Talk:File manager

Miller Columns should be separate

Why is the Miller Columns file manager grouped under the Navigational file manager heading together with the Windows File Manager? Although both are Navigational in nature, they have distinctly different usage and should be explicitly separated. Mac OS X Finder provides both types of interface and they should be clearly differentiated otherwise the Navigational file manager section will become a catch all term.Jpvosloo (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox OTT

The section on "orthodox" file managers is simply over the top. It's also incredibly poorly written. The section should be limited to what distinguishes this type of file manager and refrain from trying to convince people this is the best type.

I completely agree, and it's got to go. I'm making a new section within the talk here just about this. Tgm1024 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also a world of difference between a file manager and a file browser, a difference that's also clear from the names themselves. The term 'web manager' doesn't exist, for a very good reason.

File Manager is not Windows Manager

In no way File managers are a special type of Windows Managers. While some file managers may have rudimentary Windows management capabilities all this spacial metaphor is completly misplaced. There is no such thing.

The article didn't say that a file manager was a window manager. That's not what it was saying about spatial file managers. Guy Harris 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

File Manager is not Program Manager

You must be confused; File Manager from Windows 3.x (winfile.exe) is not accressible from later versions of Windows. progman.exe refers to the Program Manager, which is in all Windows versions from 3.x to XP. --216.102.163.218 01:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

This is simply not true. WINFILE.EXE exists through Windows 2000. It is available in 32-bit form on all versions of "NT". It's a total rewrite for "NT". The term "accessible" is a bit imprecise. Dr Roots (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Win2K what we know. We missed it already in betas at IBM. At any rate, it became dysfunctional on Win2K.

A mind map would be a better "human related" user interface

Mind maps show an information structure in a way, that many people can intuitively overview, memorize and develop the informations and its structure. In fact, mind maps are tree structures as well as the structures that are managed with a file manager. So it could be helpfull to use a file manager, that would show the data structures as a mind map. But I couldn't find a software doing that. Doesn't this exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristofArn (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I have never used it but FreeMind seems like such a software that can be used for files as well. Pomte 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

i would extend it to a graph, though it is much more complex :)) i read about some experiments with guis and web(...) browsers who took graph (i suppose it was rather tree) approach. should be not hard to google it 84.16.123.194 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a new entry (Knexus) to the 3D File Manager section. It's organizational structure is conceptually similar to a mind map in the sense that the organization is free-form. Context-related files, which may be diversely located, can be clustered together in the virtual space. However, Knexus is not a tree-structure. The 3D environment allows all files to be top-level, and organized in space. DrPaul0401 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dual pane manager is an incorrect term. Please do not use it

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox file manager

It is actually pretty misleading and technically incorrect to call Orthodox file managers "dual pane manager" as they have three windows with the command line window hidden behind two symmetric panes. And command line windows plays very prominent role in the functionality of this type of managers. Moreover most of them allow using just one pane with the second one hidden. So much for 'dual panes'.

The most distinctive feature is the presence of command line window and direct access to shell via this window not presence of two symmetric panes which is pretty superficial feature.

This is especiually important in Midnight commander and other Unix implementations (integration with bash is used).

Please do not use this incorrect term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kievite (talk • contribs) 02:31:34, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

• "Orthodox file manager" is a silly term coined by some idiot. It doesn't appear in ANY remotely credible source. It's not in the GNU Midnight Commander docs or web page. It's not in the Jargon File. It's only cited here on jokepedia and a few other lame sites.--88.149.235.37 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

