Marta, file manager for macOS, goes beta(marta.yanex.org) |
Marta, file manager for macOS, goes beta(marta.yanex.org) |
I might even suggest running Linux. Oh my :)
(FWIW many of us tried running Linux as a desktop OS but found the UI and driver situation to be abysmal so it continues to just power our servers)
That’s not to say Marta’s author has any ill intent, because I doubt he or she does.
I'm not sure if that's the kind of open source you were looking for, but may be worth checking out.
I agree with you that the open source software has higher level of trust than the proprietary one, but I afraid I just can't maintain Marta steadily for a long time if it was open-sourced (and then forever free). And I doubt the community will do that instead of me. In case if you're interested, I expressed my thoughts about this here [1] earlier.
I do promise, though, that Marta will never collect personal data, display ads or do some other bad things. I just don't see any sense in that, and I'd rather have a good reputation.
[1] https://github.com/marta-file-manager/marta-issues/issues/19...
In short, what is it with Russians and this type of file manager? It's a very curious association.
Just in case, it could be categorized as a OFM (Orthodox File Manager):
http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml
What started it all is the Norton Commander for DOS.
Thank you, though I knew most of those info as - unfortunately - I was there, in the sense that I was in my twenties when NC came out, I practically started my computing experience at work using NC and I couldn't imagine doing some tasks without a dual pane filemanager, and when the NC was killed by Symantec I mourned the loss (and quickly found some decent alternatives, the one with the most "NC feeling" being IMHO DN - Dos Navigator and later NDN - Necoromancer's Dos Navigator).
As a side note, what not everyone knows/noticed, 7-zip it is also a (almost orthodox) dual pane file manager, very handy to manage, besides files residing on mounted filesystems also those inside archives (obviously) and those inside disk/disc/drive images, such as .iso, .img and similar.
I think even it was preceded by the (wonderful) PFM file manager, which has a modern-day descendant in the Linux world.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.archives.msdos....
The default key binding set is a de facto standard for double-pane file managers. I personally used Total Commander for a long time until I switched to Mac, and I really missed a FM with the similar hotkeys.
But I understand now that it's not what all Mac users expect from a file manager. I'll make an option to choose the hotkeys on the first launch [1].
As about the Touch Bar, Marta supports it since 0.1.2.
[1] https://github.com/marta-file-manager/marta-issues/issues/30...
Yep: the app provides touch bar buttons for many operations
The ST-style command palette alone makes this worth a decent evaluation.
First-run experience was a bit odd - Marta opened up with both panes empty, and all actions unavailable. I had to go to Go->Volumes in each pane and select a volume to show up. That's OK, it's a beta. Seems great so far.
I have tried everything, from Double Commander, to Forklift,Pathfinder and fman.
I was fman user for about a year (OSX) but it was slow and the quick look (with plugins) was unresponsive and crashed all the time so I cancelled my subscription about one month ago and I was in search for a minimal but powerful dual panel file manager with keyboard functionality.
Thanks for making this, it looks like TotalFinder (which I am a user since the beginning) for power users. Especially the tabs functionality
Whenever I have a new Mac I spend a couple minutes customizing Finder: adding things like the Path button, showing the Path bar, showing the Status bar, etc. I get that it's supposed to be simple but it's surprising to me that such basic things aren't in the starting configuration.
I do love the spacebar preview though :)
This. It's the biggest pain point I have with using Windows Explorer. As a Mac user, it's pure muscle memory to select a file and hit the space to look at it. Once I'm on Windows, I feel the whole computer is broken because of this one missing feature.
"Open in terminal" is actually a built-in Service. It's not enabled by default, but you can go to System Preferences > Keyboard > Shortcuts > Services and enable it, and even give it a hotkey.
Finder also has done bulk rename for a few years now.
Command+Shift+/, then type your command?
After staying for a bit with pathfinder I'm back to finder. While not super decent it still doesn't get into my way too often.
Something more advanced would be welcome though and I would even be willing to pay for it, given it suits my needs. That means though I rather wait for v1.0 because I miss quit a lot of features / ui usability in the current state.
Make it the Sublimetext of file managers and you have a customer.
