I haven't used any of the 3, but from a look over them superfile looks a lot more user friendly and has a nicer overall look.
Edit; the install process is rough though, complains about missing glibc but searching for that package in apt doesn't show anything promising. It also seems to require some kind of third party font that isn't included? I gave up lol that's too much for me to deal with.
It's definitely a big learning curve with how complex installing things on linux is haha, I'm still used to windows just open the exe installer and that's it.
Yeah I hear that. I will say aptitude made my life a lot easier in terms of installing things with its recommended fixes. Also good software documentation should have a "Getting Started" section that gives you step by step instructions for each OS/Distro of how to install it. If it doesn't... Well maybe that software isn't worth installing anyway 🤷♂️
I mean there's that, but it's a lot of work for a dev too.
I would rather Linux just be able to detect what's missing and install it for me. In the case of a lot of missing components, what it says is missing will be named completely different from the package you need to install which makes it really hard.
It was always nice with windows installers because they would come with the needed components, or windows would just prompt to install them automatically.
That's what aptitude does. It says "these things are dependencies that are missing. Do you want to install them?" And you can say yes, no, or ask it to try to find a different fix. And idk what you mean by that's a lot of work. If a dev can't be bothered to tell people how to install their program then idk how they expect people to use their software.
I would rather Linux just be able to detect what's missing and install it for me. In the case of a lot of missing components, what it says is missing will be named completely different from the package you need to install which makes it really hard.
That does happen, but Linux doesn't have anything to do with installing packages, your package manager does. If this package was installed through apt for example, it would also download all of the dependencies. But this package is using a makefile to build and install, therefore it has nothing to do with your package manager.
Tldr: use the package manager, and don't use DIY packages if you don't want to DIY
Additional package managers like flatpak and nix solve different issues:
dependency mismatch: let's say libreoffice and this package require a different version of glibc -> flatpak downloads both versions and symlinks them in a different location in order for each package to have the correct version while not impacting your system and the glibc your DE is using
newer pac
... show more
I would rather Linux just be able to detect what's missing and install it for me. In the case of a lot of missing components, what it says is missing will be named completely different from the package you need to install which makes it really hard.
That does happen, but Linux doesn't have anything to do with installing packages, your package manager does. If this package was installed through apt for example, it would also download all of the dependencies. But this package is using a makefile to build and install, therefore it has nothing to do with your package manager.
Tldr: use the package manager, and don't use DIY packages if you don't want to DIY
Additional package managers like flatpak and nix solve different issues:
dependency mismatch: let's say libreoffice and this package require a different version of glibc -> flatpak downloads both versions and symlinks them in a different location in order for each package to have the correct version while not impacting your system and the glibc your DE is using
newer packages: Debian freezes packages for 2+ years, flatpak gives you a fresh version
easier packaging for developers: you can package for flatpak instead of having to maintain packages for every popular package manager and distro
There are two specific problems I see here for the mentioned binaries. 1. The software is packaged as a generic archive, no format like rpm or deb the system package manager could/does handle. Thus, the package manager of your system does neither know that you've installed this binary nor what it depends on. The developer could have at least mentioned on which exact system the Linux binaries are supposed to work, e.g. Ubuntu 22.04, so that the user knows, that they might have issues running it on a different system. 2. The developer could have built and packed it in a way that it can be installed by the package manager of a specific distribution. Launchpad or OBS are made for this purpose. The other option, wrapping it as a flatpak, works too, but may bloat the system of the user as different versions of the same libraries are installed (system generic + flatpak version).
Nonetheless, as a Linux user, you are encouraged to build directly from source.
I had to install Golang and build it myself to make it work with my version of glibc. But in the end the themes aren't rendered properly. In other words, proper Linux experience.
Get your head out of the gutter. There is a difference between file and philia, the former being something managed by this program and the latter being Greek for "love". Further, the phil- prefix/suffix is used in many words which don't mean what you seem to associate it with. Take philosophy for example—the love of wisdom.
Did you mean 1MB? With correct settings, you get under 1MB Rust binaries and with even more compression using upx it gets to 300KB, probably less for much simpler applications. Rust applications aren't that big of a deal as people make it to be; within reasons off course.
The one issue I have with Rust apps is how much memory they need to compile (depending on the app ofc). I could not install Pika Backup from AUR on a laptop with 4 GB of RAM for instance because the compilation would run out of memory. It's one case where I was glad flatpak is an option.
It had some functionalities that nnn did not have like displaying processes or favourite directories and such. In the end I got back to nnn because I read that superfile had internet access plus the fact that I use a graphical file manager for things that nnn or many terminal file managers can not do with extensive plugins.
Uhm both displaying copy/move process and having shortcuts for "favourite" dirs is quite possible with nnn. Although for the later I mostly use -S argument for persistent session.
The only drawback of nnn in my book is the kind of weird/cumbersome way to configure it eith ENV variables. And the non-existent preview image display under wayland.
Yeah, having to customize with env variables is not great, and adding bookmarks is much easier in superfile. Anyway I suposse one does not set bookmarks to often. Plus nnn was so fast I just tapped they keys to get to the directory I needed easily. Once I learned most shortcuts I was flying trough operarions.
eshep
in reply to lemmyreader • •Linux reshared this.
mbirth
in reply to lemmyreader • • •ranger,nnn,yaziorbroot?MangoPenguin
in reply to mbirth • • •I haven't used any of the 3, but from a look over them superfile looks a lot more user friendly and has a nicer overall look.
