Invitation to discuss Dolphin vs Konqueror

[recraig2]

Originally Posted by microchip8:

Dolphin is a *simple* file manager targeted at noobs or people who are not power users. If one has to make the decision of which file manager to set as default and he knows that he tries to target both power users and noobs, dolphin will be the logical choice to set as default. It goes like this... if a noob user installs kde4, dolphin will offer him enough functionality without confusing him with a gazillion of options. If a power user installs kde4, he may not be happy with dolphin, but since he's a power user, he has the ability and option to exchange dolphin for konqi to suite better his needs and this is only a few clicks away. If a noob is also not happy with dolphin, again he too has the option to set konqi as default file manager and again this is only a few clicks away.

The link you provided to Dolphin states:
Dolphin is a file manager focusing on usability. When reading the term Usability people often assume that the focus is on newbies and only basic features are offered. This assumption is wrong.

Ok, however, they also say:
Each additional option makes it harder finding other options, so the same rules for features are applied to options too.

That is how they end their introductory page.

Why is this relevant for the SuSE user? Namely, because Dolphin is set as the default file manager to replace Konqueror in that role. konqueror is still avaialable. Yet, as we have seen with other defaults that were beautiful, this one is being swapped on us. We have to do YET one more thing to ready our system for normal use.

Dolphin is still anything BUT normal. It is a hacked up version of something, but not of Konqueror. There are too many features missing.

As SuSE users we should be concerned that SuSE concedes to putting out their Linux with THIS thing set as default. Check the bug/features pages. You will see how much functionality is missing that people expected.

If the Dolphin programmers think that adding one more feature will clutter the interface and confuse the user then maybe they should consult with professional designers to aid them. Then they will be able to include normal functionality without soiling the interface.

There is the possibility of have profile options. They could have Beginner, Average, and Advance profile options in the main menu. The user can select which interface they would like access to. The file manager remembers this and.. viola! Problem solved.

What do you think about this issue?

[Confuseling]

I'll admit I've only booted into KDE 3.5 about twice (recent Linux user, apart from a foray into Red Hat back in the day when X-Windows wouldn't open on my Matrox Mystique so I gave up), but I really don't see it as a major issue.

I think it would be nice (if it worked) during installation if, instead of just having "New User / Expert" presets, you were given fine grained control of associations and defaults; "Which file manager should be set to default?[list of file managers]". Even better would be integrating this into package selection... e.g. "Office suite: Koffice:... OOffice:... Abiword:...", each with three buttons "Don't install / Install / Install and set to default", obviously only allowing one program from each group to be set to default.

Maybe you could put this all on one big page with "New User / Expert" preset selections, and a point and click interface to deviate. Or maybe it could just be set up how a new user would want it, on the assumption that if it's all on one page, an expert can breeze through and select what they're after in moments.

In lieu of that though, KDE 4 is still a work in progress. They announced that there would be pain, and that in their view it was necessary. I actually think it's coming along a lot quicker than perhaps most people expected. If you're having issues changing your default file manager, it's a bug. If you aren't, with all due respect, I think you're making this into more of an issue than it should be...

[mutex1]

Maybe add a feature request at openFATE https://features.opensuse.org/ ? if it gets enough votes and gets approved, chance is high they'll add it to next release

[Confuseling]

If you're referring to recraig2's suggestion, that's more of a Dolphin UI suggestion (if I'm reading him correctly?), so outside the scope of openfate.

If you're referring to mine, I might just do that...

The issue really would be space I suppose, especially on the live CD. But if it's designed to pull in the requisite packages once it's online I think it could be made to work.

[mutex1]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

If you're referring to recraig2's suggestion, that's more of a Dolphin UI suggestion, so outside the scope of openfate.

If you're referring to mine, I might just do that...

The issue really would be space I suppose, especially on the live CD. But if it's designed to pull in the requisite packages once it's online I think it could be made to work.

yes, I was referring to yours

as for recraig2's post. That's better directed at the dolphin developers and the kde forums. Here on this forum we have little influence on how one develops dolphin. On kde forums, lots of kde devs are constantly there and many suggestions get made on daily basis. Some of them get implemented/added in future releases of the apps

[john_hudson]

This is a long-standing debate; both are offered as part of KDE4; I happen to prefer Konqueror and so have set it as my default file manager. I am happy that there is choice and that Dolphin is available for those who prefer it.

At the moment there is no evidence that either is lacking developer input; so what is there to discuss?

[cjcox]

I sort of agree. I'm not sure what a "file manager" is... but as far as
I can tell, Konqueror IS a file manager. It handles multiple
windows/panes... I'm not quite sure for the need for Dolphin. I think
at one point somebody felt that Konqueror was too fat... and so the idea
is that people needed Dolphin because it was thinner. But in truth, I
doubt that seriously.

I'd like to see a better Konqueror rather than a new separate tool with
a TON of replicated functionality. Just me....

[GofBorg]

> I'd like to see a better Konqueror rather than a new separate tool with
> a TON of replicated functionality. Just me....

And me.

[kastorff]

On 2009-06-11 14:28:33 -0400, GofBorg <GofBorg@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> said:

>> I'd like to see a better Konqueror rather than a new separate tool with
>> a TON of replicated functionality. Just me....
>
> And me.

Agreed.

--
Keith Kastorff

[cjcox]

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 18:16 +0000, john hudson wrote:
> This is a long-standing debate; both are offered as part of KDE4; I
> happen to prefer Konqueror and so have set it as my default file
> manager. I am happy that there is choice and that Dolphin is available
> for those who prefer it.
>
> At the moment there is no evidence that either is lacking developer
> input; so what is there to discuss?
>
>

How about a new discussion on a good everything media player?

What if it were kpartable?

What if it were a combination of kaffeine and Amarok?

(why didn't I start a separate thread?)