Depending on the Swift release roadmap, I'll postpone 1.0 until the release of Swift 5, or make the API ObjC-compatible.
I also have plans for making a "lightweight API" (possibly in Lua). It will support only the subset of features available in the "full API", but if that would be sufficient, nothing prevents it from becoming the "right" way of writing plugins for Marta. (In any case, Swift API won't disappear).
As far as I’m aware, this isn’t a problem, since your communicating between the two using the Objective-C runtime, which is resilient to the underlying ABI because it essentially overlays its own. The issue arises when you have two plugins with incompatible versions of Swift: in this case, each will load its own standard library, which will lead to conflicts since for any given function in the shared library one of the implementations has to “win out”. This will cause at least one of the plugins to be unable to interface with the standard library correctly.
https://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/article/itw...
Is there any way to set it as default?
- feature wise, it's not as good as forklift yet but the performance, ui (personal preference) are much better.
I use it because I can do so many things in FAR so much faster than any other alternative (or my colleagues). I can view/navigate file/folder structure. View/Edit/Copy/Move/Archive files. And search recursively. Either by file name/extension or in contents. Also run command-line stuff (make, python, git). Inspect output from commands, quickly select text - copy&paste between contents of file, command-line and output of command. And much more. All that with just a few of keyboard shortcuts. No mouse.
And when I'm showing/explaining something to my colleague, I often hear "wait, what just happened?" or "how did you do that so fast?"
// not russian, but using FAR every day (started with Norton Commander, then used Volkov Commander, then Dos Navigator for a long time)
But yes, I agree I've asked myself the same question.
You didn't get particular products, you got a disk with "all the good bits" according to someone. Somehow Norton Commander ended up in the list at some point, so it instantly became a default and nobody knew anything better. Every DOS computer in 90s Russia booted right into NC, or its Russian clone VC.
It works quite well for me.
Not sure about the touch bar though.
As for the Touch Bar, yes, that's a problem with the standard keybindings (and is also why I'll probably only be a macOS/Marta user for a few months, as I'll never buy a laptop with a fake keyboard).
But settings to the rescue! Cmd-shift-p & 'open default keybindings' reveals that they're all configurable.
I develop for several different platforms on macOS, and have never felt the need to enable that setting, because I've never encountered any macOS software that required the Fn keys in this particular non-idiomatic way. Even macOS IDEs stay away, tending to map things to complex key-chords instead.
Why? As a heavy emacs and Xcode user at least, I rarely need a function key, and prefer the convenience of the media keys.
"The development of Marta started the long before I knew about fman, so it's not any kind of imitation."
"I don't think we are the direct competitors. fman is a completely another project with its own strong and weak points. I tried fman and didn't like it because of numerous reasons, but it's my own opinion."
Two column file manager interfaces have been around for a long time, fman certainly didn't invent it. Marta seems to draw more influence from Midnight Commander / Norton Commander, with the function key reminders at the bottom of the window. The breadcrumbs and tabs in Marta remind me more of Panic's Transmit, and those UI elements aren't in fman. There's elements of the standard Mac finder in there. It is definitely not a clone of fman.
I think that was a really unfair comment, designed to get traffic to a competing product.
> This is eerily similar to fman
> I was about to ask if this was some form of re-release
So it's not just me who thinks the similarities are uncanny.
The "doesn't feel native" is not the main problem for me. I use a number of non-native apps (such as IJ IDEA) – and I'm okay with it.
fman is a just slow app without features. It was ok if it was in alpha stages, but why it is a paid product then? Come on, there's still no way to cancel the copy process! And you need to install a third-party plugin to swap panes. I wonder how you made such a small progress since the last year, considering that you work on fman full-time.
[1]: https://github.com/fman-users/fman/issues
[2]: https://github.com/marta-file-manager/marta-issues/issues
I cannot imagine that any security conscious Linux user would willingly use it
* This was a consequence of it's Windows heritage.
It was worth logging in to HN today just for this, which I had alway relied on third party utilities to do. For anyone else who wasn’t aware, just select multiple files, right click, and select rename.
I won't argue with you. I only say that envy is bad for your health.
Was it that much different in the US?
