Linked by Adam S on Mon 26th Oct 2015 14:00 UTC
Mac OS X For all of the strengths of OS X, two of the complaints recycled year after year are the aged filesystem, HFS+, with its lack of file integrity, and the file manager, the Finder. While replacing HFS+ remains out of our reach, an alternative to the Finder for day-to-day tasks has been achievable for some time. Enter "Commander One," a dual-pane file manager that seeks to fill in the holes that the Finder has famously left. Let's dig in and see what Commander One has to offer.
Order by: Score:
Amiga had this for ages
by AmixG5 on Mon 26th Oct 2015 14:16 UTC
AmixG5
Member since:
2013-05-28

I just want to say that AmigaOS had this for a long time.. With Directory Opus be one of the best solutions. Dopus as its called is also released for Windows, and makes Windows to a useful operating system. The strength of MorphOS, with its Ambient screen is that its taken the best from Dopus and implemented into the OS itself. Its nice to see that MacOS is actually getting there also ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Amiga had this for ages
by drstorm on Mon 26th Oct 2015 17:01 UTC in reply to "Amiga had this for ages"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

It goes without saying that the king of Orthodox File Managers (two-panel) managers on Windows (or anywhere) is Total Commander. It has all the features mentioned in the article and more.

It is probably the best known current implementation of the concept started by Norton Commander all those years ago.

It's a nice article, but I found the lack of the historical perspective or comparisons with TC kind of weird.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Amiga had this for ages
by Phil2 on Mon 26th Oct 2015 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Amiga had this for ages"
Phil2 Member since:
2010-05-26

It's all good, but the king is still Far Manager, because it seamlessly combines command line handling and dual-pane file-manager.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Amiga had this for ages
by tidux on Mon 26th Oct 2015 21:53 UTC in reply to "Amiga had this for ages"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

MS-DOS had Norton Commander, which is the reason why " Commander" in a file manager name is usually code for "Orthodox File Manager". You can see this on Windows with Total Commander, on *nix (and Cygwin and DJGPP/DOS32) with GNU Midnight Commander, on Android with Ghost Commander, and in Java with muCommander. Hell, muCommander and Midnight Commander are both available for OSX, the former as a dmg and the latter via "brew install mc". Midnight Commander in particular has most of the features of this thing's "pro pack" gratis, including FTP, SFTP, and virtual filesystem support for rar and 7z.

Edited 2015-10-26 21:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Amiga had this for ages
by Rehdon on Tue 27th Oct 2015 14:17 UTC in reply to "Amiga had this for ages"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess DOpus has never been ported under Linux? What a shame, I still remember it as one very effective tool ...

Reply Score: 2

Path Finder by Cocoatech
by Intuition on Mon 26th Oct 2015 14:33 UTC
Intuition
Member since:
2013-05-28

I've been using Path Finder since the Leopard days, it's very good and a mature product.

It's very much like Directory Opus in many ways.

http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Gregory Isaacs
by Gregory Isaacs on Mon 26th Oct 2015 16:35 UTC
Gregory Isaacs
Member since:
2006-06-30

I love KDE's Dolphin split windows option and could never understand why most file managers don't offer this feature.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Gregory Isaacs
by FortranMan on Mon 26th Oct 2015 21:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gregory Isaacs"
FortranMan Member since:
2011-12-21

I agree; if more file managers were as flexible as Dolphin there would be little need for extra tools like these. I find that with Dolphin there is always a mode that is useful for my current needs, and that changing between modes is quick and easy.

Reply Score: 3

TotalCommander ported on OS X
by Kochise on Mon 26th Oct 2015 18:29 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

Good to know, good from now ;)

Edited 2015-10-26 18:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Mon 26th Oct 2015 19:08 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

That’s because the Finder cannot be fully replaced anymore than Windows Explorer can be: it’s a low level system component, integrated into virtually every aspect of OS X.


Just a nitpick: Explorer is replaceable. LiteStep is probably the best known shell replacement available, and is still being developed (maybe. Last update looks to be 3 months ago)

Talisman is also still being actively developed, but it isn't free. There are others, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative_shells_for_Windows

Also, not listed

http://www.winstep.net

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by darknexus on Tue 27th Oct 2015 01:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Just a nitpick: Explorer is replaceable.

No, it's not. Even if you replace the interface and launch a different shell, explorer's functions and views are integrated in so many other places that you cannot replace it. Any attempt to do so will essentially brick your Windows installation. The best you can do is launch a different shell which can, to some extent, hide explorer's ui.

Reply Score: 4

Double Commander
by cristianadam on Mon 26th Oct 2015 20:13 UTC
cristianadam
Member since:
2010-08-10

Have a look at Double Commander. Double Commander is a Total Commander clone, but unlike Total Commander is open source and cross platform.

It's written also in Pascal and on linux it has a Qt and a GTK version.

I haven't tried the OSX version, but I assume it's as good as the Windows and Linux versions.

http://doublecmd.sourceforge.net/

Reply Score: 1

RE: Double Commander
by Kochise on Tue 27th Oct 2015 07:31 UTC in reply to "Double Commander"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

While Total Commander is perhaps not open source, the author maintains it thoroughly and is open to suggestions. BTW it is free to use and have no limitation. Why this constant moaning about source openness ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Double Commander
by zzarko on Tue 27th Oct 2015 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Double Commander"
zzarko Member since:
2011-01-09

BTW it is free to use and have no limitation. Why this constant moaning about source openness ?