Edit; the install process is rough though, complains about missing glibc but searching for that package in apt doesn't show anything promising. It also seems to require some kind of third party font that isn't included? I gave up lol that's too much for me to deal with.
moog
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •F04118F
in reply to moog • • •Successful_Try543
in reply to moog • • •MangoPenguin
in reply to moog • • •moog
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •MangoPenguin
in reply to moog • • •I mean there's that, but it's a lot of work for a dev too.
I would rather Linux just be able to detect what's missing and install it for me. In the case of a lot of missing components, what it says is missing will be named completely different from the package you need to install which makes it really hard.
It was always nice with windows installers because they would come with the needed components, or windows would just prompt to install them automatically.
I guess that's essentially what Flatpak solves!
moog
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •Shareni
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •That does happen, but Linux doesn't have anything to do with installing packages, your package manager does. If this package was installed through apt for example, it would also download all of the dependencies. But this package is using a makefile to build and install, therefore it has nothing to do with your package manager.
Tldr: use the package manager, and don't use DIY packages if you don't want to DIY
Additional package managers like flatpak and nix solve different issues:
- dependency mismatch: let's say libreoffice and this package require a different version of glibc -> flatpak downloads both versions and symlinks them in a different location in order for each package to have the correct version while not impacting your system and the glibc your DE is using
- newer pac
... show moreThat does happen, but Linux doesn't have anything to do with installing packages, your package manager does. If this package was installed through apt for example, it would also download all of the dependencies. But this package is using a makefile to build and install, therefore it has nothing to do with your package manager.
Tldr: use the package manager, and don't use DIY packages if you don't want to DIY
Additional package managers like flatpak and nix solve different issues:
Successful_Try543
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •There are two specific problems I see here for the mentioned binaries.
1. The software is packaged as a generic archive, no format like
rpmordebthe system package manager could/does handle. Thus, the package manager of your system does neither know that you've installed this binary nor what it depends on. The developer could have at least mentioned on which exact system the Linux binaries are supposed to work, e.g. Ubuntu 22.04, so that the user knows, that they might have issues running it on a different system.2. The developer could have built and packed it in a way that it can be installed by the package manager of a specific distribution. Launchpad or OBS are made for this purpose. The other option, wrapping it as a flatpak, works too, but may bloat the system of the user as different versions of the same libraries are installed (system generic + flatpak version).
Nonetheless, as a Linux user, you are encouraged to build directly from source.
MangoPenguin
in reply to Successful_Try543 • • •Yeah screw that lol, I want my OS to just work and be easy to use with minimal fuss.
Farid
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •QuazarOmega
in reply to MangoPenguin • • •Issues · MHNightCat/superfile
GitHubnfsu2
in reply to mbirth • • •daisyKutter
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Nora
in reply to lemmyreader • • •delirious_owl
in reply to Nora • • •ccdfa
in reply to Nora • • •Nora
in reply to ccdfa • • •ccdfa
in reply to Nora • • •dutchkimble
in reply to Nora • • •mvilain
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Lovely little utility.
Shut up and take my money.
atzanteol
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Hjalmar
in reply to atzanteol • • •nul9o9
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Thanks for the share!
I've always liked tui file managers, broot is a pretty cool one as well.
nfsu2
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Phanatik
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Red_sun_in_the_sky
in reply to lemmyreader • • •octopus_ink
in reply to lemmyreader • • •dino
in reply to lemmyreader • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to dino • • •laurelraven
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to laurelraven • • •laurelraven
in reply to ILikeBoobies • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to laurelraven • • •interdimensionalmeme
in reply to dino • • •Can they even make rust executables under 1GB?
thingsiplay
in reply to interdimensionalmeme • • •lemmyvore
in reply to thingsiplay • • •bodaciousFern
in reply to interdimensionalmeme • • •Not sure where you got the 25kb number from.
This tool is written in go and is a 7.8 MB compiled binary.
interdimensionalmeme
in reply to bodaciousFern • • •Azzk1kr
in reply to interdimensionalmeme • • •electricprism
in reply to dino • • •Mac
in reply to lemmyreader • • •ristoril_zip
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Nik282000
in reply to ristoril_zip • • •ristoril_zip
in reply to Nik282000 • • •blandfordforever
in reply to lemmyreader • • •42yeah
in reply to lemmyreader • • •diredandmc, but way more stylized and cool.jaxxed
Unknown parent • • •jenny_ball
in reply to lemmyreader • • •NoInterest
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Malgas
in reply to NoInterest • • •Or DOS Shell.
This is much prettier, though.
lemmyreader
Unknown parent • • •PlexSheep
Unknown parent • • •mub
in reply to lemmyreader • • •Linux user. Installs fancy gui. Uses terminal for file management.
/Use your own meme format.
recklessengagement
in reply to lemmyreader • • •nfsu2
in reply to lemmyreader • • •dino
in reply to nfsu2 • • •nfsu2
in reply to dino • • •dino
in reply to nfsu2 • • •Uhm both displaying copy/move process and having shortcuts for "favourite" dirs is quite possible with nnn. Although for the later I mostly use -S argument for persistent session.
The only drawback of nnn in my book is the kind of weird/cumbersome way to configure it eith ENV variables. And the non-existent preview image display under wayland.
nfsu2
in reply to dino • • •dino
Unknown parent • • •