I think it's possible to release the source and still sell the app, Textual [0] seems like a good example of that. The make my favorite IRC client. Although I'm not sure if the author is that well off or not.
Maybe I'm just an outlier.
Trust comes into play when users are denied these freedoms; users have nothing else on which to make an informed decision. Therefore users are left to evaluate promises such as the promises you made. Belief in those promises essentially boils down to uninformed trust. It's no secret that many other proprietors do spy on their users (Microsoft purposefully changed Skype protocol to better allow spying, according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-co...). I'm pretty sure Microsoft wants to have a good reputation despite their behavior.
As you said in the post you linked to, "Although this is my current mindset, it can change in the future.". This could apply to the promises you made (or strong convictions you posted about on github.com) as well.
The question of maintaining Marta is another issue I think is misstated in your response here and on github.com: with free software users can maintain software too. They could even choose to hire you to do the job. And they can certainly host their own discussions regardless of Marta's license. The underlying issue has to do with whether users will be able to make the software they run on their computers do what they want the software to do (which is the issue with which I raised my first post on this thread) and thus retain control over their computer.
Have the source code open with a non commercial license and also distribute the binaries under a commercial license.
I’m not sure that it will have a significant impact on the revenue since most people would likely opt out and purchase the binary rather than building it on their own.
It's reasonable, though, if your potential user base is totally different. For example, IntelliJ IDEA has a Community edition that lacks enterprise frameworks support, but that's not a problem for "single users" because they basically don't do any enterprise. But it looks like it won't work for Marta.
So I'd rather choose the Sublime Text strategy (though I think that Sublime costs too much).
Not a single thing has been broken across two modern PCs and a laptop.
If I got a dollar every time I heard this... I have a Linux machine at home, but GNOME still crashes 50% of the time when I switch the screen off/on. If it switches on without crashing, many applications are LoDPI until I restart them.
The machine doesn't always come back properly from sleep. Sometimes there are display artifacts, sometimes I cannot show windows of running applications.
This is all on well-supported hardware (RHEL-certified Dell Precision, an AMD GPU supported by amdgpu, etc.).
Linux has become pretty great, but it's definitely not a 'just works' experience on a lot of hardware and for a lot of uses.
If something breaks I can fix it. I can easily schedule jobs (tried it on Windows, fucking night mare), define my own trackpad gestures, lower the screen brightness to an acceptable level ...
Linux, with all of its flaws, is by far the least frustrating OS, imo.
... Unless you need some Apps.
It simply doesn’t have the polish, or flexibility that I’d need to effectively stay on it for long. I always end up spending longggg times customizing things only to feel little integration, little support, and a lack of decent third party software. Sketch is Mac only. Spotify barely has a Linux client. Certainly no photoshop, medocire native email clients, zero IM that integrate with any networks I use (sms/iMessage), etc etc. Yes there’s lots of options as a webpage, but that’s a shallow substitute.
If you happen to need only the stuff that’s available, and your workflow is largely CLI-driven, then it’s probably fine. Otherwise it’s macOS for me.
I'm not going to tell you to go Linux if you like macOS, but please don't spread misinformation.
It's an electron app.
Otherwise I agree.
Depending on your needs linux is not on par with Windows/MacOS yet, especially when you need commercial non dev/tech near software, unfortunately.
Whether that is a no go or not is an individual decision.
> Photoshop
Sounds like you're doing graphic design. Unless you're doing animation (in which case https://krita.org/en/ is much better than any Adobe thing I've used) you're definitely better off with a Mac.
Depends on what's required. I installed Linux (Ubuntu and Xubuntu) on an old Mac, and found it extremely hard to get file sharing (with SMB shares) done. I also gave up on installing a VNC server. For both these, I was looking for GUI based options. On the Mac (for longer than a decade), one just goes to Apple menu->System Preferences->Sharing and then turn on screen sharing, file sharing, etc., very easily.
I also had to configure certain other things using the shell. I personally didn't experience Linux being adequate for desktop use.
For one thing, the Linux UIs like GNOME and KDE are terrible. They do the job for some people but I would willingly pay more to use OS X without hesitation.
I also have experienced many situations like the following, although typically not quite as extreme...
