What is the point of Dolphin? In KDE3, we had a file manager that did the
job, Konqueror. Now, on KDE4.2, we have Dolphin. I’ve tried it and found it
doesn’t do what I was able to do with Konqueror. So I tried Konqueror for
KDE4 and found that although it’s better than Dolphin, it is not as good as
the KDE3 version.
Couldn’t all the effort have been put into providing a decent conversion of
Konqueror for KDE4 instead of splitting the effort and coming up with two
half-baked file managers?
There seems to me to be a desire in the Linux community to keep re-inventing
the wheel instead of improving the one we have.
–
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
That of course is your opinion. I actually find Dolphin just great, quite an improvement. Not that K was bad - I loved it too.
Give it some work time, use it, configure it. IMO kde4 is going to be a benchmark for future desktop dev.
In what areas is Konqueror in KDE4 significantly lacking compared to KDE3? I have been using it since installing KDE4.2 and haven’t noticed anything I particularly miss.
> What is the point of Dolphin? In KDE3, we had a file manager that did the
> job, Konqueror. Now, on KDE4.2, we have Dolphin. I’ve tried it and found
> it doesn’t do what I was able to do with Konqueror. So I tried Konqueror
> for KDE4 and found that although it’s better than Dolphin, it is not as
> good as the KDE3 version.
>
> Couldn’t all the effort have been put into providing a decent conversion
> of Konqueror for KDE4 instead of splitting the effort and coming up with
> two half-baked file managers?
>
> There seems to me to be a desire in the Linux community to keep
> re-inventing the wheel instead of improving the one we have.
Particularly when there’s nothing really wrong with what you have.
It’s the nature of things though and you can find the same problem no matter
where you look. How many versions of the wheel are there? Ultimately it’s
still round.
>
> In what areas is Konqueror in KDE4 significantly lacking compared to
> KDE3? I have been using it since installing KDE4.2 and haven’t noticed
> anything I particularly miss.
>
>
(1) No thumbnails when hovering on a file.
(2) No “previous Image” or “next image” arrows. The “Main Toolbar
<GVImagePart>” has been replaced by “Main Toolbar <GVPart>” and is
annoyingly feature-free.
(3) After viewing a file in KDE3 Konqueror, returning to the list of files
(through “back” not “up”) would take you back to the file you’d just viewed
so you didn’t lose your place in a long list. In KDE4, you’re taken back to
the top of the list.
–
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
Dolphin is slow. Konqueror (KDE3) has been and still is a lot faster.
Dolphin is buggy, while Konqueror (KDE3) is rock steady, doing what one would expect from it.
Both of these have been improving, and Dolphin has a few nice features lacking i the old K, but a few days ago I was working on a large number of image files (nearly 1 000) and ended up installing KDE 3.5 to have the work done without being constantly interrupted.
My conclusion to date: To differentiate new kde4 from old kde3 by having a new-look file browser/manager - in the absence of any technical reason. For example: caf4926 wrote
I actually find Dolphin just great, quite an improvement.
That’s an opinion, some might agree with, but nobody is saying what has improved. What is the improvement?
I tried Dolphin on another distro and the ability to 1-click to root directory was about the only useful extra I noticed. Wow, that’s a compelling reason after all that development:sarcastic:. Yes, it required configuring ootb just to look and feel useable. That’s a nuisance to the average user, i.e. for an essential desktop application not to be ready for work with adequate defaults.
The OP, Graham, makes a compelling argument (IMO) and backs it up with the three missing features. Surely, those navigational features are essential for any decent file browser.
Even though I use Dolphin since it doesn’t overwhelm me with features like Konqueror did, I still notice some important differences in Konqueror 4.2.x:
Konqueror in KDE 3.x had that useful sidebar
It also could display metadata like Exif data from JPEGs
Had a “Folder icons reflect contents” feature, while not as useful as the equivalent in Explorer still a good thing to have
I realize this is all opinion and eye of beholder stuff, but I agree with Graham. Everytime I’ve attempted to use Dolphin in 4.2 I end up getting frustrated and rebooting 3.5 to do the job.
Missing tree view and side bar makes drag and drop a lot more difficult when utilizing external drives for storage. Thumbnail generation is god awful slow, file selection is erratic and inconsistent, target around files for selection is way too big and gets in the way and response is generally much much slower than 3.5.
>
> Graham P Davis;1948715 Wrote:
>> john hudson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > In what areas is Konqueror in KDE4 significantly lacking compared to
>> > KDE3? I have been using it since installing KDE4.2 and haven’t
>> noticed
>> > anything I particularly miss.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> (1) No thumbnails when hovering on a file.
>>
>> (2) No “previous Image” or “next image” arrows. The “Main Toolbar
>> <GVImagePart>” has been replaced by “Main Toolbar <GVPart>” and is
>> annoyingly feature-free.
>>
>> (3) After viewing a file in KDE3 Konqueror, returning to the list of
>> files
>> (through “back” not “up”) would take you back to the file you’d just
>> viewed
>> so you didn’t lose your place in a long list. In KDE4, you’re taken
>> back to
>> the top of the list.
>>
>> –
>> Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
>
> 1. Not correct. I get thumbs.
>
> As for the other 2 points, I can’t say. I always use Gwenview it has
> all the features you describe and more - with file browsing too.
>
> ‘[image: http://thumbnails15.imagebam.com/2771/3fb98027703851.gif]’
> (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3fb98027703851/)
>
>
No (1) is still correct. With Konqueror (KDE3), you get an image appear as
you hover over a file. This image is much larger than the ones available in
KDE4 - enough to see what’s in it - and only applies to the one file. You
don’t have to switch it on for all.
I see on 3.5 that Gwenview has an interface that bears some resemblance to
Konqueror but has drastically changed in 4.2 so that the way I like to do
things isn’t possible.
So it seems to me that in 3.5 there were two ways I could do what I wanted
with a file manager/viewer. Now a new one is added but I’m down to zero for
anything usable. Magic!
It seems the aim is to provide something that looks pretty. Anyone like me
who wants the same old boring interface that they know and love can go fly a
kite.
–
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
I found that dolphin got a LOT better in KDE4.2 than it was in 4.0 or 4.1— that having been said, I still do most of my work in kde3.
I think it’s really funny how the development team went through so much effort to seemlessly integrate a browser into the kde desktop and then changed their minds and decided that it needed to be a separate application.
One unreadable image and another that shows what I know already. All you’ve
done is proved my point that Dolphin doesn’t produce images on hover.
I use 4.2 because I like where it’s going and I want to see it progress but
it still has a long way to go. What I don’t understand is why we’re at 4.2
and still the file managers are worse than the 3.5 equivalent. Why split
effort on two similar products so that neither are fit for purpose?
–
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
i personally agree with caf, he as proved his points and i love dolphin haven’t missed konq at all so if you love konq use it you can use konq the kde3 version in kde4 why cry about it just use what you like nobody is forcing you to use anything you don’t want thats the glory of it all