jargon file isn't applicable (even if it were a reliable source - which it is not, nor is it comprehensive in any sense). So you're saying that because the term doesn't exist in one of the implementation's documentation, then no one else is allowed to describe the overall category. Tedickey 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this issue. There is a difference between 'describing' and 'coining' a name for it. I think we need some reliable sources and a verifiable definition for the term 'orthodox file manager' if we're going to use it in so many articles. Frankly speaking, I think I read this name for Norton Commander clones here first and I don't think Wikipedia should invent such names. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The old talk page and the AfD are relevant. I don't care what we call it, but I think it is useful to have some name for this class of file managers. For what it is worth, the term "orthodox file manager" has been used by DMOZ, Linux Today, Linux Magazine, and others. I wouldn't mind changing the name, but it should be done consistently & by consensus & we shouldn't just delete useful information (such as the common sub-categorization of these programs. --Karnesky (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, it would still be nice to have verifiable sources for the given definition: "Orthodox file managers or "Commander-like" file managers have three windows (two panels and one command line window)". In case you know a specific issue of any publication (Linux Today, Linux Magazine etc.) in which a definition like this is given, please add it to the references section of this article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of no case where they dedicated an article to the topic of OFMs in general or where they clearly defined what an OFM is. They use it to describe Krusader (a self-described ofm). See:

Urbancic, Martej (2007). "Handy Commander: Krusader". Linux Magazine. No. 78. pp. 84–85.

and a half dozen similar articles in Linx Today.

--Karnesky (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I too don't care what you call it, but I do care what it's called on Wikipedia. As already pointed out in my edit summaries, the term is NOT USED in Midnight Commander's site & docs. It's NOT USED in GNOME Commander's site & docs. It's NOT USED in muCommander's site & docs. It's NOT USED in Volkov Commander's site & docs. It's NOT USED in Directory Opus's site & docs. It is used in community-edited sites, where anyone can get an account and either try to popularize their own term or cluelessly repeat what they've read on Wikipedia. That should be more than enough for a bell to ring in all but the densest Wikipedia editors' heads.--Exidor (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The term comes from http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml and was introduced by Nikolai Bezroukov. --epiotr 83.25.85.87 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is why should Wikipedia adopt the term when it's clear that even the authors of the most prominent examples of this kind of software do not use it to describe their own software. It's a term used by one person that has spread exclusively through community-edited sites. You call that "authorable"?--Exidor (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We're aware of that. Exidor appears to have some problem with that, though he's not given any lucid discussion of the matter Tedickey (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shut up, Tedickey.--Exidor (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow Exidor, your civilised nature and intelligent counterpoints are sure to make people listen to your viewpoints. Isn't this a lovely friendly debate of our opposing opinions? :) Xmoogle (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion's topic? --Exidor (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Exidor, I have advice to contribute. Getting so worked up and hostile, and doing silly things like bolding the word "dick" in Tedickey's name (and I wouldn't be surprised if that's at least bending the rules on civility here) is not the way to get people to consider your viewpoint - calm, rational, civil discussion is. We *all* know that you don't like the term Orthodox File Managers, but...

1. What is your proposed solution? What should they be called?
2. Is it really such a big issue that it's worth silly fighting over? Is it worth getting so stressed about?

In conclusion, quit the silly fighting (and that goes for everyone) - it does nobody any good at all. Xmoogle (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try again, out of sheer curiosity. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion's topic?--Exidor (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I have answered that question. However, you have not answered my questions. So I shall also "try again":

1. What is your proposed solution? What should they be called?
2. Is it really such a big issue that it's worth silly fighting over? Is it worth getting so stressed about?

Xmoogle (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to take a look at my edits, you'd have learned that my proposed solution is calling them "dual pane file managers" and/or "Norton commander clones". The fact that Wikipedia is spreading usage of a crackpot term like "orthodox file manager" all over the Internet is silly, fighting to get things straight is not.--Exidor (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, that's inconsistent. Which of the two is the one you want to use? "Dual pane file manager" is vague and inaccurate - these file managers typically have a third pane for the command line, and you could call Windows Explorer with tree view "dual pane", but it's not one of these file managers. As for "Norton commander clone", these apps have now pretty far surpassed Norton commander, that's like trying to say "Windows Vista is a Mac System 1.0 clone", or "KDE is a Windows GUI clone". It's also a really unweildy, clumsy term. As for silliness, you missed my point - I'm fully supportive of rational debates on these issues, especially if there's reason to believe that present information may not be accurate. *However*, what I was calling silly wasn't the debate itself, but your excessive emotional involvement in it. You're getting yourself all wound up and aggrevated, doing ridiculous things like highlighting "dick" in people's names, ranting about "crackpots", cursing at people, leaping to attack anyone who disagrees with you... and that is a waste of emotional energy. While you've said yourself that you don't care about calm, civil rational debates, what, out of the following two options, is better for arguing this issue?