A coworker decided to purchase a Lenovo with Linux as a developer at a company where everyone else had MacBook Pros. He was very smug the first day or two about the specs of his laptop and it being open source Linux instead of OS X. Within a few days he was having such major issues connecting it to a 30” monitor (along with a few other issues related to Bluetooth/USB as far as I recall) that he called it a lemon and returned it for a MacBook.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m waiting for the amazing developer Linux laptop that replaces my MacBook Pro. But I just don’t see it coming for a while.
Personally I prefer i3wm and keyboard driven workflow and find the way mac handles multi monitor loathsome. This doesn't mean that it is objectively bad it means I find it unsuitable as a matter of taste.
The fact that he had hardware issues hardly means linux is terrible in fact its a fairly nonsensical way to qualify an entire OS.
You could I'm sure find someone who bought a singular mac and had issues with it in a workplace full of linux users and try the equally nonsensical if opposite conclusion.
Since day one, every time I boot up there has been some sort of display error. The networking has never worked correctly.
Desktop linux needs to do what Apple did. Pick a hand full of laptops and desktops (or just ditch desktops) with some combination of hardware and just support those.
Until then, it's always going to be an "it works for me" situation.
Ubuntu's non LTS releases seem to suffer far more issues comparatively. I would suggest you stick with LTS releases and for software which you need more recent versions you may look to individual ppa's for that project. It's a common misconception that such releases are years out of date. By default they are for say the kernel meanwhile user oriented software like say your web browser is easily quite up to date and can even be bleeding edge if you don't mind adding a few repos for the software most important to you.
Unlike Apple there is no singular entity that called Linux that can opt to do anything like say abandon the desktop. This is rendered doubly insane when you realize that desktop workstations actually work fantastic right now and are an area where Linux makes a ton of sense. The hardware is standard and interchangeable. Unlike a laptop if a part does not have good Linux support its trivial to swap out just that part for something that does. Business users care about stability and a small finite number of apps. While users are turning to laptops or even mobiles some workstation users will continue to need the significant horsepower that a desktop provides. Triply nutty when you consider that there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by abandoning the desktop. You are thinking in terms of a company narrowing its focus to enable it to devote increased resources to a smaller group of products but desktops but there is nothing about this analogy that actually works.
While improving support for particular laptops is a laudable goal I'm not sure it makes any contextual sense. People working at improving Linux are presumably worried about broad projects and subsystems not device specific hacking. Presumably part of improving things is taking bugs from users but how do you propose they focus on a small subset of laptops? Privilege the tiny subset of bugs that come from those users?
Developers are already paid to focus on particular laptops. Those paid by the oem to support those sold with linux reinstalled. There are dell machines sold with Linux preinstalled as well as a number of smaller vendors. If you really want this to be a happening thing the logical thing to do is to support vendors that sell Linux machines with your money.
In short we can continue improve Linux support on a particular subset of laptops without abandoning the desktop and you can help.
I hope you appreciate that you wrote 4 paragraphs on how I could improve on picking a laptop from the Ubuntu Certified list to have fewer problems.
>If you really want this to be a happening thing the logical thing to do is to support vendors that sell Linux machines with your money.
I've been using Linux since 99. It's never worked without problems. It's been 20 years and I can't pick a laptop off a list of Certified hardware and be confident. I abandoned linux for home use a decade ago which makes me sad because I wish my side project laptop could be a linux machine. Development is so much easier on linux.
I bought a used ThinkPad from Craigslist after googling the model and the word Linux. Worked for me.
As I said, the point wasn't that one person had hardware issues. Its that I constantly see people buy Linux laptops and have hardware/software issues as the two are quite related on Linux due to bad driver support and inconsistent hardware configurations. I relayed an anecdote that summarizes many of the problems I've seen. This one involved an extremely senior engineer with successful exits who was beside himself trying to make a brand new Linux laptop work.
Here is another anecdote, no hardware involved. Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 upgrade was busted and several friends couldn't boot at all after upgrading via the GUI option. Sure that could happen on a Mac but its way, way less common.
This takes about 30 minutes every few years with Ubuntu lts for example. You don't lose or even have to move your files.
