Is there a Linux equivalent to Windows Explorer?
 

I am a lifelong Windows user (recently XP and 7), and Windows Explorer is the focal point of all my work. I use WE to manage all my files, the folders in which they are kept, to launch applications from individual files, to perform backups by dragging and dropping folders to external drives.

Without Windows Explorer I am lost. I cannot overstate its importance to my work productivity.

However, when I recently installed Ubuntu Desktop 14.04 LTS 32 bit on an old laptop my first action was to find the equivalent of WE. I was very disappointed by how crude it was.

Am I missing something? Is there a Linux AP out there which replicates all the superb functionality of Windows Explorer?

Without a WE equivalent I will find it very difficult to use Linux, so any guidance would be much appreciated.

What exactly is missing from the functionality provide by nautilus?

I prefer thunar myself, but I only use a file manager for quick visualisation of the filesystem.

For all other tasks I tend to use the command line -- this is far more powerful & full-featured than even the "powershell" (lol) that is supplied with Windows.

I would advise that you become more familiar with BASH (or other shells -- I use zsh), I can almost guarantee your productivity will be increased in comparison to your experiences with WE.
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashGuide

There are plenty of file managers for Linux. Some depending on particular desktop environments or window managers, some not. Have a look at the File Manager section of the Member's Choice Awards for a list of them:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ar-4175528400/

If you can share some details about what you found to "crude", we may be able to help you.

I found the explorer in ubuntu better in some aspects .eg:it automatically refreshes sorted lists of files when contents are changed. (I prefer my list view to be sorted in last accessed on top).

I think in some aspects, WE will score and in others linux will score. Linux isn't after all windoze.

OK

Dolphin from KDE is an even-better replacement for windows explorer: Breadcrumb display, find by typing letters, navigation by directional keys, archive integration. When I am on windows, working with explorer, I miss some of dolphin's features: Dual-window mode, console integration, expandable items in details-view.

I agree with cepheus11 -- Dolphin is a complete file manager with a lot of functionalities. The only downside is that it's not independent from KDE (its desktop environment), so you'd have to switch to KDE.

pcmanfm of LXDE is also an option.

Having just looked at Ubuntu's file explorer I notice right off the bat that tree view isn't enabled by default and, when it is, it's in the right hand panel not the left. That, alone, would put me off without even trying anything else.
As above I would suggest you try Thunar as it allows that behaviour and, while it's not very flashy, tends to allow a lot of features, such as bulk renaming, which can be useful.

I disagree with the last statement. While Dolphin requires a few KDE base packages to be installed, it doesn't require you to switch to KDE itself. On the contrary, you can run it with, say, Xfce, WindowMaker or Fluxbox. It is also a very lightweight application, hence it is suitable for dated or low-end machines. The same holds for Konqueror and other KDE applications: I can run them on a first-generation Pentium IV, or even a Pentium III, and still have a quite decent responsiveness.

Not exactly - KDE applications run on other desktops. Of course, they require some parts of KDE to be installed, but the package manager should take care of that when the dolphin package is requested. The first start of a "foreign-desktop"-application can be slower, because the "foreign" libraries have to be read from disk for the first time.

Desktop integration of dolphin will be not as good as in KDE though, because dolphin doesn't have access to the metadata storage of nepomuk/baloo etc.

There is no sense in anyone recommending alternatives if you are completely dependent on a particular file manager which happens to be proprietary and exclusive to a particular OS.

So the answer is actually very simple: Use windows.

I agree with Phillip Lacroix and cepheus11. I've often added Dolphin in non-KDE environments.

To the OP:

It's been so long since I've used Windows Explorer that I can't even remember enough about it to compare it to Linux file managers. However, the one you're using in Ubuntu 14.04 (Nautilus, aka "Files") might be my least favorite.

The good thing is that in Linux you can easily install another file manager that better suits your needs. My favorites are Dolphin and SpaceFM. In Ubuntu 14.04, I mostly use SpaceFM, but in openSUSE 13.2 KDE, for example, I stick with Dolphin.

Do a web search using linux file managers and take a look at what's out there; maybe you'll find one that you'll be comfortable using. For example, a couple of web pages here:

http://www.tuxarena.com/2011/06/20-f...rs-for-ubuntu/

http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20...eManagers.html

Also note that as you become more comfortable with Linux, you might find yourself doing what a lot of Linux users do -- handling much of your file management right from the command line! For example, you mentioned backups; I do my backups (from my computer to an external hard drive) using rsync from the command line...

In this particular case I would disagree. I think that one of the file managers available in Linux, probably one of those listed above, will contain the functionality upon which the OP depends. I don't use Windows Explorer an awful lot any more but the only functionality I have noticed which I haven't seen under Linux is the whole "Documents" paradigm and I have a feeling there may be something a bit like that if I wanted it.

Fair enough. What I meant was that, due to its deep integration with KDE, I suppose it's better to use Dolphin inside its own desktop environment.

Windows integrates the desktop, the file manager and the web browser into one program.

I use both Windows 7 and Linux (Centos) every day. I find the integration of desktop and file manager is very user friendly and one of the advantages of Windows over Linux. The file manager functionality in Windows is also better than the best I've seen in Linux.

The integration of file manger and web browser in Windows is a frequent source of frustration for me. I NEVER want the file manager to decide some minor typo in a local file address is a reason to jump into web mode and try to find the thing it thinks I wanted. I want typos in local file addresses to sit where I typed them waiting for me to fix just the wrong part, rather than be snatched away to a totally wrong guess from which I need to close and reopen and retype from scratch.

I use Konqueror a lot in Linux. It is better than the default file browser in Centos 6. Like Windows Explorer, Konqueror is also a web browser and also not the web browser I want to use (on both Windows and Linux, I use FireFox). But unlike Windows Explorer, Konqueror lets you control the mode. If you put it in file manager mode (not web browser mode) it stays that way until you decide otherwise. It is still a worse file manager than Windows Explorer, but it does have that specific advantage.

Overall, I prefer Linux to Windows. But the File manager (which may be a bigger part of the OP's use of the OS) is definitely better on Windows and the integration of Desktop and file manager is better.

What integration???

Maybe I'm missing out on some features I don't know exist.

But in my experience, with multiple desktops and multiple file managers, both those that do go together and those that don't, I've never seen any integration. I've never seen anything that works better as a result of using a file manager with its associated desktop rather than some other.

UI tool sets, such as KDE, share significant .so files within the set. So you save some disk space if you install from only one set and some ram space if you use tools from only one set. So I'm sure a file manager has less net use of ram when used with its associated desktop. But those ram and disk use differences have gone up over the years so much more slowly than the ram and disk capacities of ordinary home systems, that the whole question ought to be obsolete by now. Mixing UI packages uses a little more ram. So what.