(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

jlst says:

jlst wrote:99% of new users don't like rox filer, that's the truth... because they haver never used something as wacky before..

jlst wrote:Then they will accidentally find out about lxpup, the x-pups, and will probably think, wow, i never thought this was a reality hahaha. But by then, about 100 out 101 users would have already switched to a full distro or something else.

What do you think? Are jlst's numbers accurate?

Rox is the file manager in puppy (and more)

i figure most people like it or dont mind it. i couldnt find an option that expresses my feelings, (thats ok) so i didnt pick one.

learnhow2code wrote:i figure most people like it or dont mind it. i couldnt find an option that expresses my feelings, (thats ok) so i didnt pick one.

Ok I added a 3rd option, "workz for me"

I don't hate ROX per se but I don't love it either.
How about another voting option along the lines of "not mad about it but will tolerate it" ?

EDIT: "workz for me", uhmm, err...workz for me.

Sailor Enceladus wrote:Ok I added a 3rd option, "workz for me"

mine is more of a "i dont love it, but i can understand why people would like it" you can imagine i voted that way.

ok god this getting complicating now 5 options

Thanks Sailor, vote cast.

Sailor Enceladus wrote: 5 options

hey you will get better data from those-- although with that balance of good/meh you might actually steer the poll. (having the results available before the poll is done makes it totally unscientific anyway, so have fun with it.)

Interesting that as it stands now, no one as voted for like it or hate it but rather "it will do".

Let's see how/if that changes as more votes come in.

I'm a minimalist and a proud rox/jwm fanboy. Rox rocks - I like it.

Ugh, ROX-Filer. Since you had to ask...

No proper copy/paste -- drag/drop/menu doesn't count -- and the keybindings (delete in particular!) are more than a little *ahem* special.

Single click to everything, as default. If I want my computer to behave like a ****ing Mac, I'll buy a ****ing Mac. This is not a Mac, therefore I should not be seeing single click anything except select. Period.

Not to mention that in Thunar and Nautilus/Caja and I *think* PCManFM I can just start typing and it will go to folders and files with names starting with those letters. Typing "the" jumps to names starting with "the" -- imagine that -- not only "The_File" or "TheFile" or "The File" but "Themes" or the like. It's no replacement for a proper search feature, mind you, but it's highly convenient and about 80% to a proper search feature as it is. It's also another useful and important function missing from ROX.

The one and only feature of ROX that I actually like is that it bolds the titles of recently changed files and folders. That is it, sum total. Basically everything else about it I hate with fervor and passion. (You may have noticed!) *shrug* I guess, given enough opportunities, any idiot pressing random keys/buttons/etc can hit the right thing, once.

...and WTH is "quiet" for? Its function (to not prompt me for every single ****ing filesystem change) should be automatic. There should be an inverse quiet -- "verbose" -- for people who, when copying umpteen hundred files, actually want to be asked to confirm each and every single copy action for each and every file. Also: those people are very strange in the head.

The UNIX philosophy is "do one thing and do it well". ROX-Filer (barely) fulfills exactly half of that -- it does one thing, act as a file manager. It's so rudimentary and obstinate, though, that you might as well not bother. If you want a good filemanager, Thunar or PCManFM or Nautilus/Caja are infinitely better choices.

On the other hand, if you want to feel smarter than everyone else because your choice of file manager presents a thirty-foot concrete wall topped with barbed wire as its learning curve, and routinely puts you through torture by way of its contortive user interface, and you not only mastered it but made it yours -- ROX-Filer is a very good choice for you. (...although I feel obligated to ask -- are you seeing someone for that?)

@starhawk

Absolutely loved you post, beautifully written and I mean that sincerely.
I don't hate Rox as much as you but can certainly see your points.