• Putting your viewpoints across in a civil manner, while not wasting any emotional energy on anger, and having people respect (even if they disagree) your viewpoint, maybe even end up swayed by it themselves, because of you putting it across in a calm and rational matter, or...
• Frothing at the mouth like a rabid animal, yelling at everyone and acting like a three year old with a temper tantrum, and convincing everyone that you're too emotionally unstable to even try and have this debate with?

I'd hope that if you take time to think about that question, you'll come to the correct conclusion. Because really, debating like an adult benefits you, benefits us, stops wasting everyone's time, and doesn't initiate hostile negative emotions over a simple difference of opinion. Now personally, I think "Orthodox file manager" is fine as a term, I certainly had heard it well before I read it on Wikipedia, and I see no better options - your two suggestions have major flaws, as pointed out above. If you or someone else can find a better name for these file managers, then I'm sure people would be willing to listen, providing you don't start randomly calling them dicks/crackpots/whatever again. See how easy this can be, if you just stay calm on the issue? Take care and byebyes for now! Xmoogle (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really couldn't care less about your views on how to conduct a debate, so you might want to save your little lessons and pictoresque descriptions like "frothing at the mouth like a rabid animal" for a more receptive audience. I also think your objections to the terms "Norton commander clone" and "dual-pane file manager" are bogus. They don't describe fully all the aspects of this kind of software, you say? So what? There's not much software out there whose entire functionality can be described with a single term. By the way, what does the word orthodox say about these file managers? Not a f***ing thing, that's what. This time, try and follow the damned WikiLink to learn what "orthodoxy" means, maybe you'll start to grasp the stupidity of tacking such an adjective onto a particular kind of software. But even that is not really important. What's important is usage of the term in the real world. Evidence presented says that the "orthodox" silliness has no place even among developers of most of these apps. That's all you need to consider.--Exidor (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm well aware that you don't care about civility, it even says so on your user page. But you yet again miss my point - you obviously *do* care about whether people are going to listen to you or not. As for my objections to "dual pane file manager", allow me to clarify - this image shows the konqueror file manager, with it's window split into two "panes". However, konqueror is almost certainly not one of these file managers. Apart from missing certain essential features like a command line, the splits are entirely user created and controlled, and can be in pretty much any configuration, as this image shows. Also, as for the word "orthodox", the non-religious definition I found said "Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted". Norton Commander came out in 1986, was hugely popular, and was one of the early (maybe one of the earliest?) file managers for PC, and is almost certainly one of the earliest to have it's method of displaying and manipulating files still used, roughly 22 years later. So, given it's age and past as well as present popularity, I can easily see how "Adhering to whatever is traditional" can apply to orthodox file managers - despite what you say, it's not a stupid adjective to attach to software at all. As for the "Norton Commander clone" name, it's just... not consistent. We don't call every new spatial file manager, like Nautilus, a "RISC OS Filer"/"Amiga Workbench"/"GEM"/(whichever was the first) clone... or navigational file managers like Windows Explorer "XTree clones". These are my issues with said terms. Xmoogle (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So what if Konqueror and other file managers can be made to behave like dual-pane file managers? That's not their "normal" (read "preset") mode of operation, that's why they (probably) shouldn't fall into that category. Dual-pane behaviour is part of Konqueror's functionality, not its whole functionality. You can play text-mode Tetris from within Emacs. Would you categorize Emacs as a "Tetris clone"?

