Are File Managers dead?

[davbren]

I was looking at the various file managers recently to find a better one than the default nautilus... I discussed this with my friend who is a mac fan and advocate. He was of the opinion that he doesn't mind that finder isn't a great file manager because he barely uses it. This seemed strange to me as I use nautilus extensively. That started me thinking as to whether it is a fault with me as a user or a fault with Ubuntu as an OS not providing me with obvious alternatives to nautilus.

With regards to "file management", Ubuntu is just as adequate as mac or Windows, I've never felt hard done by. For instance, in mac many things can be dragged and dropped where ever you want them, whether that be into documents, presentations, emails, websites and the like. To my knowledge all this can be done in Ubuntu.

Whilst talking to Chris(my friend), I spoke about spotlight or deskbar. He referred to this as a step backwards in file interaction and searching. I partly agree with him, I type file names into the terminal, should I really be doing this in a GUI? But then I have the question, 'So how do I access my files?' His argument was that there are plenty of apps that do that in mac. The same and some better apps are included in Ubuntu such as F-spot for pictures. Thats great that I have that program but I have the "pictures" bookmark in my places menu, so do I need a third-party app to see my pictures? But if I don't, I'm back to using my, compared to say konqueror, inadequate file manager.

Currently, I think that there is some confusion as to how to access files, I'm totally in agreement with choice. But can too much be a bad thing? I have four different ways of viewing my pictures including nautilus. Its not all necessary, and its bordering on bloatware. I hadn't really taken any notice of this until my discussion with Chris, there are tons of programs that I just don't use and aren't really useful to me. Some people might feel they need F-spot, Thumbnail viewer and eye of Gnome. But I really don't.

Some clarification is needed with regards to file management, I would rather I was almost forced to use one very good way of using my files instead of many mediocre ways.

I'm by no means bashing Ubuntu or anything else for that matter. I just thought it interesting that I was using, (and in some cases struggling with), nautilus for apparently no reason. On the whole I've really enjoyed using Ubuntu, and for me is the most comfortable to use. I just want the improvments to continue. At the end of the day, an OS is only as good as the apps available to it, and if we can't integrate one way of dealing with files well then it will fail.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, its bin buggin me for the last couple of days.

[ImpressMe]

I use Gnome-Commander on Linux, Total Commander on Windows and I never used anything else than these Norton Commander clones.

[LaRoza]

I use mc (Midnight Commander).

When I am using a GUI file manager, I use Thunar. It is handy for images and video.

[Dr Small]

I used to use PcManFM, but I haven't installed it on Arch yet, so I don't find the need for it.

[LaRoza]

I was looking at the various file managers recently to find a better one than the default nautilus... I discussed this with my friend who is a mac fan and advocate. He was of the opinion that he doesn't mind that finder isn't a great file manager because he barely uses it. This seemed strange to me as I use nautilus extensively. That started me thinking as to whether it is a fault with me as a user or a fault with Ubuntu as an OS not providing me with obvious alternatives to nautilus.


Most Mac users have learned to love what they can't change ;)

In Ubuntu, you can use whatever you want.

[hyper_ch]

I use TC on windows and Konqui on Linux (regardless of what DE I'm in ^^)... on the CLI I sometimes use MC

[K.Mandla]

Are File Managers dead?
No. I mean no disrespect, but I find that systems like you describe are usually geared toward people with less experience working with computers. I use file managers -- everything from Nautilus to emelfm2 to the CLI -- on a daily basis. In fact, I resent systems that don't use them (like, for example, Sugar's managerless system).

[maniacmusician]

It all depends on utility. I use my file manager to fist and foremost organize all my files. If I didn't have them organized, everything would be in chaos. How would I know where certain text documents were? Pictures may be well and good since they're indexed and often organized by date or album in a Photo Manager. But there's nothing like that for most other file types.

