That's a good one [LWN.net]

That's a good one

Posted Mar 26, 2007 14:47 UTC (Mon) by TRauMa (guest, #16483)
Parent article: Bake-Off: 4 Linux Desktops Tackle The Enterprise (CRN)

"The Linux File Manager is not as intuitive as Windows Explorer."

What is the "Linux File Manager"? How exactly is Windows Explorer "intuitive"?

And why do they talk about corporate deployments and Flash?

/me puzzled

(Log in to post comments)

That's a good one

Posted Mar 26, 2007 15:25 UTC (Mon) by superstoned (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

They clearly don't know much about linux, so they made beginner's
mistakes - thus having wasted a lot of time with downloading and
installing flash and java by hand, instead of using the appropriate tools
from the distributions.

And linux filemanager, well... I wouldn't call explorer intuitive, ever.
But I could call it familiar, and I guess that's what they meant.

Still don't understand why they talk about 'the linux filemanager', as
Xandros uses KFM = pretty much explorere (their own filemanager),
Linspire has konqueror = explorer-on-steroids, and Novell and Red Hat
must have Nautilus = explorer-for-dummy's. So how can they speak
about 'the linux filemanager'?

That's a good one

Posted Apr 1, 2007 0:49 UTC (Sun) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link]

Windows Explorer is "intuitive" in the same way that driving a car is "intuitive". Once you learn how, it doesn't take much effort, and anything else seems clunky and unusable, even if it demonstrably isn't.

"Familiar" I'd agree with; "relatively easy" I'd agree with. "Intuitive"? No, definitely not. "Intuitive" is an extremely subjective word, prone to reinterpretation again and again.

To pull up an example, compare Windows Explorer to something like Directory Opus (an astonishingly powerful file-manager that puts anything else I've ever used to shame):^*

To me, it's more "intuitive" than Windows Explorer because it facilitates the kinds of functions that I need from a file manager.
Someone else, without my "power-user" requirements, might consider it less "intuitive" because it offers too much configurability.

Actually, that second point probably wouldn't be true simply because, for all of it's power and flexibility, the default DirOpus layout is extremely usable right out of the box, so to speak. However, that ruins the analogy.

^* No, I am not employed by the company that makes it, but I am an enthusiastic supporter of it. For a power user, I think it is well worth the money they ask for it. Non-power users? Eh, probably not, but take a look at it anyway—you might be surprised.

I may have to use Windows on occasion, but that doesn't mean I have to use the standard toolset while I'm at it. I do wish they'd consider a Linux version, though…

That's a good one

Posted Apr 1, 2007 0:55 UTC (Sun) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link]

Oh, before anyone points out the existence of worker as a viable Directory Opus clone, DirOpus hasn't used the fixed two-pane file manager presentation since version 5 for the Amiga…

The current release is designed to integrate tightly into Windows as an Explorer shell replacement.

That's a good one

Posted Mar 26, 2007 16:26 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Yeah, instead of surface-deep flawed evaluation, they went for slightly below surface-deep flawed evaluation. But it's a good trend. Maybe eventually these reviews might talk about features and differentiators that matter. Here's hoping.