As for your (conveniently abridged) definition of "orthodox", dual-pane file managers are not "traditional" in any possible meaning of the word (if there's any "tradition" in file management, that's either the shell or spatial file management à la classic Macintosh Finder). They certainly aren't customary nowadays, nor are they more "generally accepted" than other approaches. So it actually sounds like you're making my point for me there. Besides, the etymological (read "original") definition of "orthodox" is "having the right opinion", which of course is crazy when applied to any kind of software. But, again, you're missing the point: as I've already told you, the only criteria to keep into consideration is USAGE OF THE TERM in qualified circles.--Exidor (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are getting to be many colons in this discussion. It's getting silly, and the size I set text to in my browser (having eyesight problems) makes it all end up on the right side, displaying one word per line, so for the sake of my eyesight, let's...

...take it back to about here? :) Anyway, this is mostly just a brief amendment to the last thing I wrote. However, first of all, I did not "conveniently abridge" anything - I went to an online dictionary, and there were two alternate definitions of the word. The first one was religious, hence not relevant. The second one, I pasted in it's entirety - "Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted". As for later shortening it to "Adhering to whatever is traditional", that is acceptable as the definition stated "traditional, customary or generally accepted", not "traditional, customary and generally accepted". Now, this may just be that my programmer's mind takes words like and/or/not in a strictly Boolean fashion, but I do believe that had the dictionary meant "and", they would have written "and", therefore "Adhering to (the) traditional", "Adhering to (the) customary", and "Adhering to (the) generally accepted" all appear to be valid separate definitions to me. Other than that, etymology can be meaningless, as words often change in meaning drastically over the course of time. For example, "assassin" comes from an arabic word for heavy cannabis smokers, some of whom were warriors who smoked before battle, but in modern usage "assassin" has nothing to do with cannabis. Anyway, the clarification of what I was saying before is this - yes, Konqueror is probably a bad example, as it actually can be configured to act in a very "orthodox" manner. You can even stick a terminal on the bottom. So, replace my unclear example of konqueror with Windows Explorer - as this image shows, Windows Explorer is often used in a mode with two panes. Dual panes. The left shows a tree, the right shows file icons or a list or whatever view mode you set. However, this is not the behaviour of the category of file managers we're talking about, it's nothing alike. Windows Explorer cannot function in a manner similar to norton/midnight/(insert your favourite flavour here) commander, but superficially speaking, that's a dual paned file manager. Also, this image of Windows 3.1's file manager - clearly two paned, and I believe that's even the default view mode on Windows 3.1 (though it's been ages since I used it, so I'm not completely certain). But even so, even with a two paned view being default, Windows 3.x File Manager is not one of these. Dual paned isn't even an accurate term - one of the most important and defining features of these file managers, almost always used, is that of a small terminal/command line pane. A third pane. And so "dual pane file manager" irritates the hell out of me because whoever came up with that term seemed unable to actually count. Now, "tri-pane file manager" (or triple, or whatever) might work, it's still somewhat too vague to be perfect, but it's at least accurate. As for the "clone" name, my previous argument still stands, after a certain point calling software a "clone" of preceding software with similar functionality, especially if that functionality has been significantly enhanced, is just utterly ridiculous. I mean, would anyone in their right mind, and not in a joking fashion, call (say) Metroid Prime 3 a Wolfenstein 3D clone? The terms "Wolfenstein 3D clone" and "Doom clone" certainly were used rather a lot in the early days of games in that genre, but at a certain point, those games completely overtook their origins and needed a new name, hence "first-person shooter". Modern first-person shooters were and are still recognisable as the same type of game as Wolfenstein 3D, but massively advanced, to the point where calling Halo or whatever a "Wolfenstein 3D clone" cannot be taken remotely seriously. If I saw it in a mainstream gaming magazine, I'd likely collapse into fits of uncontrollable giggles. And the same applies to any form of software - at a certain point, when the ideas spread by hypothetical software package "ξ" become widespread enough, with enough significant advances built on top of those ideas, software that uses those ideas ceases to be an "ξ clone" and need a different name for that type of software, as "ξ clone" ceases to be reasonably accurate anymore. I hope that in my current very sleepy status, I was able to clarify what I had meant earlier. Xmoogle (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The "Dual-pane vs. tri-pane" argument: the command line on the bottom is a line, not a pane, if you ask me. Anyway, regardless of my opinion (or yours, for that matter) see #3.