It also depends a lot on innovation. My file manager does things like ssh and sftp for me, so that's really useful. Why should I use a separate app for that when it's all built right in, transparently? Dolphin in KDE4 is a shining example of innovation. It's integration with strigi (search/indexing), soprano (rdf-based data storage), and the nepomuk specification allows for things like searching through all your contacts for specific attributes.

Recently, they've been experimenting with things like using all the indexed data about your files to create multiple ways of looking at them; enter virtual folders (http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3426), and an improvement (http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3443). They're just doing exciting new things. With the added advantage of the transparent KIO system, Dolphin's going to be doing a lot of new things that make my computer more useful again. So no; file managers are only as dead as their developers and users let them be.

[-grubby]

I do not believe file managers are dead. I use Thunar (which is my prefered file manager), for organizing files, as I don't want them to be in chaos, as ManiacMusician said

[FuturePilot]

Far from dead. I don't think I could work without a file manager.

[malspa]

I lean on Konqueror no matter what desktop environment or window manager I'm using. Can't imagine using multiple tools to do the same things I can already do with Konqueror.

[Saint Angeles]

file managers are only useful when you want to move files or folders to other places on the filesystem... hence the name "file manager"

i have ALL my downloads go to the desktop. when they are finished, i drag them to the appropriate folder using a file manager. just like a real desk... and the file manager is my hands.

[Tundro Walker]

I don't rely on search utilities at all. I create folders and I know where I put things. I use search maybe once a month, and that's usually at work to help a coworker look for some file they lost.

I'm usually accessing this stuff through the file manager, since it's just easier to have an instances open and surf around for it.

I agree with MM, too. File Managers aren't dead, they're just re-inventing themselves.

However, computers seem to be reinventing themselves, too. There seems to be a more and more clear divide between "power users" which I would probably consider most Ubuntu users, and "regular users", like most folks using Windows. Regulars just want to boot it up like an iPod or game console and "do stuff" with it that may be complicated, but is very easy to get to and do (word processing, email, web, etc). Regulars probably don't care about the file manager. Heck, they probably get scared seeing it. They just want to access files through whatever program they use.

I guess that's where Mac's roll in.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

The reason people use spotlight so much on macs is two-fold: 1) Its very good 2) you can avoid using Finder, which is utter kack.

I use midnight commander on my macbook. I just wish I could uninstall Finder.

[davbren]

Thanx for your replies, some interesting points have been raised.

There was one point, making the difference between power users and regular users. Why do we have to make this distiction? I am a power user but I would like that no-hassle approach to using an OS. Without switching to mac of course (I just don't like it)

Chris' argument was that you should need to be too concerned about where the files are. I do think that file managers are needed with the premise of being in the background and staying in the background. Its where the files and folders are kept. What I'm trying to say (not very well) is that the file structure should not be changed, I think that would be dumb. But with the various applications that can organise my photos and documents alike, why should I favour the file manager?

Also, yes finder is utter kack.

[EdThaSlayer]

I like to use Krusader. Makes me feel powerful, and in control of everything! Plus it's fast!

[HangukMiguk]

Thunar still works fine for me. Maybe one day there will be a new brilliant way to manage files in *NIX, but for now, I'm very happy with Thunar, in fact it was one of the first packages I installed when I reinstalled Gutsy.

[p_quarles]

Any "seamless" file manager (i.e., one that never requires opening a separate application for that specific purpose) just adds another layer of abstraction on top of the basic workings of the system. This is fine for many people, but is intrusive and unnecessary for anyone who wants or needs to be in control of their filesystem.

I find that maintaining my file organization manually (mostly via the shell) is the best way to keep things really organized. I've used, in the past, many applications that want to manage their files for you, and this inevitably makes it difficult to use those files with any other application.

[Trail]

I'm a dolphin fanboy :) But I like nautilus quite a lot as well.

[Erik Trybom]

I, too, feel that the general trend in file management is moving in a certain direction, towards each application managing its own kind of files. I've always been opposed to that kind of thinking, but I more and more get the feeling that it's an uphill battle.

