Replace pcmanfm in 9.10.01 with Thunar (Page 5 of 7)

Where do you get 40mb from ?

Apt reports thunar as 815kb, 1548kb uncompressed.

Personally I wouldn't mind switching, Id just rather have the best app for the job. When the new PCManFM becomes stable we should consider using it again but until then I say lets go with Thunar.

Seems like corenomial has plenty of input to make a decision. I personally like PCManFM, but Thunar isn't as big as I thought (maybe the total install for Thunar is bigger in 8.10, which I'm running).

I prefer my LiveCD to have PCManFM in case I need to access a hard disk from LiveCD. But I can get around that by downloading and install PCManFM in a live session (with Synaptic, or a deb of from here).

I'm about to make a statement that is probably going to be very un-popular: my confidence level in the LXDE project as a whole is precisely 0.  Why?  One installation of LXDE made changes to my system that it never should have made: setting a gtk configuration file that has long been derpricated, and placing it in a state that was un-editable, PCManFM *losing* files during a move across directories (thankfully I've understood the value of backups for many years now), changes to my system configuration (like changing GDM and the screensaver), and numerous other things that have made me swear that I will never trust anything from the LXDE group.

Needless to say, I was disappointed when I found that #! had chosen PCManFM as the default file manager.  But, I swallowed my revulsion and left PCManFM on my system and attempted to use it.  However, over the past few days it's proven it's un-suitability to me yet again.  I started getting errors from it while trying to copy files (unfortunately I didn't write the messages down).  A quick confirmation using "cp" at a terminal proved out that it shouldn't have been giving me the errors that it was.

Fortunately my recent experience didn't result in any data loss, as it has in the past, however it has proven to me that  PCManFM just isn't to be trusted. 

As for the choice of another file manager: this is extremely difficult.

First a comment about something I've been reading in this thread...  The comment about the size of the package was kinda silly. 1meg vs 4meg shouldn't be a major consideration, IMO.  The question is really, what is the overall requirements that the package puts on the system: how much memory does it use, what dependencies does it have (are those dependencies hard requirements, or optional), what level of functionality does it bring, does the functionality bring any additional bonuses? (I'll explain this last point a little more below.)

Another small side comment: someone suggested that thunar / nautilus style file managers were "classic" style.  Sorry to correct this, but the two panel style predates the tree / directory style managers, and are more "classic" than the current windows inspired file managers.  The only model that predates both of them is the much older X style navigator with mutiple columns (that never really made all that much sense to me).  Honestly, I don't know if you introduced a new user to a computer which model they would find easier or better -- after all a truly new user wouldn't have any attached expectations.

Having been an XFCE user, there are definitely some positives to Thunar,  however I don't think it's the be-all, end-all of file managers.  It does handle basic file manager functionality well, it does allow some expansion, and it does have additional plugins, it integrates vfs functionality, and more etc.  However, it doesn't have tabs, and it doesn't scan the fstab for partitions (that's what the person that was missing his Windows partitions was noticing), and possibly a few other things.

Personally, I've been a long time fan of Rox filer.  However, I recognize that the way in which it works is very different from most file managers.  The default functionality can look a bit sparse (like no mount tool), however it can be customized to an extreme level (look at http://roscidus.com/desktop/software for a list of add-ons).  IMO - something that it does well is to leverage the underlying features of linux (like the find tool really calls the linux find command).  However, this is positive and negative, if you don't know how to use the find command, the tool in rox probably won't make a lot of sense.

I've looked, however briefly at a ton of other file managers: gnome-commander, xnc, worker, 4pane, Tux Commander, EmelFM2, just to name a few (there were at least 3 or 4 more that I've forgotten).  And, honestly they were all interesting, some were better than others.  The biggest thing that I noticed, however, was that most of them didn't seem to support udev, which meant that it was difficult to handle removable devices.  Also, the level of integration into your operating environment would vary greatly.  However, I noticed a few things: most of them didn't have a lot of extra dependencies, and were all fairly consistent in memory usage (the overall range was about 15-25meg of resident memory).

Okay, so I'm gonig to end this long comment...  After looking at the file managers, I have two installed on my system.  Thunar and Tux Commander...(a close third was EmelFM2).  Thunar is what I've been used to having been using XFCE for quite some time before switching to #!.  However, Tux Commander has a facility that might even be more beneficial overall (for me at least, and maybe quite a few #!'ers): the ability to ftp/sftp as part of it's connection manager.  The connection manager is something that many of the file managers seem to miss. 

I mentioned earlier that one of the things that could be considered when evaluating a replacement package would additonal "bonuses".  Tux Command is an example of what I am talking about.  Because of the connection manager having the ability to support ftp/sftp, this could easily eliminate the need for gFTP to be in the main distribution.  That kind of a trade off is something that is worth considering at times, IMO.

Okay, I'm ending this here, I could write a long review of everything I looked at, but instead maybe I will save that for my own website.

-- SndChaser

How about pcmanfm for the Lite version, and Thunar for the 'full' version of #!. It doens't affect me either way because I know how to use sudo apt-get install, but, for the logos of it, this way makes more sense.

makes sense - I guess I'm coming from a netbook standpoint. Well, a netbook with a 15GB SSD for a HD. So I use Lite to help on space more such than for the terminal apps. I run mostly gui based everything (hence the apt-get reference), but the total list of programs is much smaller than the list of programs in #!-full.

Guess we just need #!-full, lite, netbook, old-skool, ps3, lxde, and atari to make everyone happy. Yea right!

If PCManFM is causing some problems, it wouldn't help to keep it. After all thats why omns made this thread suggesting Thunar.

Regarding the size argument, when I had a fresh install of Arch, PCManFM was approximately twice the size of Thunar. Plus, Thunar has a cool name so it gets my vote.

i liked what somebody said about simplicity,
and i don't like the need to configure each and every appl i use.
i don't think i "like" any file manager, but i "prefer" the one that makes the job just from the first reboot
after fresh install (specially if i am installing #! for my friends & getting them out of windows, or in old computers) and i need to configure all the system in one go, coping or moving files from my computer to theirs. So things like "open current folder as root" or being able to have all the partitions on the side panel makes it easier.
and to move and copy without having the desktop clustered in windows is "easier" "faster" "better" "is less chaotic" for me.
(of course i'll just jump for the 2-panel - if dolphin wouldn't install half kde with it i would be still using it)

i prefer to configure or customize firefox, #! look & feel, conky, and some other lot of appl, and i need just something where i can see what i am doing, beside using the terminal.

i am sure thunar is better for a lot of things, but i just tried it again (to be really sure) and it simply doesn't do the minimal things a file manager needs to do (at least for me): copy, move, rename, open, change permissions, files in just one window
(and i just moved like 40 giga from the computer to an external hd and pcmanfm did it was fast, didn't crash, didn't lost files, didn't make my system slower)

That's a NO for Thunar - if a filemanager doesn't offer a 2 panel (NC style) view, it needs to have tabs at least ...
So - if you don't want to move to tuxcmd oder emelfm2 - please stick with PCManFM at least.

i've changed my mind again. 
i like pcmanfm better than thunar again.    i know this wont last.   neither really completely does it for me.   ....  someday....  someday i'll have acquired the skills and knowledge to make my own just as i like... i like that.   and i'm getting there.

but no... neither really does it.  i think if we got out of this two party duopoly that the thread title has started here, we'll maybe find that most of us are dissatisfied with both, and we'll go find a better way, or make our own.  ;D