2) The "too evolved to be called clones" argument. Just look at them. They even look like Norton Commander. They run in the console (Windows Explorer does not). The panes are drawn with line-drawing characters (Windows Explorer's aren't). Their lineage is totally obvious.

3) I can't believe you're missing the point again!!! USAGE IN QUALIFIED CIRCLES IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!!!!!!!!--Exidor (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: regarding the word "orthodox", a word's definition can become disconnected from its etymology, but this is not the case for "orthodox". It still means "having the right opinion/following the right practice". One more thing: if you call a particular class of file managers orthodox, it follows that FMs based on different approaches would be unorthodox, which - of course - is bullshit.--Exidor (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for point 1, many of these file managers I've seen have a few lines of terminal, creating a small box. As for point 2, you are incorrect, while some of these run in a terminal, some are GUI based. Just like how some tetris clones are gui based, but ctris is a console tetris (and a pretty decent implementation, too). And with point 3, according to the dictionary definitions I've looked up, your definition of orthodox is only *one* of the possible definitions, and does not apply to all of them. As I've already said, I'm not 100% fond of "orthodox" as a description either, but "dual pane file manager" and "norton commander clone" seem like even worse options to me. Now if we can find another term commonly used, that doesn't have major issues, maybe that'll work. So let's see... Midnight Commander doesn't give any help, it just calls itself a "file manager". And then there's muCommander whilch calls itself "A lightweight, cross-platform file manager featuring a Norton Commander style interface and running on any operating system with Java support" - a bit wordy. However, this has just made me realise something - a hell of a lot of these apps call themselves "(something) commander", so while I have objections to the term "Norton Commander clone" (another problem being that such a term may imply these apps have never evolved beyond their inspiration, and gives a little too much emphasis on an app which has had no new version released in 10 years)... then perhaps a term like "Commander file manager" or "Commander-style file manager", or even just "Commanders", *if* such a term is actually used by some notable websites, may be a good solution and a good compromise. It's also actually a bit more descriptive and accurate than "Orthodox", and I personally feel a better term (providing it's a *notable* term, that is), and *Commander seems to be already widely used in at least the names of many of these apps, so perhaps that in itself adds notability to the term "commander" (or some variant of). How well does this suggestion work, anyone? Xmoogle (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just had a little look on sourceforge.net, and it seems a variety of terms are used by the authors of these projects. Doing a search for "commander" brought up (along with one or two irrelevant results) many different descriptions - "Norton Commander clone", "Midnight Commander clone", "Commander style file manager", "Total Commander interface"...it really seems that the only consistent term is "Commander", all else is subject to change. Xmoogle (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is who is Nikolai Bezroukov and why is his website and his definition of this type of file manager notable? If I set up a website and say file managers with two panes are called "foobar file managers", shoud we then categorize all these as "foobar file managers"? Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Google tells me various things about Nikolai Bezroukov (other than Softpanorama), including the impression that he's notable. I've been aware of his site for about ten years - before Wikipedia. I don't see the login link which would make his site a "community-edited" site as asserted by another editor. Tedickey (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If your website is well-known, certainly. That's essentially the rational (sic) for the content in GNU/Linux naming controversy, for example. Tedickey (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit! How well a site is known says nothing about its credibility. Wikipedia is popular but it's not a reliable source by definition.--Exidor (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, having read the AfD mentioned above, I was curious to see what the actual numbers might be. At the moment "norton commander clones" gives 365 hits, and "Orthodox file manager" 4,400 on google (ymmv). Tedickey (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Try the singular: "norton commander clone" and you'll get >30k. Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What's more, how many of those 4,400 got that silly definition from Wikipedia? I bet you still don't see the problem, Tedickey, do you?--Exidor (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of "dual/twin/two panel|orthodox|norton commander-style" file managers