The obvious example is Itunes. You plug your Ipod in, it updates your database and there you go. No need to even know where the mp3 files are stored. Same goes for the My Documents folder in Windows. What is that? C:\Documents and Settings\something... It's pretty hard to find when you, say, want to access your files from a Linux partition on the same computer.

I'm used to having a certain order in my files - they're all sorted under their proper directory and subdirectory. My mp3's where sorted the same way of course so I was kind of dumbfounded when I first saw the tagging system in Itunes. Now I was supposed to just lump all my mp3's into the same folder and let the tagging software handle it?

I ended up using other software, but I still can't make up my mind if I'm missing something or not. Is tags a better way to organize your files than hierarchy? Maybe I'm just an obsolete dinosaur clinging to my old ways?

In general, I think hierarchy is great. I have thousands of files in my home directory and I can find any one of them within a few seconds by just thinking about where they *should* be. Documents/School/Nanoelectronics/Lab2/report.tex, it's so easy. I don't have to tag anything and I don't have to remember the name of the file. I just have to click my way through the hierarchy.

On the other hand, I have a lot of respect for the ways others deal with common tasks. Your ways isn't always the best way, and in most cases they're more or less equal. I remember one time when a guy I knew copied a file by using ctrl+c and ctrl+v. I had never seen that before, I always just dragged the files in Explorer. But his way was of course as good as mine.

I like file managers, especially Norton Commander-style ones. But I suppose internal file managers are nice in applications where you usually deal with a lot of files, for example photo albums or music collections. I still want them to follow the directory structure though.

I don't really know where I'm going with this post, I just wanted to share my views on the subject.

[Andrewie]

File Managers in the way that we use them now may be dead, but file managers will never die. You need to view files...

[chucky chuckaluck]

as having to manage one's files is still alive, whatever tool one uses for that purpose is still alive. you might wish the current file manager you're using were dead, but the the need remains. as i've increasingly become sick of gui apps, i've given mc a try, but i just found myself doing everything via the terminal, so i dumped mc. others, who do a lot more with their files than i, might prefer something a bit more automated.

[qazwsx]

Far from it.

You can do lots of things via file manager.
I have loads of little handy bash scipts that do lot of things in point and click way. Just check out KDE servicemenus and imagination is your limit.

Alltough I usually found myself using ls, cp, mv and rm.

[Quillz]

Most Mac users have learned to love what they can't change ;)

In Ubuntu, you can use whatever you want.
Mac OS X has a few Finder replacements, such as ForkLift and Path Finder.

Anyway, no, file managers are not dead, and never will be. Even with iPhoto, Spotlight, etc, you will still want a file manager to actually move things around. You may be able to view your photos in a photo management software of sorts, but you oftentimes can't physically rename or move them.

[DoktorSeven]

I use bash as a file manager (cp, mv, mkdir, rmdir, cd, and so on). I'm hardcore.

;)

[LaRoza]

I use bash as a file manager (cp, mv, mkdir, rmdir, cd, and so on). I'm hardcore.

;)

A hardcore user would use a shell other the one that comes up normally ;)

[DoktorSeven]

A hardcore user would use a shell other the one that comes up normally ;)

Bah, those other shells have nothing on bash! Nothing, I say! :)

[LaRoza]

Bah, those other shells have nothing on bash! Nothing, I say! :)

Don't bash other shells.

[ladr0n]

I honestly think file managers are some of the most important components of an operating system. Why use a variety of applications to handle different types of files and applications when they can be managed all from a single place? It just seems less efficient to do that.

[gsmanners]

I've seen people who stick all their files in "My Documents" and rely on file extensions and/or tags for everything, and the main reason they don't use a file manager is because when they open it the computer appears to hang for about a minute or two. That's just weird and a little sad.

There's a reason you should use subfolders. It makes all your apps a little more efficient.

[aaaantoine]

As long as there is one user with a specific need not addressed by a program, there will always be file managers.