I rather use Thunar (XFCE) instead...

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

RE: Another vote for Konqueror
by miscz on Tue 20th Feb 2007 15:44 UTC in reply to "Another vote for Konqueror"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

And for those saying "No problem, it still will be there for you if you need" "It still will be maintained for those that care about it" I have just one word for you: Galeon - http://galeon.sourceforge.net/.

I have two words for you: Firefox, Epiphany ;)

Reply Score: 2

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

And for those saying "No problem, it still will be there for you if you need" "It still will be maintained for those that care about it" I have just one word for you: Galeon - http://galeon.sourceforge.net/.

I have two words for you: Firefox, Epiphany ;)


You see: that was my point! Firefox was a poor replacement for Galeon until the extensions started to show up and Epiphany is a joke compared to Galeon and I and many others disagreed with the unneeded fork back at the time which was clearly intended just to make Galeon follow the almighty GNOME HIG which limited further development somewhat that would not be compliant with the HIG hence the developers were unwilling to follow that way.

That was when I realized that this HIG madness could impact OSS projects and not in a good way despite its obvious advantages. Result: Epiphany got the mind share and Galeon was left to dust, despite it being superior to Epiphany in every way through several interactions of both applications.

I donīt want to see one my favorite applications in all time suffer the same fate of Galeon just because of people that canīt read and click at the same time donīt feel comfortable using it and would like to see a Nautilus clone (meh!) on KDE. I still think that a beginner/advanced approach for Konqui would be better (seems like they tried it and it didnīt work).

BUT if they manage to make Dolphin as powerful as Konqueror, Iīm a happy camper and as someone has already pointed out, I have yet to be frustrated with a decision from the KDE developers.

Reply Score: 2

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

things like this won't happen in KDE, as they reuse much more code - and not by copy-pasting, but by reusing the libraries or even the app directly as a Kpart. Dolphin will be a Kpart in Konqi, giving all the power (and probably more) Konqi had, I'm pretty sure about that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Another vote for Konqueror
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 01:28 UTC in reply to "Another vote for Konqueror"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

What's the problem? Galeon is still being maintained and enhanced as extensions to Epiphany. Just like the Galeon dev(s) promised. Only small things happens, but the major changes happen in the Gecko engine anyway, so there is little work to do.

Reply Score: 2

Important Quote
by fretinator on Tue 20th Feb 2007 15:03 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

There is an important quote in the comments section from one of the Devs:

And, in case konqueror is just perfect: no problem there, the KDE 4 team will not remove konqueror

So no more of the OMGWTFWWHTK

[Oh my God, what the fudge, what will happen to Konqueror]

Reply Score: 2

RE: Important Quote
by Headrush on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:38 UTC in reply to "Important Quote"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

I think some people are more worried that even though that is said, after time, apps that aren't the default or in the foreground eventually get neglected or removed.

I don't think in the case of konqueror this is really a problem since konqueror core functionality is actually in other components and konqueror itself is merely a GUI shell holding those pieces together.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: OMG
by thompson4822 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 15:53 UTC
thompson4822
Member since:
2006-07-16

>>
Konquerer will probably turn into the web browser and dolphin will get all the kparts not related to internet browsing. This will only strengthen KDE as both of them together was a horror
<<

For who? As a user, the ability to have so much power in one tool is very compelling. I can treat my filesystem the same as a remote ssh directory, the same as a samba share, the same as a web page location, the same as a ftp directory, the same as a subversion repository, etc etc etc etc. I don't need to keep in mind a boatload of applications when I've got my good friend Konqueror by my side.

Now the Windows split is something I don't understand. Why would I want an Internet explorer and a Windows Explorer? Why not offer them together in the same productive way as one has in Konqueror? It seems like an artificial dichotomy to me. This is one of the biggest contributing factors to Windows being a less user friendly experience from my point of view.

Konqueror is in my opinion KDE's killer app. While I look forward to KDE 4, I cannot imagine that anyone is going to do away with this powerful tool anytime soon just because the other guys do things differently. This seems as ludicrous an idea as doing away with tree type browsing (what were those Mac people thinking, anyway?).