We have not yet chosen the "best" of several bad names for this type of file manager. Am I correct in thinking that we are only debating the name? E.g. is this a useful "family" of file managers & should we have a sub-section in this article and a separate category to index all file managers that are in this style, assuming that WP:NEO concerns could be addressed? If so, can we please agree not to remove the category from the existing articles? We can then fix the name of the category when there is consensus about what nomenclature to use. If I'm missing some reason why we shouldn't keep this sub-category, please let me know. -- Karnesky (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep the category, but start a vote/RFC on how to name it. I'd say "norton commander-style" or "norton commander clone" since this is how they are usually called where I'm from. Also, there are apparently much more google hits on "norton commander clone" than on "orthodox file manager" (see above). Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Role of REXX in flist managers

REXX was introduced a couple of years after I first used flist. It was used as part of XEDIT, among other things, to replace EXEC2 (which by the way can do most of what REXX does, though less elegantly), and to implement a look-alike for FLIST using XEDIT directly. The performance of that combination was not very good (XEDIT uses a lot of memory relative to the CMS Utilities).Tedickey 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spatial file manager": incomprehensible

This section is incomprehensible. If someone knows what a spatial file manager is, please clarify. Thank you. --boarders paradise (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit log

I am starting this Talk section to keep track of copyedits working against the July 2008 {{Template:Copyedit}} tag. I just copyedited the lead section. Paulmnguyen (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a to-do list for copyediting: Paulmnguyen (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1 Orthodox file managers  Completed 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 1.1 Features  Completed 20:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This section marked as unclear.  Completed 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 1.2 Examples  Completed 20:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• 2 File-List file manager  Completed 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 3 Directory editors  Completed 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 4 Navigational file manager  Completed 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 5 Spatial file manager  Completed 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 6 3D file managers  Completed 02:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 7 Web-based file managers  Completed 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• 8 Popular culture  Completed 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole article appears OK. It's just the text that requires to be worked on.  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take another look. Paulmnguyen (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've finished going over the article. There are numerous places where citations are in order, but the copyedit is complete.

Expert attention requested

This article requires significant attention from an expert on the nomenclature and taxonomy concerning file managers. Section 1.1 closes with some of the argument from the talk page. This conflict of information prevents an effective copyedit at this time. Paulmnguyen (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the majority of this discrepancy has been mitigated in re-wording and organization of the disparate views. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Windows Explorer "abandoned the spatial model"?

The page currently says "Later versions gradually abandoned the spatial model" about Windows Explorer. Is that really right? Although it's not the default, enabling the "Open folder in own window" setting makes it work more spatially, so "abandoned" seems overstated.

108.18.197.57 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, overstated.

Combining that option you mentioned with disabling auto-sorting really makes it a spatial file manager again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yura87 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox file managers: I strongly suggest that this section be *entirely deleted*

This section has far too many problems to list completely here. Most importantly, it has existed for too long without enough citation, and says things like "for over 25 years" without qualification as to exacting dates. This is horrible, and unless anyone seriously objects, I'm going to pair this thing down considerably soon. And at least place some measure of dates within the citation warnings. Tgm1024 (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Spatial Konqueror

Konqueror has the option to turn into spatial mode

Can anyone point me to it? There is an option to open new folders in separate windows (and on KDE 4.8.5 it doesn't work, but I'm sure it's fixed on 4.9.* or 4.10.*), but it seems that it's... Well, just opening new windows for new folders, without remembering positions, size, scrolling etc. Like in Nautilus ≥ 3.0. --109.187.222.142 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Norton Commander clones