Well, the main page (http://www.ghisler.com/) says it is Shareware, not free. You can use it legally for 30 days, after that you are required to buy it. It is the good will of the programmer that he doesn't enforce this after 30 days.
As for open source question, at least it is a guarantee that the project may live after the author abandons it or sells it for whatever reasons. Plus, as DC itself uses open-source and cross-platform libraries, it can be (and is) ported to various OS-es. TC, as the author says, cannot (at least, not without a lot of work) be ported because of its heavy use of win API and components.

Edited 2015-10-27 08:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

MuCommander
by dhaen on Mon 26th Oct 2015 20:19 UTC
dhaen
Member since:
2015-10-26

I'd like to add a recommendation for MuCommander. It's old and only runs with Java 6 but is irreplaceable in my multi-platform environment.

I too hate Finder - not only is it unfriendly, but every iteration has a new problem.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MuCommander
by d.marcu on Tue 27th Oct 2015 20:04 UTC in reply to "MuCommander"
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27

try trolcommander, it's an updated mucommander fork
http://trolsoft.ru/en/soft/trolcommander

Reply Score: 1

Give me file Integrity!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 26th Oct 2015 20:22 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

The death of the ZFS for Mac dream, was the death of the Mac OS as a forward thinking Operating System for me.

For all the greatness that gets heaped on Steve Jobs, his inability to get a ZFS deal done is a real blemish, IMHO. If I were Sun, I probably would have found a way to do it. Death to the poorly working OS X server, would have been my only non-negotiable. And hey, it died by itself soon after.

Seriously, if all macs had ZFS formatted drives from the factory. I'd never. Never, Never. Never I tell you! Use windows ever again. I'm just now getting comfortable with BTRFS on linux, but still a little weary.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Give me file Integrity!
by Drumhellar on Mon 26th Oct 2015 20:50 UTC in reply to "Give me file Integrity!"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

A deal with Sun/Oracle isn't needed for ZFS.

It was once released under the CDDL, and is compatible with the APSL sources that Apple releases. People at the Illumos project, and FreeBSD, have been keeping it current. Apple could switch right now if they wanted.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, I've heard a couple stories why. One concerned a lawsuit by NetApp against Sun that Apple was afraid of. The other is detailed here in ars technica:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/10/apple-abandons-zfs-on-mac-os-x...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Give me file Integrity!
by Drumhellar on Mon 26th Oct 2015 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Give me file Integrity!"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Looking at the details of the suit, I suspect it wasn't much of an issue - it was already going on for years before Apple's announcement, and came to an end shortly after their initial announcements.

However, licensing does make sense - not that CDDL is incompatible with APSL (I don't think it is), but that Apple wanted to be able to release it under its own licensing.

But, it could be that Apple already knew they were winding down the XServe, meaning there wouldn't have been much wide-spread interest in ZFS. They might still be rolling their own FS, though.

Who knows.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think they might have been able to use the open sourced version, but they may have been looking to not manage and continue to follow all of sun's updates, in the fears that they might take dev private. Which, I think they did. Trying to maintain compatibility and feature set with a closed source version, is kind of a nightmare if you care about compatibility.

I think time machine was there answer to this idea of low cost easy backups. Probably icloud was also a contender. I'm not sure if they really care about local data anymore. Good enough, is probably good enough.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Give me file Integrity!
by tidux on Mon 26th Oct 2015 21:55 UTC in reply to "Give me file Integrity!"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

ZFS is coming to Debian! Debian's legal team has concluded that they can package ZFSonLinux and distribute it, so expect to see it as a DKMS package in Stretch or Stretch+1.

There's also ZFS on FreeBSD and Illumos if you prefer BSD or SysVR4 to GNU. Really, OS X is the laggard here.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Give me file Integrity!
by Johann Chua on Tue 27th Oct 2015 09:48 UTC in reply to "Give me file Integrity!"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

ISTR that HFS+ is still in use to avoid breaking apps like Photoshop, which have low-level hooks to the filesystem.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, freaking photo shop. I would be surprised if it really still had those. And I also wouldn't, because Adobe.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Give me file Integrity!
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 27th Oct 2015 13:29 UTC in reply to "Give me file Integrity!"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

ZFS was, or is, never going to be a great general purpose filesystem, and using it as the default filesystem for a desktop is rather silly. ZFS's niche is as a storage filesystem spanned across lots of loose disks on top of server grade hardware.

Forking and extending UFS2 was the better option, but they didn't do that.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

ZFS was, or is, never going to be a great general purpose file system, and using it as the default file system for a desktop is rather silly.


Care to expand upon that? I understand it has some features that don't make sense in a casual single disk desktop, but detecting/protecting against bitrot is pretty important ,right? At least I think so. And the cow snapshots are pretty neat for back ups ( which is why I think Apple missed an opportunity with the time machine and ZFS).

I have previously run open Solarius and some crazy bsd variant with zfs as default. It worked pretty well for the basic testing I did. Was awesome for getting back to a known good system state.

Reply Score: 2