Best regards,


Steve

--

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: OMG
by nivanson on Tue 20th Feb 2007 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OMG"
nivanson Member since:
2006-07-13

---
Now the Windows split is something I don't understand. Why would I want an Internet explorer and a Windows Explorer? Why not offer them together in the same productive way as one has in Konqueror? It seems like an artificial dichotomy to me. This is one of the biggest contributing factors to Windows being a less user friendly experience from my point of view.
---

While pulling images off a web page.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: OMG
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Feb 2007 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OMG"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Well in windows case the split would probably be for security reasons. The split isn't a really a split though, just like konquerer explorer and ie use the same cose which is why people say IE is faster than Firefox, its already running on startup. I really don't see what the big deal is KDE has a bad design, this will fix it, what the problem. All the KDE parts will be available to dolphin as they are in konqueror, the only thing getting split would be the web browser. I like things split if anything to keep me sane.

Reply Score: 1

Oh, yes, please
by B. Janssen on Tue 20th Feb 2007 16:00 UTC
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

One file manager.
One browser.
Please.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh, yes, please
by gilboa on Wed 21st Feb 2007 08:45 UTC in reply to "Oh, yes, please"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Why?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oh, yes, please
by B. Janssen on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh, yes, please"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

gilboa: Why?

Why not?
KISS?
One job, one tool?

OK, seriously now. The Konqueror interface is an excellent webbrowser. It is an excellent file manager, too, better than Dolphin for now, BTW. Unfortunatly, if you combine both, it becomes something less than the sum of its parts.

The interface becomes inconsistent and often confusing, and i'm not talking about the obviously flawed bookmarks. Just check the menu entries "View", "Go to" and "Extras" in browser and filer mode. You will quickly see what I mean.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh, yes, please
by gilboa on Wed 21st Feb 2007 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh, yes, please"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

You missed my point - why "one task, one tool"?
Dolphin might be better for you - but does it automatically make Dolphin better suited for my needs?
And while you're at it, why not take the "one task, one tool" mentality a step further?
kmail, evolution and thunderbird are all designed to accomplish the same task - why no kill evolution and kmail and put all the developers on thunderbird?

IMHO, having a single way of doing things tends to stifle innovation - and KDE is all about innovation, choice and customization.
I -like- having the ability to choose between different solutions to the same problem.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Oh, yes, please
by B. Janssen on Wed 21st Feb 2007 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh, yes, please"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

gilboa: You missed my point - why "one task, one tool"?

Hey, same to you, buddy. I wrote "one job, one tool", which incidentally is something different than "one task, one tool". The phrase comes from waaay back in UNIX time and could also be phrased "one tool, one job" and means nothing more, and nothing less, than that a tool should only do one thing. It has nothing to do with how many tools there are for a given job. The KISS really should have given it away, but i digress.

Dolphin might be better for you - but does it automatically make Dolphin better suited for my needs?
And while you're at it, why not take the "one task, one tool" mentality a step further?
kmail, evolution and thunderbird are all designed to accomplish the same task - why no kill evolution and kmail and put all the developers on thunderbird?


I fear, you lost me here. Do you confuse me with someone else? I can't recall where I wrote that or anything that even got close.

I -like- having the ability to choose between different solutions to the same problem.

So do I, but I advise you to not confuse solution with tool. There are many ways to get a nail into the wall, but a hammer is best suited to be only a hammer and not also a screwdriver, if you catch my drift.

So, please, don't get all pluralistic on me when i'm argueing to include more, and better focused, software into KDE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Oh, yes, please
by gilboa on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oh, yes, please"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

My mistake.
I take my last post back.

While I do not agree with the one job, one tool mentality (I enjoy having evolution handle mail, contacts and scheduling, etc), I seem to have drifted.

My mistake,
Gilboa

Edited 2007-02-21 17:12

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Oh, yes, please
by B. Janssen on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Oh, yes, please"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

No problem. I'm glad we got that sorted out.

Reply Score: 1

I don't see why
by ido50 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 16:02 UTC
ido50
Member since:
2006-02-06

What's wrong with Konqueror and what does Dolphin hold over it? I've installed Dolphin a while back and didn't see any advantage.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't see why
by lindkvis on Tue 20th Feb 2007 16:17 UTC in reply to "I don't see why"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

"What's wrong with Konqueror and what does Dolphin hold over it? I've installed Dolphin a while back and didn't see any advantage."

Konqueror has a messy and confusing interface with a steep learning curve.

