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)
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).
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).
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
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.