What do you think Linux really needs?

* a good file manager
* more good games
* more commercial programs instead of the free stuff.
* more graphic programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Xara Graphic Designer.
GIMP and Inkscape are ok, but it's just not the same.

 

Interesting responses so far! Have to say I never even thought of printing/scanning; I've had more trouble with Windows print drivers than from CUPS.

@moontan, I was also looking for a good file manager for quite a while. I've currently settled on GNU Midnight Commander. The entry barrier is a bit higher, but it's more friendly (IMO) than most other orthodox file managers, and more powerful than Windows Explorer clones.

 

that looks like a refugee from the DOS days. lol

 

There are plenty of available file managers for Linux - and none suits your needs? I'm using Krusader which is just great, IMHO.

Well, yes - but they are coming ... slowly ...

Commercial programs are not an objective in itself. They only make sense if they are clearly superior compared to free stuff.

I don't know your needs. But there are many Linux alternatives - have you tried all of them?

 

tlu: There are plenty of available file managers for Linux - and none suits your needs? I'm using Krusader which is just great, IMHO.

I tried them all. none are anywhere as good as Directory Opus.
----
Commercial programs are not an objective in itself. They only make sense if they are clearly superior compared to free stuff.

like most things in life, you get what you pay for. not all the times but often enough.
----
I don't know your needs. But there are many Linux alternatives - have you tried all of them?

I tried all the ones that were relevant to what I do.
GIMP and Inkscape are pretty good, but not as good as commercial programs like the ones I mentioned.

 

I can second that. DOpus is the application I miss the most from my Windows daze. I like Thunar the best of the Linux file managers, but I miss the depth of DOpus's context-menu options and dual-pane view.

 

Yep. Besides like Tiny Core that could be run on a early 90s system with at least 30-40mb ram, there's not too much that can run on that gab between, I'd say, late 90s-2005 or so. To be fair, the video cards then (especially those that were just entry level when they were made no less) are painful to use (anything before 2002 and good luck displaying a decent screen res on a modern monitor), but all the same these systems should have a bit better hardware acceleration for basic desktop stuff. Otherwise the CPU usage skyrockets to 80% when you move the mouse or resize a window (if it even works that good).

Like I said in your other thread, I just gave in and bought modern PCI cards for my old rigs. Sure, they work better than the ancient onboard could ever dream of, and they have sane driver support cause they're newer/more widely used, but I agree you shouldn't have to just to get the desktop to display like it does with XP. All of my older systems though I've maxed out spec wise to whatever board's socket type can handle (to the point where I can't upgrade it), and even then I haven't found an OS that's snappy on older hardware while also being modern enough for Firefox or something. All that said, least they don't bog down the older systems down half as bad as Vista/Win7 though.