It is not only bad for new users, but also bad for experienced users that don't want to spend time fiddling with their computer. Even if the operation or option you want to do is fairly simple, you still need to search for it for ages in order to find it.

Thus, while Konqueror is technically excellent it is a "Jack of all trades", but "master of none" type application that a very small selection of users absolutely adores, while the average user hates it.

And no: the people that post in online discussion forums are not representative for the average user. The average user wouldn't know that they are using an application called 'konqueror' and would just be annoyed that it seems so difficult to do the things they want to do.

Dolphin seems like a good attempt at leveraging the technical excellence of Konqueror in a good user interface.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't see why
by Headrush on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see why"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Can you give some more specific example.

I would agree that some visual elements should/can be removed, but I don't quite understand the steep learning curve.

Seems with the tree layout on the left and set to follow the current directory file browser on the right pane, file navigation is pretty simple to follow and understand, even for a new user.

Maybe a better argument would be that better defaults and layouts are needed.

Frankly I don't care which the KDE devs go with, but I have yet to hear many concrete examples of things Dolphin can do that Konqueror can't or couldn't be modified to do. (simple icon layout doesn't mean much as it could be corrected, were talking bigger changes than this that would require a totally new front-end.)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I don't see why, Konqueror usability
by ubit on Tue 20th Feb 2007 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't see why"
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

The vertical sidebar with the little icons is the worst part, it's so strange to see home split up from the rest of the other "services" as they call them. They're so resistant to remove that damn sidebar too, I remember requesting to make it a bit more sane like Xandros/Corel's File Manager ( http://distrowatch.lafox.net/images/screenshots/xandros-file-manage... ) but they seem to like it. Fine with me but I can't make it look any nicer or more usable myself. Plus the ubiquitous buttons and menu items everywhere (makes Konqueror as a web browser hard for me to use at all, too).

I'm personally glad dolphin will be a new file manager, yippe ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fingers crossed
by thompson4822 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 16:10 UTC
thompson4822
Member since:
2006-07-16

>>
I happen to like quite a lot of things in gnome, but even I know that in terms of technology KDE is far superior
<<

Could you explain what you mean here?

>>
Maybe the Gnome camp should just focus on providing a HIG that other desktops can follow and drop Gnome all together.
<<

Gnome provides a very comprehensive set of human interface guidelines. If anything I have to give them props for that.

As to dropping Gnome altogether, I don't think this is a good proposal. I use KDE all the time, but this doesn't prevent me from playing with Gnome GUI development, and I have to tell you that I find Gnome's libraries not only easier to deal with, but also a lot more portable. I don't think it would be a good idea at all to just drop Gnome, either as a GUI development platform or as a Desktop environment.

>>
There are far to many things missing in gnome and considering the resources given to that project I don't really see any excuse why (I'm a Gnome user BTW).
<<

What things are missing? Perhaps you need something that I would be interested in coding ;-)

Best regards,


Steve

--

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fingers crossed
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fingers crossed"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Come on, the Gnome framework is years behind on KDE, in almost every sense. And about the portable thing, well, I don't see all the gnome apps available for windows, while with a KDE 4 app, it's just a recompile and you have it for windows, mac and linux/bsd/etc... Now gnome is more portable?!?

Of course it's not Gnome's fault they're behind - they have always had a stronger focus on the end applications, and KDE has a full company working on Qt, while the Gnome sponsors mostly focus on end apps as well.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Fingers crossed
by apoclypse on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Fingers crossed"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

No to mention that Gnome is so linux centric that the BSD's mainly go with KDE. Gnome is far from portable ( and even when it is, it far from stable) on other platforms. KDE is far more portable, the qt libarary is extremely portable and is used by app makers for various projects that they wish to run on all platforms without issues. With qt4 it can even emulate whatever environs it finds itself in, Gnome included. I'm not talking about just the theme, I also mean the button layout. The fact is that all that functionality will make it into KDE, just liek it did with the last series. I happen to like the way gnome looks, chances are I can make KDE work just like it with the nect release. Can Gnome do that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fingers crossed
by apoclypse on Wed 21st Feb 2007 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fingers crossed"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Oh I don't know, thumbnail view in the file chooser, a trash applet that actually does something (restore my files where I deleted them from), gnome-vfs needs o tbe heavily reworked. Drag and drop is spotty at best in Gnome as well as cut and paste, KDE has had this working for ages. Corba and Bonobo are horrible and are nowhere near as mature as dcop was and I'm glad these are getting replaced by dbus (which is based on dcop without all the qt specific stuff in it).

