what about Ranger as the file manager?
sadid opened this issue · 5 comments
Hi,
This is a great list 👍 ,
but have you checked ranger as the file manager (instead of vifm)?
Hi @sadid,
Thanks for your interest in Vimpressionist. You're more than welcome! 👍
Actually, when I started this project, I tried to select the most Vi-like applications for each software category. For some categories, this task was easy because the choice was obvious. For others, if I remember correctly, I hesitated a little about the web browser (Lynx vs W3M), the music player (cmus vs ncmpcpp), the PDF reader (apvlv vs Zathura), the chat client (Irssi vs WeeChat) and the file manager (ranger vs Vifm).
I know that Vifm is a bit less popular than ranger, but I had been convinced by the arguments given in the Vifm wiki: Vifm or ranger
What do you think?
I don't have much experience with vifm, I'm afraid. I've test it before finding ranger and after that I've been a ranger user. But regarding the Vifm or ranger, I've these comments:
- I'm not satisfied with its argument about these two aren't comparable. If we accept such argument then there shouldn't be any comparison and almost all comparison are irrelevant. These two are ncurse based file managers with some degree of vimishness, so totally comparable (at least for the end user). However I do believe that these two have slightly different philosophy and sensitivity regard being vim-like. When you get very narrow focused this difference get bigger but to me they're in the same direction. Just compare them with Dolphin or Nautilus, etc.
- vifm configuration is very similar to vim while ranger configuration is completely different. This is a big difference (which have not been pointed out). however regarding vim keybindings they're more of same than different.
- vifm is more vim like and this is a strong point but ranger is also vim-like (it likeliness might be slightly less, but still vim-like). For example navigation, renaming, bookmarking in both are same just like vim. Ranger also invoke vim in many circumstances for example in bulk operations.
- One practical difference between these two is Panels. vifm uses 1/2 panel and ranger uses 3 panel and this changes the workflow and how user interacts with file manager a lot. I think this is the main difference between these two and one important point to choose. If user is comfortable with 3 and want a vimish FM, then ranger is best for sure. If she/he wants 2 or one panel vimish FM, then vifm is the best.
To me this is not the argument of which is better. I just thought ranger can be included as well beside vifm. However if it should be one candidate, then I think vifm is more vimish (while still think ranger is simply better).
p.s. Just as an offer you can include multiple choices. One as the primary offer for each category and some alternatives beside it.
I agree with your first point. It is quite natural to compare both. They do not have exactly the same philosophy, but they are in the same niche.
vifm configuration is very similar to vim while ranger configuration is completely different.
Yes. To me, this was a strong bonus point in favor of Vifm because I wanted to reproduce Vim configuration mechanisms in my dotfiles.
vifm is more vim like and this is a strong point but ranger is also vim-like
You are right because I considered both before choosing Vifm. Moreover, ranger is quite popular among the Vim community.
If user is comfortable with 3 and want a vimish FM, then ranger is best for sure. If she/he wants 2 or one panel vimish FM, then vifm is the best.
It sounds logical... 👍
Just as an offer you can include multiple choices. One as the primary offer for each category and some alternatives beside it.
This would be ideal. In the perfect world, the user should be able to select the software for each category, but this is obviously a lot of work and I am quite busy these days. Moreover, I should probably work on the install script. This is not so easy because there are real differences between Linux distros. Some packages are not available everywhere and have to be compiled automatically. This implies a quite complex dependency management...
Yes, you're right about complex dep management. Keep up the nice work 👍