Talk:Gentoo (file manager)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thought I'd point out something from the website: Gentoo the Linux distribution has nothing to do with gentoo the file manager, except the latter runs on the former. I actually used the name first of the two, way back in September 1998. I've been in touch with the Gentoo folks, and we're cool.
[edit] Objectivity in the Cons section
Doesn't it seem a bit subjective? I mean, calling an aspect "disastrous" isn't something I'd call objective. Miko 16:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Name confusion and Objectivity
I use it since 1999 (early SuSE 6, 6.4 if im right and he was packaged on the SuSE release), the author of the file manager was really the first ho used the name. (Maybe some one could get a SuSE or Red Hat package list around 1999 (not sure that it was published with Red Hat in 1999, but i am absolutely sure that i used this file manager on a SuSE 6)
I absolutely agree with Miko !
Something about the 6th 'pro' : Really powerful mouse behaviour ...
I do not really use the mouse, but i noticed (in the last version at least) that selecting multiple files with the mouse, more than once (left click down, drag, left click up, left click down, drag ...) can result in a 'strange' behavior : some routine (copy at least) will stop every time there where you released the left mouse button, not that powerful in my eyes ...
This file manager have some bugs but calling it 'Greatly unstable' is purely exaggeration. Using it with a keyboard on a user basis for common tasks on common file-systems result in my eyes in a really great satisfaction ! 'Administrative' tasks should not be done with it.
Regards.
--Oxdot 10:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pros and cons
Alright, after trying to excise the most obviously non-NPOV items on these lists and finding them nearly empty afterwards, I decided to remove it all. I've put everything in Talk:Gentoo (file manager)/Pros and cons if anyone wants to have a look. Crossposting my explanation on that page:
- I moved the "Pros" and "Cons" section, as it stood at this date, out of the article and into this page. None of it is substantiated by sources, and much of it is expressed in a highly objective (and occasionally inflammatory) manner. It seems to me like the article is best off without it as it looks right now (last edit before mine was from November 2007, so I doubt wiki magic would happen if I just put a template in there: in fact, there already is one), but I'm still keeping it here if anyone wants to work on it.
