Slashdot Mirror
Nautilus 1.0.5 Release
mz001b writes: "Proof that just because a company goes out of business does not mean that their open source software goes with them -- Nautilus 1.0.5 has been release. See the LinuxToday notice."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Prepare to lose all karma...
Perhaps I'm alone... I love GNOME, but I really don't care for Nautilus. In fact, I sort of have a strong distaste for it. But I have to give Andy and company from Eazel credit for taking a risk and for following their dreams. They've made a product that's loved by many... just not me.
I'm not exactly sure *why*, but here is what I think about both of them (at the risk of turning this into ANOTHER KDE vs. GNOME post):
features-> konqueror is a bit better, it has some neat features such the embedded terminal frame. Although Nautilus can be used as a web browser, I think that Konqueror does a much better job at it. Also, Konqueror thumbnails more filetypes, afaik, and has a customizable toolbar. I think that the only (relativly) minor features that Nautilus has and Konqueror doesn't is the labeling of files (I don't use that feature), and the zooming of views up to 400% (of course, no one in their right mind would use that).
speed-> konqueror wins against Nautilus 1.0.4, hopefully this new release will have speed improvements (from what I hear, it doesn't). Comparing
eye candy-> I think nautilus wins slightly here. Konqueror 2.2.1 really caught up, but there are small pieces of eye candy missing such as the neat (but slow) selection of Nautilus, and imho, the border in image previews in Nautilus looks nicer than in Konqueror. Perhaps the Konqueror developers can do something like that? (If it decreases performance in any way, DON'T).
So, IMHO, if you are using KDE, use Konqueror. If you are using GNOME, use Nautilus (or GMC).
Yeah right. If you're trying to make a file manager suitable for the masses you had better make it run tolerably on the masses' hardware. They all have IDE and could care less about what you think.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This is a joke, right?
You've posted at least three times that people complaining about Nautilus' speed (or lack thereof) should ditch their IDE drives and go to SCSI.
You might want to jump a little, I'm gonna throw some basic logic at you.
If the Windows file manager runs as fast on IDE as Nautilus does on SCSI, you can make two conclusions: (1) SCSI is not any faster than IDE, and Nautilus is just slower than the Windows FM. (2) SCSI is faster than IDE, and Nautilus is a lot slower than the Windows FM.
Either way, you're not helping your case.
While we're on the subject, you might want to consider that if only one device on the controller is speaking, SCSI has no real advantage over IDE. That means for most desktop systems, which only have one hard drive, IDE is perfectly sufficient and a hell of a lot cheaper. Do your own research: here's the first link I found at google on the subject.
So drop your ridiculous SCSI fetish and recognize that Nautilus is just slow (even according to your own damned post).
Yeah, this is what the Linux Desktop movement needs. Just go out and buy expensive hardware and it will be fine!
Yes, the average desktop NEEDS a SCSI RAID controller just to use poorly written code that needs to be compiled on each system.
Take your meds, get a real job supporting a profitable company and then tell me how great it is.
Give some consideration to the reality of supporting applications and systems in a business environment before you post comments that fail to account for sound economic and engineering decision-making principles.
I am really disappointed in this release. I finished compiling it and ran it, and it about the same speed if not slower than 1.0.4! The nautilus developers should aim to make Nautilus FAST. I don't care about the eye candy, I like my computer to be a tool.
I really think that some people should really extend GMC for some of the features Nautilus implements, such as file previews, and make GMC the default again!
To be exact, according to dpkg it has 37 dependencies. Of course, those have dependencies also.
I know that I will get flamed for this, but that is why I use Debian GNU/Linux. Figuring out dependencies stops becoming my job.
apt-get update
apt-get install nautilus
Done.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
1. No, I'm not judging based upon slashdot people's comments. It's really a shame that this discussion has become a huge KDE versus GNOME shouting match. I've also installed both on my Athlon 750mhz, and Konqueror seems to load directories much, much faster (and general response of file operations seems to be faster too, such as selecting a bunch of files).
2. It _is_ different. Doing things from the same app is a very nice feature and helps efficiency.
3. I hate to point it out, but browser integration was probably one of the best (and first) innovations that Microsoft really did. Others had the idea to do this before Microsoft did (like Apple with OpenDoc and Cyberdog), but Microsoft was the first to really implement it well. Either way, it really has caught on. As the market share of Netscape went down, this has become a more and more important feature in modern environments. Gradually, "applications" are becoming less important, and what you do with them (the idea of the "document"), is becoming more important. The computer, after all, is a tool. Thus, intregration is best. All in all, taking the best ideas from different operating systems is very good, and I'm disappointed that Eazel chose not to implement this in Nautilus!
