Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
what file manager is everybody using?
does it really matter...
cant find what the default file manager there is for centos 7
but it has dolphin installed as well but doesnt use it by default
im running gnome 3
i read that konqueror is good...is it mostly just preference
lastly
do most linux systems have components of kde and gnome installed by default...even if you arent using those desktops? cause i dont have kde desktop installed yet i read that dolphin uses kde.
Personal choice dictates which file manager that you end up using, whether that is what came with your initial installation or if you installed it.
My regular file manager is mc, (midnight commander), because it was the first really useful one I came across, but I'll use what is available, as long as it can do what I want. GUI versions are emelfm & double commander, they use different (graphics) toolkits .
You can have as many different graphics toolkits on your system as you like, but some people prefer to stick to one main one.
cant find what the default file manager there is for centos 7
but it has dolphin installed as well but doesnt use it by default
im running gnome 3
That's a bit odd: I have Gnome on CentOS 6 and no trace of Dolphin. Of course, having something installed that you don't use doesn't do any harm.
Quote:
I read that konqueror is good...is it mostly just preference?
As with all such tools, preference is a mixture of the way you like to work and what you're used to. I always considered Konqueror confusing: making a combined web browser and file manager just seemed like making a combined motor cycle and lawn mower.
Quote:
do most linux systems have components of kde and gnome installed by default...even if you arent using those desktops? cause i dont have kde desktop installed yet i read that dolphin uses kde.
Not usually. As I said, I don't know why you have Dolphin. The basic components of each desktop often need to be there, even if you don't use them. That's certainly true of Nautilus, which does various things in the background, even if you actually use a different tool to manage the files.
For me it is Ranger on CLI-only systems (if there is a need for a file manager on them, I don't have it installed on a netbook that merely acts as a wireless access point) and Dolphin on anything else, except machines that have to be very lightweight, there I use PCManFM.
I prefer KDE as a DE, and Dolphin as file-manager. If I use any other DE or WM, I use whatever is their default file-manager. In the console, no X running, I use mc.
I thought bash was the file manager on the cli, having mc is a bit like acknowledging the convienience of the desktop?
You can run different file managers on the same desktop but making it the default is a bit more involved. Some desktop file managers do have more features, such as, the ability to copy to anywhere in the mounted file system (dolphin) (yes,bash also but you have to know the location) but others seem to lack this. You could use drag and drop but not so convienient from inside a sub-directory.
I thought bash was the file manager on the cli, having mc is a bit like acknowledging the convienience of the desktop?
I see nothing wrong with that, if we can have the convenience (and for certain workloads, like skimming through a large directory and selecting a few files for copy/move/deletion having a filemanager is much more convenient than pure shell) why not use it?
Human beings are, or should be, adaptable. So, adapt to whatever's available and try it. Applies to operating systems, distros, desktop environments and window managers, file managers, editors (who needs vi when you've got ed?), and so on. Make your own choices.
Konqueror has long been my favorite GUI file manager for Linux. I've used most of the others, but I always end up using Konqueror. I've used mc, but I've never gotten as comfortable with it as I was with the old Norton Commander for DOS.
I particularly like the ability to have multiple tabs open pointing to different directories and shares, as well as the versatility of the sidebar.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.