What's the main article for NC clones? Norton Commander inspired software claims that Orthodox file manager is the main article. Orthodox file manager is redirected to File manager#Orthodox file managers. And that section claims to list only notable examples. Background, on an external web page about the FAR Manager I followed the link to Orthodox file manager and fixed a simple wikilink error (IBM XEDIT != X11 XEDIT). After that I stumbled over the notable examples missing SpeedCommander (German shareware). On the page with NC clones it was listed as red link (stub deleted 7 years ago), I replaced that red link by an Interwiki to w:de:SpeedCommander. While at it I also added this link here, but actually I think the main article for the list should be NC clones instead of Orthodox file manager. The notable examples here should not contain Interwiki links, but get a {{Main|Norton Commander#Norton Commander inspired software}} or similar. –89.204.130.145 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, OFM is a bit of a mess (ditto for the Norton Commander topic, noting the many redlinks), but as usual the recommended solution for providing organization to the topic would be to look for reliable sources which deal with the topic in depth (probably very few which deal with more than one or two programs). TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

no Kugell in source

The given source is undated, and does not provide any of the cited metadata (author, publisher, etc). It is (at the moment) only a dump of a help-file, which doesn't provide in itself any useful information for the purpose for which it is used TEDickey (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The source is from an 1970's file system and is marked by the unique user name identifier SGK, a key for which is provided at http://www.saildart.org/PHONE.LST%5BP,DOC%5D23. Link added for clarification. Skugell (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH - no reliable source relating to this issue has been proposed TEDickey (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

diskspace analyzer versus file manager

Most of the examples given for treemap "file managers" provide only the ability to see a picture - not change the corresponding files. At the moment there's a redlink for KDirStat (which is understandable because it is unlikely to be found notable). The description of Space Gremlin hints at some file manager capability; the others do not hint at this. TEDickey (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I removed the entire section previously because it had no source and had mistaken disk space analyzer with file manager. Right now, it is added back with a source that looks bogus. I will check the source and if I didn't find anything called "treemap file manager" in it, I am going to delete the entire section. This negotiable. WP:OR (and specifically WP:SYNTH) are not allowed in Wikipedia.

As for KDirStat, if it is not notable, there is no justification for listing it (or a million other obscure programs that could use more advert) in any article when notable examples with articles do exists. And as for listing a disk space analyzer in this article: Only if it has significant file management capabilities, so much so that its use in that regard is considered norm, not hack.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Too many opinions

This article contains way too many opinions. On the whole this reads like some 14-year-old's blog instead of an encyclopaedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Spatial Windows File Manager?

The article seems to be saying that the main difference between a spatial and a navigational file manager is that in a spatial file manager there is a one to one correspondence between directories and windows, and that the Windows File manager is like that except it can put the same directory in more than one window but has somehow gotten away from it. Windows File Manager still has the option to view directories in a new window, so what does that mean exactly? Hackwrench (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC) I just looked through the section list and saw almost the exact same question has been asked, but that has been awhile.Hackwrench (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

filesystem in Finder

The topic asserts that Finder is a navigational file manager (which might be nice to explore if there were reliable sources for the term). However, this topic defines the term to say that there is a pane showing the filesystem tree. Finder does not show that; rather it shows a short list of favorite locations. TEDickey (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Navigational file manager on DOS

Before 1990 there was a navigational file manager for MS-DOS. It was "PC Shell" in the "PC Tools" suite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Tools_(software) It had a tree of directories on the left, and a list of contents on the right (which showed only files, not subdirectories). I found the tree view very useful, and usually preferred it to the 'commander' type (which I used only when I needed to see files from different directories in a single view). 125.168.52.41 (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on File manager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403063510/http://freeware.sgi.com/fw-5.3/fw_dired/dired.html to http://freeware.sgi.com/fw-5.3/fw_dired/dired.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on File manager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903224616/http://www.saildart.org/DIRED.SGK%5BUP%2CDOC%5D1 to http://www.saildart.org/DIRED.SGK%5BUP%2CDOC%5D1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903224616/http://www.saildart.org/PHONE.LST%5BP%2CDOC%5D23 to http://www.saildart.org/PHONE.LST%5BP%2CDOC%5D23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"Save command" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Save command. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Save command until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)