Best place to store business critical documents? Try Outlook deleted items!
-
@boomzilla said:
It's often more convenient to have everything in the same window. I may have the same file open, looking at different parts, or I may have multiple files open. I could see that being useful in a filesystem browser. Not all the time (which, contrary to what blakeyrat seems to think, no one here is advocating). But definitely sometimes.
That's why I install Konqueror on Windows, I can split the screen as I feel in vertical or horizontal blocks or both.
-
My screen usually consists of several terminal emulator instances, each with several tabs.
-
@Ben L. said:
@toon said:
@joe.edwards said:
The usefulness of a layer you can't draw on is debatable. If you want to overlay light blue, then make a light blue layer and set it to overlay. It's simpler and it does the same thing.@dhromed said:
@ASheridan2 said:
I suppose someone could get the source and add that feature... oh no, they can't, because it's closed source and we have to stick with whatever sucky features it's built with.
You make it sound as if availability of source automatically causes good things like this to happen.
It's not automatic, but if an open source project had the same size user base as Windows Explorer, it'd be a virtual certainty that someone or other would take the time to implement a much-wanted feature like tabs.
If that were true, the GIMP would have a lot more features (such as adjustment layers).
You don't draw in the layer, you draw on the mask, which adds immensely to the power. That's only part of it, though. The whole point is that you can fiddle with the colors and levels and god knows what else, and change it later. Adjustment layers are why I wish Photoshop was free. If you never use photoshop and adjustment layers, but edit a lot of graphics: that's like finding and replacing without regular expressions. They're not necessary, but you're missing out if they're not in your life.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
You might think it's stupid, but it's the preferred layout for FTP clients for more than shits and giggles.
Are we allowed to know these reasons? Maybe you could enlighten us instead of being vague as shit?
Also: you? Web dev? Seriously? I'd have pegged you as Lotus Notes server admin, or IBM mainframe coder, or professional Luddite asshole. Web dev?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Are we allowed to know these reasons? Maybe you could enlighten us instead of being vague as shit?
Ask the devs who make the FTP software. I don't write the FTP software, so I don't know all the reasons. My only reason is that it makes it easier to use, which is enough of a reason for me.
-
@toon said:
You don't draw in the layer, you draw on the mask, which adds immensely to the power. That's only part of it, though. The whole point is that you can fiddle with the colors and levels and god knows what else, and change it later. Adjustment layers are why I wish Photoshop was free. If you never use photoshop and adjustment layers, but edit a lot of graphics: that's like finding and replacing without regular expressions. They're not necessary, but you're missing out if they're not in your life.
GIMP has masks though. And it looks like what Photoshop calls an adjustment layer (never used it) is what GIMP calls a layer with certain blending modes?
-
You know, we wouldn't need a split pane interface if we had a tiling window manager.. oh wait, metro apps in Windows 8 are tiling. So yeah, score for MS there.
Also, people still use FTP!? But it's unencrypted! Over the open Internet!
SFTP in the Unix world, VPN-assisted RDP or CIFS in the Windows one!
-
@MiffTheFox said:
GIMP has masks though. And it looks like what Photoshop calls an adjustment layer (never used it) is what GIMP calls a layer with certain blending modes?
GIMP does not yet have anything like Phosotshop's adjustment layers (which are basically filters that operate as a layer, something that simple blending modes can't replicate) - this is being worked on though, but since there's about 4 active developers, the work is going slowly.
@MiffTheFox said:Also, people still use FTP!? But it's unencrypted! Over the open Internet!
I'm pretty sure most people have moved to SFTP, but since most FTP clients have gained that support, the old name stuck.
As for two-pane file managers, I use them, too - one pane as a source of operations, another as target makes my life much easier (and when I don't need the other pane, I can easily ignore it). It's also much simpler to switch between two panes inside single window than switching between windows, and I find it easier to organize my work with multiple two-pane views than with a larger number of single-folder views. Doesn't matter if they're local or remote.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
@toon said:
You don't draw in the layer, you draw on the mask, which adds immensely to the power. That's only part of it, though. The whole point is that you can fiddle with the colors and levels and god knows what else, and change it later. Adjustment layers are why I wish Photoshop was free. If you never use photoshop and adjustment layers, but edit a lot of graphics: that's like finding and replacing without regular expressions. They're not necessary, but you're missing out if they're not in your life.
