On Thu, January 22, 2009 00:00, zhang zhengquan wrote:
> Dear mc users:
> I have been using icewm with file manager rox-filer for years and now
> I find rox-filer not a very efficient.
> Efficiencywise, could you please compare a competent mc user and a GUI
> file manager user?
I am not anyone to "compare users", whatever that means.
We could speak about graphical file managers vs. text based ones instead.
And whether mc will suit you or not will strictly depend on your exigences,
what do you ask from a file manager? Without knowing that we cannot tell
you if mc is for you or not. And even if we knew that it's still
predict if it will suit you.
mc can be quite handy for some things but I find it unpractical for others.
However, for what a file manager can give, I find it quite a good program.
When I need a file manager (which is getting rarer and rarer) it's my
choice. Except when I need to navigate large catalogs of images, then
I need to use a graphical tool.
> I am considering to a console based commander in hope of increasing my
> efficienty in managing my files.
mc is customizable to an extent (but not superb in that regard), and being
text based is a plus if you need to run it under screen or ssh. It's also
light enough that you can have many sessions open for many purposes
without filling so much ram. If you are proficient with scripting the f2 menu
can be adapted to do almost anything (I use it to launch playlists
or to burn files to a cd for example). It handles ssh and ftp stuff
and can be used to dive into your compressed archives and even iso images.
Graphical file managers can be equally good if you manage to find a sane
one that works for you (I could never live with rox, it's not my cup of tea).
However, I never found one that I really liked. If I had to use one it would
probably be konqueror or dolphin (I used konqueror in the past and it was
good, but it had its own assortment of problems).
Mc mailing list