GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 341959
View as Compact List
Last modified: 2008-04-23 02:08:57 UTC
Look at Thunar for directions. Both Thunar and Konqueror does this, and they do it fast. I'm currently thinking about how to switch to Thunar as the default file handler for my gnome setups. Sorry about the ugly ascii art but... Instead of: +---------------------+++ |File1 ||| |File2 | | +---------------------+++ Do: +------------------+ |File 1 File 2 | |File 3 | +------------------+
I think there is an error in the ASCII art. What Thunar does in Compact List View is this: +------------------+ |File 1 File 4 | |File 2 File 5 | |File 3 | +------------------+ |ooooo | +------------------+ Which is exactly the same behavior as in Microsoft Windows. This view is very practical to work with thanks to the large amount of information available on the screen. Moreover, Windows users will have an easier time using Nautilus. Please see http://thunar.xfce.org/images/filewindow-6.png for reference.
It's kind of possible to imitate the desired behavior using icon view, the configuration item “text beside icons” set, and a zoom level of (say) 75%. The main differences are that nautilus fills rows before columns, and that the column width is fixed. I agree that an actual Compact List View is desirable.
To Comment #2: It looks a little bit like the the desired view, but not really! If one has long file names the height of the rows may differ, because nautilus does not TRUNCATE file names like MS-Explorer, Konqueror, etc... I think there could be a huge speed enhancement if columns and rows have all the same height and width. Maybe it's easier to read, too. Of course I would like to have the possibilty to adjust height/width. It is interesting that some developers have decided to use this kind of icon view for the new gnome-main-menu/app-browser/control-center (the slab stuff). Anyway, a unified pixel engine for all this parts of gnome which use an icon view would be nice, too.
is this a duplicate of bug #66768 ?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 66768 ***