GIMP has masks though. And it looks like what Photoshop calls an adjustment layer (never used it) is what GIMP calls a layer with certain blending modes?
Is there a blending mode for a gradient map, or for curves?
An adjustment layer is basically a graphical effect inserted into the stack of layers. Like a regular layer with a blending mode they affect the layers beneath them and can be masked. Unlike regular layers they often have custom parameters specified by a popup dialog like in the screenshot, which can then be modified on-the-fly.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Also, people still use FTP!? But it's unencrypted! Over the open Internet!
People who aren't pedantic dickweeds seeing "FTP" in a discussion about user interfaces would have read it as, "FTP, SFTP, or similar technologies where remote files are accessed, but are not mapped to the computer's native file browser."
-
@ASheridan2 said:
@blakeyrat said:
Are we allowed to know these reasons? Maybe you could enlighten us instead of being vague as shit?
Ask the devs who make the FTP software. I don't write the FTP software, so I don't know all the reasons. My only reason is that it makes it easier to use, which is enough of a reason for me.So you think it's better, but you have no evidence-- in fact not even any theories-- as to what makes it better? That's not enough of a reason for me.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@MiffTheFox said:
Also, people still use FTP!? But it's unencrypted! Over the open Internet!
People who aren't pedantic dickweeds seeing "FTP" in a discussion about user interfaces would have read it as, "FTP, SFTP, or similar technologies where remote files are accessed, but are not mapped to the computer's native file browser."
Look who's talking.
-
@blakeyrat said:
So you think it's better, but you have no evidence-- in fact not even any theories-- as to what makes it better? That's not enough of a reason for me.
Having to arrange multiple windows on a busy desktop (especially when I'm using, e.g., a laptop with relatively small screen space) has been known to raise my blood pressure.
Multi-paned, single windowed applications save lives.
-
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
So you think it's better, but you have no evidence-- in fact not even any theories-- as to what makes it better? That's not enough of a reason for me.
Having to arrange multiple windows on a busy desktop (especially when I'm using, e.g., a laptop with relatively small screen space) has been known to raise my blood pressure.
Multi-paned, single windowed applications save lives.
I'd like it if you could glob (dock? snap?) Explorer windows together so that they temporarily behave as one cohesive unit (in the way they drag, and focus) but can still be broken apart later. Then you could arbitrarily arrange as few or as many views as you need, without the pain of managing a thousand little satellite windows individually.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I'd like it if you could glob (dock? snap?) Explorer windows together so that they temporarily behave as one cohesive unit (in the way they drag, and focus) but can still be broken apart later. Then you could arbitrarily arrange as few or as many views as you need, without the pain of managing a thousand little satellite windows individually.
Yeah, I miss BeOS too. I dunno why Apple or Microsoft hasn't been ripping-off their ideas like mad, other than perhaps patents?
-
FTP functionality is built into my file browser, so I don't use any external FTP software. I can then throw the directory into a tab on my split pane view.
To connect to my websites, I use SSH. It connects the firewall to a drive letter, which although a little out of date, works quite nicely. Each server then shows up as a different folder.
Total Commander for the win! I've been using it since Windows 3.1 when it was called Windows Commander, then Microsoft threatened them with legal action for using the name "Windows".
-
@Ben L. said:
The usefulness of a layer you can't draw on is debatable. If you want to overlay light blue, then make a light blue layer and set it to overlay. It's simpler and it does the same thing.
I see you've never done graphics work! That's okay, you just need to know what's what. It's not debatable at all. Adjustment and Fill layers are a win for everyone and they're much quicker to use than a filled pixel layer. Not to mention that adjustment layers don't destroy the underlying data. Kind of handy. I think.
@MiffTheFox said:
GIMP has masks though. And it looks like what Photoshop calls an adjustment layer (never used it) is what GIMP calls a layer with certain blending modes?
Wow, you've never used Photoshop since version 6? And GIMP doesn't have these basic things, in 2013? Okay. I see.
An adjustment layer is like having the Levels or Hue/Sat/Bri adjustment (or any of the others) rolled up in a layer. You edit the layer's options, and the effect is dynamically applied to all layers below it. The mask determines the opacity and area of its effect.