BTW, I see we both share the same "love" for macs.

i (usually) separate defaults i hate from features i hate. some are worth fixing (imo, most or all of the ones pertaining to rox that people complain about-- but im well aware that some/many people LIKE the defaults. and there are probably other reasons people dislike rox besides defaults.)

theres a difference between bad defaults and bad software-- how easy it is to fix. if you have to change those defaults (and get spanked every time you encounter them) then the difference wont be as significant to you.

if you can just change the defaults for everyone (or for everyone that cares) in a way that makes them stick, you can improve the software without getting rid of it.

a lot of the people that are sick of rox are probably just "done" with it. i dont want to change their mind, but i like the idea of "mini-remaster" scripts that can modify these defaults on an iso, "fixing" it with a one-click kind of convenience.

if you collect enough "fixit" tools you might prefer to just have a .pet you can download to make those fixes AFTER puppy is loaded, rather than before, on the iso. you still need a way to get it onto the cd/usb, but there are several ways to do that.

The UNIX philosophy is "do one thing and do it well". ROX-Filer (barely) fulfills exactly half of that -- it does one thing, act as a file manager.

if that were really the case here, you would find rox in puplets less often. rox isnt just the file manager, its the pinboard and the thing that opens all your files (its configuration is what lets puppy know what to do with so many types, including mounting isos when you click on them. or is that pmount now? pmount calls rox, in fact.)

rox is very much tied into puppy. i will say it again: if you remove rox from puppy, how will you know its puppy then? not because you cant (its yours, of course you can!) but i will repeat the question-- because theres no wrong answer. theres a popular (and at least one valid) answer to the question. but if you take rox out, i think most people will say "what makes this puppy?" it would be difficult to tell at that point, probably take a very expert user.

I like Rox. And JWM.

My Sid installs usually end up with the Rox/IWM combo too.Simple and light.

@ learn --

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=99849

My daily driver I've experimented with others but I come back to that one every single time. The one exception is working with a particular old MP3 player (Diamond Multimedia Rio500 -- look it up if you're not familiar, it's worth the time) -- only ClassicPup works with that player for some reason, although recently I've discovered that an interface program for XP is less 'touchy' -- so I've relegated that function to my 'graphics box' -- a networkless Fujitsu Siemens Futro S400 thin client (rather well-modded) running XP. *shrug* there are a few cases where, sadly, you need real Windows.

...anyway. X-Tahr is TahrPup 602 with XFCE/Thunar entirely replacing the usual suspects. It works fine, with two caveats -- the firewall is the old, not-fully-functional version, and for whatever reason, you can't easily junk the little red shield in the bottom tray notifications without entirely removing the responsible built-in package... both are minor annoyances as far as I'm concerned.

But -- same structure as TahrPup 602, and 100% compatible. Same layout in the ISO -- isolinux, vmlinuz, initrd.gz, main puppy SFS, and the zdrv SFS (which, to be fair, is not present in all Pups). I can install PETs natively with no trouble unless something doesn't fit (say a PET meant only for Slacko Pups) -- but user error is hardly the fault of the distro so that one doesn't really count.

Oh yeah... same basic suite of apps, too, although it's got some nice additions and extra right-click options in there, too I tend to ignore buggy Abiword, ugly Seamonkey (or nasty Firefox) and irrelevant (to me) Gnumeric -- I install LibreOffice and Chromium. NOT GOOGLE CHROME. I do not like things that update without my permission. "Auto-update" is pronounced and spelled "auto break" in my world, and is a misfeature not limited by any means to Windblows! I use Puppy precisely because (a) it works nicely for me on my hardware, and (b) it does not even try to update unless I specifically force it to do so. If I ever feel so ill as to want something that needlessly updates itself into oblivion, I'll get a Chromebook. (Actually, no, I'll seek a psychological consult.)

starhawk wrote:..... If I ever feel so ill as to want something that needlessly updates itself into oblivion, I'll get a Chromebook. (Actually, no, I'll seek a psychological consult.)

There is always Mac OS.

so if you download an iso to the desktop and click on its icon, what happens?

Well, a "Lisa" used to be the robotic therapist on early Mac 2's.
You could ask her anything, and she always had an answer!!!!

musher0 wrote:Well, a "Lisa" used to be the robotic therapist on early Mac 2's.
You could ask her anything, and she always had an answer!!!!

Anyone that uses a mac often will certainly be in need of some therapy, robotic or otherwise.

learnhow2code wrote:so if you download an iso to the desktop and click on its icon, what happens?

I assume you are asking starhawk.