Reply Score: 2

My only wish
by ohbrilliance on Tue 20th Feb 2007 16:28 UTC
ohbrilliance
Member since:
2005-07-07

is that I can click an HTML file in the KDE 'file manager' and have it open in Kate, then open an HTML file in the KDE 'web browser' and have it render as a web page. Then beyond that, click on an anchor and have the new page *still* open in the KDE web browser and not in Kate.

Is this just a dream? Does anybody else appreciate this?

(for the record, I think Konqueror is a wonderful piece of software)

Reply Score: 1

RE: My only wish
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:18 UTC in reply to "My only wish"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not sure this will be possible, you'll most likely have to use a right mouseclick (hint: the 'open with' submenu)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My only wish
by ohbrilliance on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE: My only wish"
ohbrilliance Member since:
2005-07-07

"I'm not sure this will be possible, you'll most likely have to use a right mouseclick (hint: the 'open with' submenu)"

Of course, but I want the "two programs", a file manager and a web browser, to do what you'd expect in those modes.

I'm primarily a web developer, and prefer files to open in Kate, but I also want to use Konqueror the web browser; It's a right pain to right click on any hyperlink in Konqueror while visiting a web page. And that's the only reason I use Firefox instead.

Edited 2007-02-21 15:08

Reply Score: 1

Konqeuror is not going anywhere
by phoenix on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:05 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

From the Dolphin News page:

This means that all people who love Konqueror because of its power and being an universal an viewer: File management in Konqueror will stay and nothing will be taken away. Dolphin for KDE4 has been adapted in a way that Konqueror and Dolphin share as much code as possible. Having now two frontends means that the shared code gets tested in a better way, which will increase the stability and points out possible shortcomings. So just see Dolphin as an additional application for file management, which can be used but nobody is forced doing so.

Reply Score: 4

Hooray!
by ple_mono on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:27 UTC
ple_mono
Member since:
2005-07-26

Need i say more?
You (<sarcasm>why do we even need KDE4, KDE3 is just fine. let's keep it.</sarcasm>) get to keep konq as a file manager.
I get new tool wich doesn't confuse web content with my local files, and what to do with them. Plus a streamlined interface just for ME!

btw. many of you seem to judge dolphin without never (it's obvious...) trying it out. Why do you do that?

Reply Score: 1

huzzah for sensationalism
by aseigo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:32 UTC
aseigo
Member since:
2005-07-06

i know people get all excited when new things happen, but let's try and keep our hats on here. i blogged about this today in an attempt to clear up the situation a bit:

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2007/02/konqueror-not-vanishing-news-at-...

Reply Score: 5

Looks good to me but...
by pupdawg on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:33 UTC
pupdawg
Member since:
2006-04-03

Hmmmm... I like it... it looks cleaner then befor but I hate the huge icons in the toolbar at the top.

Reply Score: 1

No tabs?
by PotajiTo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 17:36 UTC
PotajiTo
Member since:
2006-10-23

Does it have tabs? I can't see them

Reply Score: 1

v Feature Copy from Vista
by CrazyDude0 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 18:37 UTC
RE: Feature Copy from Vista
by h times nue equals e on Tue 20th Feb 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "Feature Copy from Vista"
h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

Well, I can remember using a "Navigation bar for URL's, which allows to navigate quickly through file hierarchy" at least in GNOME 2.6, which was coincidentally the last release I used before giving up on GNOME (mainly because of the "increased usability and ui cleanup", that was simply too much for me, an old GNOME 0.x - 1.x user) and heading completely over to XFCE.

Since I know, that it is hard to believe, that such *gasp* innovative technology is around for at least 3 years[1] I have taken the burden to look for the GNOME 2.6 release notes and indeed, there is a screenshot, that proves my point ([2], scroll down to Figure 6.)

Vista has been in development since, let me see, IIRC about five and a half years, yeah? No, wait, I have been told it's more like three years and we should stop spreading this five years lie, because, after all, they had to start over completly from scratch, my failure.