Yes, but I think that the overwhelming difference here lies in the current status of the project.
.9 or so that it's become more true - they've been pulling the debugging code and starting to optimize for speed. The difference in performance is incredible, and I've had at least two people tell me that they've gotten better results on unofficial page-loading benchmarks from Mozilla than IE under Win32.
A year ago - heck, even as little as 6 months ago! - Mozilla was sluggish to terrible. The only reason people were using it was because it did a much better job out the gate of handling fonts and images. But the reason for that was simple, and oft-stated by the Mozilla folks.
Debugging code.
Mozilla was still new enough and untried enough that every build they did had debugging code all over the place, so that when the Lizard died, they could get an accurate autopsy right away. And they hadn't even BOTHERED with speed optimizations. As they steadily creep closer to 1.0 - and this is really only since they hit
Nautilus, on the other hand, is a shipped product. Sure, no program is ever really ready, it just gets released; that doesn't change the fact that the debug code should be out and the speed optimizations should be in.
If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine that the performance hits Nautilus takes are from trying to be too user-friendly while maintaining a Kitchen-sink toolset.
IANACoder, but that's one of the reasons I don't bother with Nautilus.
Well, that and the fact that Xterm works just fine for my file manager. =)
You thought that this sig was what you think that I thought you wanted me to think. I think.
This story reminds me of what I have thought for quite some time now... the fact that Linux is never going to succeed on the desktop. There are too many factions at work for it to succeed. There are too many Window Managers. Competition is a good thing, I'm all for it, but we (the people still waiting to use Linux as a desktop OS) don't need 87 different GUI file managers. For the most part the GUI file manager competition is irrelevant anyway, how can anyone compete with "free". Who wins in the end anyway, the file manager with the most what?
Konqueror and GMC both work great. Why not program something worthwhile, like a good game or something? Linux games are severely lacking. Sure, I can play thousands of roms on Linux, and Loki even has some good titles out, but where's my Diablo? or Diablo II? And if you say Wine or VMWare, you lose a testicle! Emulation and virtual this-or-that sucks in the performance realm and you know it!
What's with the ever evolving state of file managers for linux? Besides thumbnail view and an embedded audio player MS has had the same file manageer since 1995 and it works fine. Only now with XP does it look even slightly different. Yet the linux ones want to be web browsers etc and can't even do that right. A file manager should do one thing, manage files. These "file managers" are constantly changing and can never settle on a feature set. Talk about feature creap. It slices, it dices, it does ftp,http, nfs, smb, blah, blah. Did you know the "desktop" audience the linux community thinks it deserves for the most part does not even know how to use a file manager? They just use file->save as to put the file where they want.
There are soo many more important issues for the linux desktop than a SUPER file manager. How about the linux commmunity spend a few years making or copying there OWN GOOD LOOKING FONTS? I can't imagine it could take as long as Gnome has and would truly benefit the community as a whole as opposed to a bloated file manager. The linux community for all their push behind open standards has none when it comes to the linux desktop. Linux hackers do what Feels good and as a result you have a bunch of patch work windows managers that fight with each other and need P500's with 256MB ram to run O.K.
I'm sure I just don't "get it" but it seems to me that simple and stable seem to be the future for Computer desktops, and linux is way off track.
I wonder what the role of nautilus is? It is not a very good file browser, it can't browse tar-archives like its predecessor midnight commander could. You can not drag images from thumbnail mode into another window to get it displayed. It is not a very good browser either, you can't for instance drag links to another window, no image control, no "open new window on middle mouse click".
The playing of sound files by just pointing at them is neat, but doesn't work in 1.0.5 for me (it did in 1.0.4).
I think it is strange that Gnome replaced MC with something that can't even do all the stuff MC did. And as a web broswer it is not up to galeon or mozilla or konqurer. If one wants to be sarcastic one could say that they took two programs, MC and mozilla, integrated them and in the process removed a lot of useful stuff. The eye-candy is impressive for about two minutes, but then what?
Nautilus seems to be stuck in this not-ok-file-manager-not-ok-browser state.
I'm no big fan of KDE but at least konqurer is an ok filemanager and an ok browser. Nautilus is not really usable in any role.