Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-12 20:57:22

Yep got 2 more babble cents on this. Yeah, yeah, I know everyone has to be really please about that !

Also mentioned it strikes me as odd any piece of software allowed into Debian's stable branch would/could possibly have any such important issues and the years of screening inherent in the process they use while screening software. I tend to doubt it and mentioned haven't seen anything odd from thunar.

So I thought, WTH man ? Next thought was ... ok 11 bugs, classed as important and possibly confirmed. Though compare that to how many people are using Thunar overall, problem free ? Makes me wonder how much of it could possibly be linked to those 11 people and/or something they've done, possibly even misconfigured on their OS's to see xyz weird buggy behavior.

With infinite choices in how you prefer to setup gnu/Linux, vast array of hardware, this, that ... endlessly on. Think it can be dang near impossible to diagnose such oddities. At least not without investing a TON of effort to back track it on x-unknown-nixer's install.

For those few people yep, +1 John-san, figure it out and/or take 2mins to install some other file manager(s) from the 2,303 others readily available to them, shrugs.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-12 21:00:41)

p9000 · 2017-11-12 21:32:26

Thunar had similar issues a couple of years ago. It took them a very long time to solve them, because it doesn't work directly with the file system; instead it uses a layer of abstraction provided by glib, which makes the whole thing so complicated that it's very hard to understand what is going on.

There are quite few file managers that do not use the same architecture (most of the popular ones do and are susceptible to similar or even worse bugs; for example I caught pcmanfm making incomplete copies of large directory trees). I tried many but didn't like any of them. So I went cli only. Now I use only mc, cp and rsync. I mount and unmount everything by hand.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-12 21:35:20

p9000 wrote:

cli only

+1

GUIs are always slower than the shell for file management operations.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-11-12 21:35:40)

hhh · 2017-11-12 23:52:12

The only issue with Thunar I've ever encountered is with it closing suddenly after a copy/paste, and I think that's only happened only and rarely with gksu thunar, and that happened with jessie as well. It hasn't happened any time recently. I've never lost any data using Thunar, and I use it every time I log on. YMMV

deleted0 · 2017-11-13 00:23:41

Maybe it comes down to typing skills. Two finger, hunt-n-peck types like me find the GUI faster and less dangerous due to typos.

8bit

"If a man does his best, what else is there?"
- General George S. Patton (1885-1945)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-13 01:18:49

Personally have come to embrace gooey(gui) and cli in their places, sometimes think/found one to be just simply more convenient than the other and like to use both. Esp on desktop, however +1 what's already been said and is obvious. If you are doing something non-desktop, server admin etc blahblah. Then yeah, cli can and will run circles around gooey in any way that'd matter I guess.

Desktop gnu/Linux though ... Not so much and have come to think graphical frontends definitely have their place. Would never take away from the amazing people who created all such software. From thunar to everything else gooey. Humbled and blown away by what they've done, including gooey file managers.

While still do all things package management or whichever other via Cli, even in desktop gnu/Nix. Just gets the job done so much better/faster ... so much more powerfully than any frontend could imo, etc. Honestly though don't at all doubt someone could say the same of desktop file management. If they learn enough about it. Nope they could likely care less about gooey file managers, shrugs.

Pointless 2 babble cents, meet pile. As does face meet palm.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-13 01:23:03)

johnraff · 2017-11-13 03:13:03

nore wrote:

Defaults don't have to be perfect, just sane.

This.

tknomanzr · 2017-11-13 18:41:47

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

p9000 wrote:
cli only
+1
GUIs are always slower than the shell for file management operations.

I agree for large file operations, rsync is a far better tool. I recently tried to sync my entire Music library from my NAS to my tablet over sshfs, roughly 90GBs of data. It ended up missing over half the files for a transfer operation (on the local net) that ran over 24 hours. Rsyncing the entire thing has taken forever (over the external network) but at least it is able to resume from where it left off.

Rsync can be a fairly complex tool, especially once you start piggy-backing it over ssh, so I typically write wrapper scripts for the command.

dolly · 2017-11-13 19:19:06

Haven't this thread run it's course now?

martix · 2017-11-13 21:19:15

Yep, I found what I meant above (HoaS quote): "I have to say that my vote would still be on thunar for general usage because gvfs offers more flexibility, especially in respect of smartphones." - Indeed, I can confirm this.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-13 21:42:22

^ I think it is possible to use gvfs with pcmanfm & spacefm but the main advantage of spacefm as I see it is the option to use pmount or udevil instead of gvfs (both are lighter but also less capable for stuff like smartphones) and once that is ruled out then it reduces to a cosmetic choice and becomes pointless.

ohnonot · 2017-11-14 06:37:48

p9000 wrote:

it doesn't work directly with the file system; instead it uses a layer of abstraction provided by glib, which makes the whole thing so complicated that it's very hard to understand what is going on.

i learned something important today.
but that's not gvfs, right? in other words, gvfs is not used for normal file operations, only where mounting "exotic" stuff is concerned?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-14 07:06:31

ohnonot wrote:

gvfs is not used for normal file operations, only where mounting "exotic" stuff is concerned?

Yes, that is correct, gvfs is a front-end for udisks2.

o9000 · 2017-11-14 08:36:07

ohnonot wrote:

p9000 wrote:
it doesn't work directly with the file system; instead it uses a layer of abstraction provided by glib, which makes the whole thing so complicated that it's very hard to understand what is going on.
i learned something important today.
but that's not gvfs, right? in other words, gvfs is not used for normal file operations, only where mounting "exotic" stuff is concerned?

See how it does file rename:

https://github.com/xfce-mirror/thunar/b … le.c#L1874

It does not use the posix API. It uses gio (which sits under gvfs).

While this code does not look complicated (it would be simpler if it renamed .desktop files instead of editing the inner contents...), it's called from this monster which deals only with renaming:

https://github.com/xfce-mirror/thunar/b … er-model.c

Note that this is not GUI code. GUI code for renaming is here:

https://github.com/xfce-mirror/thunar/b … r-dialog.c

https://github.com/xfce-mirror/thunar/b … progress.c

So over 4K lines of code to rename files... when you could just call rename(2). It shouldn't be the job of the file manager to use abstractions for exotic file systems, the linux kernel already does that (or should).

Last edited by o9000 (2017-11-14 08:37:17)

malm · 2017-11-14 19:33:27

Do I sense blwm coming on? Or o9000wm.

o9000 · 2017-11-14 20:19:26

Wrong thread?

ohnonot · 2017-11-15 06:44:08

^^^
i just had a look at spacefm's dependencies but i cannot see if it does it differently. it to uses glib and there's no direct dependency to coreutils...
i have been wondering about that; i think it would be best if a filemanager would just use these standard utilities.
i wonder if such a wondrous beast exists.

#21 2017-11-12 20:57:22

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#22 2017-11-12 21:32:26

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#23 2017-11-12 21:35:20

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#24 2017-11-12 23:52:12

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#25 2017-11-13 00:23:41

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#26 2017-11-13 01:18:49

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#27 2017-11-13 03:13:03

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#28 2017-11-13 18:41:47

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#29 2017-11-13 19:19:06

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#30 2017-11-13 21:19:15

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#31 2017-11-13 21:42:22

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#32 2017-11-14 06:37:48

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#33 2017-11-14 07:06:31

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#34 2017-11-14 08:36:07

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#35 2017-11-14 19:33:27

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#36 2017-11-14 20:19:26

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

#37 2017-11-15 06:44:08

Re: Can we migrate from Thunar in helium?

Board footer