Please note, that I don't say that GNOME's file chooser dialog is the first incarnation of a click - able Navigation panel for URLs. However, I hope we can agree on, that this is a feature that has not been invented for Vista specifically.

EDIT: To get this post back on topic, I hope most folks have realized, that the story has been updated thanks to an input/blog from Aseigo[3] (as one can guess from the headline of his blog, konqueror is not about to vanish any time soon)


[1]http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-announce-list/2004-March/msg00...
[2]http://www.gnome.org/start/2.6/notes/rnwhatsnew.html
[3]http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2007/02/konqueror-not-vanishing-news-at-...

Edited 2007-02-20 19:52

Reply Score: 2

RE: Feature Copy from Vista
by KugelKurt on Tue 20th Feb 2007 19:54 UTC in reply to "Feature Copy from Vista"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I know you're a troll, but a reply anyway.
I don't know which app had this feature first, but Path Finder (a file manager for Mac OS X) has this feature since ages.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Feature Copy from Vista
by roverrobot on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Feature Copy from Vista"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23


I know you're a troll, but a reply anyway.
I don't know which app had this feature first, but Path Finder (a file manager for Mac OS X) has this feature since ages.


And before that was NeXT. Sorry for being off topic.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Feature Copy from Vista
by Headrush on Tue 20th Feb 2007 20:44 UTC in reply to "Feature Copy from Vista"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

There's lots of prior art in other OSes that shows this wasn't "invented" by windows. Nothing new here.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Feature Copy from Vista
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 01:32 UTC in reply to "Feature Copy from Vista"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually this has been a part of Gnome since before Vista development restarted (so we're back in early 2004, and Gnome 2.6).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Feature Copy from Vista
by prismX on Wed 21st Feb 2007 07:23 UTC in reply to "Feature Copy from Vista"
prismX Member since:
2005-08-19

Dolphin is very ugly copy of Vista explorer:
1) navigatio bar as you mensioned
2) previewing
3) icon size setting
4) icon visualization setting

here screenshots:
http://enzosworld.gmxhome.de/screenshots.html

but never mind blind fans will never see similarity ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Feature Copy from Vista
by superstoned on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Feature Copy from Vista"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, name me one thing which is in Dolphin, and was NEW in Vista's explorer (so not used before in a million other applications, like all examples you're giving).

You say this is all from Vista, but these things have been in KDE for years - and in Gnome, in some cases, and in Mac OS X. Vista is a big RIPOFF of KDE... That's why there is similarity.

Reply Score: 2

well
by Redeeman on Tue 20th Feb 2007 18:49 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

i most certainly hope konqueror doesent go, or gets unmaintained, its a killer application..

Reply Score: 1

and also
by Redeeman on Tue 20th Feb 2007 18:55 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

people who go "babababa many apps! one app for one purpose" who also claims konqueror is bloated and such simply does not know what they are talking about.

kde is not some bloated nonmodular mess like gnome, konqueror's functionality isnt all one blurry mess, its nicely distributed out in modular kparts and such, like for example the web browser.

Reply Score: 5

nice
by SK8T on Tue 20th Feb 2007 19:31 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

looks nice, not so overloaded like konqueror, and very user friendly.

Good way to KDE4 =)

Reply Score: 3

Startup time?
by Marciano on Tue 20th Feb 2007 19:46 UTC
Marciano
Member since:
2005-07-08

One issue I have with Konqueror is the slow startup time (even preloading a copy or two) relative to WinXP and even Nautilus---when I click on "Home Folder", for instance, the window does not appear instantly: I get to enjoy the "bouncing icon" startup notification for a second (or two if I haven't used Konqueror for a while).

How does Dolphin fare in this respect?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Startup time?
by Havin_it on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "Startup time?"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

With a preloaded instance, the startup time for Konq 3.5.6 on my (modest) machine is under a second. I saw no appreciable difference between this and the startup time for Dolphin, which I've just installed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Startup time?
by Headrush on Wed 21st Feb 2007 07:02 UTC in reply to "Startup time?"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Sure sounds like something is mis-configured.

Preloaded konqueror loads faster than preloaded Internet Explorer. (IE is always preloaded on Windows)

By chance are you using konqueror on a non-KDE DE?

Reply Score: 1

Only one good app for each task
by irbis on Tue 20th Feb 2007 21:48 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

This Dolphin sure looks quite promising. Like the KDE 4 development in general too.

"Only one app for each task" sure makes a lot of sense. Hasn't that been one of the main ideals of Unix philosophy too: good small tools for each task instead of monstrous jack-of-all-trades software suites (well, maybe except for Emacs... ;) )

I've always found the idea of combining a web browser and a file manager rather strange (Konqueror, MS Internet Explorer). To me it seemed that the original reason why MS wanted to integrate their web browser more closely to the OS was just to put the competing web browsers out of the market.

Swiss Army knives can be very handy if and when you don't have a chance to use better more specialized tools for each task in hand. But would you really want to eat your lunch using a Swiss Army knife, or use that knive for building a cottage? Especially pros tend to prefer good specialized tools for each task simply because good specialized tools are faster, more effective and more trustworthy. It is also easier and faster to develop specialized tools than monstrous jack-of-all-trades tools.

Reply Score: 3

Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

<em>Swiss Army knives can be very handy if and when you don't have a chance to use better more specialized tools for each task in hand. But would you really want to eat your lunch using a Swiss Army knife, or use that knive for building a cottage?</em>

If my toolbox was very small, then absolutely! ;)

Obviously (see above) it's not for everyone, but I thinnk it's an incredibly powerful -- and empowering -- ability to be able to do so many things all in one window. Some KParts and KIOSlaves like Cervisia and AudioCD move Konq from being a simple dual-mode browser to an active and versatile utility. I may be smacked down for this one, but in some ways I'd compare it to Eclipse.

Reply Score: 2

irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

"it's an incredibly powerful -- and empowering -- ability to be able to do so many things all in one window"

I agree. But then again, complicated tools are often also comlicated and difficult to use and configure, they tend to be more fragile, get broken more easily, and if something does get broken, all those many nice features might get useless because of a single bug.

If you use specialized tools, you can still use your other tools, even if one of them gets severly broken.

As an example, Mozilla had very good reasons why they now prefer to develop specialized apps (Firefox, Thunderbird) instead of a big integrated Mozilla suite (most users seem to like that too, in the end, after first having got used to the change). Also X.org now prefers modular development for the benefit of both developers and users.

Edited 2007-02-20 23:40

Reply Score: 2

Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Although I understand your point, Konqueror is a little different than say IE.

Because of the use of KDE kio-slaves and kparts, konqueror is merely a GUI shell for other components and not the same as a code base that keeps hading direct functionality for new parts.

Having a single application that is adaptable to accessing all your data, whether locally or network based, (including web pages), isn't bad in itself as long as the GUI shell is flexible enough.
(The argument currently is some people feel the current konqueror INTERFACE isn't simple enough for web access or better implemented for local file access.)

Remember, this is all about appearance, the functionality is pretty much all there already.

Reply Score: 2

tree
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 21st Feb 2007 01:06 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

As far as I can tell, Dolphin has no directory only tree view (ala left pane of konqueror or winExplorer). As long as that remains true I'll never use it. My file system is a tree, and I like it represented as such. Tree views with files mixed in are next to useless for navigating the tree, since you have to pick out directories from the midst of who knows how many files.

I also wouldn't be too keen to see khtml go. It's an excellent engine (CSS support is top for one). KHTML can also operate without dealing with Apple specific stuff. Just as Apple didn't want to use KHTML directly but rather made their own version, why would KDE want to use Apple's version directly instead of keeping their own?

Reply Score: 2

re: tree view
by ubit on Wed 21st Feb 2007 01:15 UTC
ubit
Member since:
2006-09-08

I bet you might be able to do this:

http://kde-apps.org/CONTENT/content-pre2/40491-2.png This shows a drop down menu at `bookmarks`which might mean you could select tree view like in Nautius`s sidebar.

Also if you do a split view (which dolphin can), you can set the pane on the left to list view which allows you to do a tree view, like this screenshot (nautilus but konqeuror does it too): http://www.students.tut.fi/~huttune2/nautilus/nautilus-list-smalles...

TBH, though, I will use the breadcrumb navigation bar that Dolphin has and don`t miss tree view (though should definitely be an option), hopefully you can move files by dragging them to one part of the breadcrumb, etc.

http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=40491 (Dolhpin KDE Apps page)

Edited 2007-02-21 01:16

Reply Score: 1