It is supremely useful for nondestructive editing. I only wish they'd implemented filters (like blur and noise) in the same way. Unfortunately, Adobe implemented that by forcing you to use Smart Objects for no reason, and it's comically impractical to work with and the file size overhead is immense. :(
-
@blakeyrat said:
stupid, awful, confusing and useless?
Split pane is none of those things. Where did you get that idea? Split pane provides stability.
You expect me to juggle explorer windows constantly? I don't want that. Total commander's split pane is the solution.
@Ben L. said:
A split pane is useful in cases where you have a state. Explorer is more or less stateless. Make a change in one window, it's there in all the others. No mumbo-jumbo needed, just a filesystem.
Did they give you the good stuff? It's like timecube in here.@blakeyrat said:
I bet 90% of the time you use a split pane FTP client, you end up opening the local half of the pane in Explorer sooner or later anyway, right? Right? Admit it, I'm right.
No. Never. Not once, not ever.
-
@joe.edwards said:
It's not automatic, but if an open source project had the same size user base as Windows Explorer, it'd be a virtual certainty that someone or other would take the time to implement a much-wanted feature like tabs.
That's the hope, but it's not happening anywhere. All big open source programs are maintained by a limited team of dedicated individuals, not drive-by programmers.
Opensourcing your software allows people to fork the entire thing, which is what happens. Great. Now you have two programs with insignificant differences.
-
@boomzilla said:
Split panes are useful in a zillion places. I use them all the time in editors, for example. It's often more convenient to have everything in the same window. I may have the same file open, looking at different parts, or I may have multiple files open.
Yes.
@boomzilla said:
Spatial navigation, OTOH, I always avoid.
Depends on, um, the location. In the taskbar, doing something like auto-sorting or grouping buttons is a confusing mess, but if you respect the location of the buttons, so that they all they where they were as much as possible, it's fine. It's a target you have to click on. You remember where it is on the taskbar, you don't go around reparsing the alphabet and matching it for the application name you want.
For windows... maybe. Since I don't know what it's like to have the same folder open up in the same location on my screen every time, it's hard to tell. Law of UI concepts and all that.
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
So you think it's better, but you have no evidence-- in fact not even any theories-- as to what makes it better? That's not enough of a reason for me.
Having to arrange multiple windows on a busy desktop (especially when I'm using, e.g., a laptop with relatively small screen space) has been known to raise my blood pressure.
Multi-paned, single windowed applications save lives.
Precisely. You can sit on my lawn, assuming I had one.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I'd like it if you could glob (dock? snap?) Explorer windows together so that they temporarily behave as one cohesive unit (in the way they drag, and focus) but can still be broken apart later.
Yeah, but you'd still have to do that again and again and again.
How about zero times? I zero times good for you? Split pane file browsing reduces window juggling to zero. And not the "insignificant zero", but an actual zero.
Unfortnately it replaces it with tab juggling. But clicking tabs is far less offensive than trying to hit window borders.
@Mole said:
FTP functionality is built into my file browser, so I don't use any external FTP software.
TC doesn't show the folder tree when FTPing, so I'm still bound to FileZilla. :\
-
aaaa posts
-
@dhromed said:
TC doesn't show the folder tree when FTPing, so I'm still bound to FileZilla. :</blockquote>
FileZilla is like ass-cancer in software form. Jesus man.
-
Then suggest me an alternative and convince me to switch.
-
@dhromed said:
Wow, you've never used Photoshop since version 6? And GIMP doesn't have these basic things, in 2013? Okay. I see.
An adjustment layer is like having the Levels or Hue/Sat/Bri adjustment (or any of the others) rolled up in a layer. You edit the layer's options, and the effect is dynamically applied to all layers below it. The mask determines the opacity and area of its effect.
It is supremely useful for nondestructive editing. I only wish they'd implemented filters (like blur and noise) in the same way. Unfortunately, Adobe implemented that by forcing you to use Smart Objects for no reason, and it's comically impractical to work with and the file size overhead is immense. :(
Never used Photoshop period. Sounds like a useful feature.
Don't know if PS does relative adjustment but for absolute adjustment GIMP has "Hue", "Saturation", and "Value" blending options.
-
@dhromed said:
Then suggest me an alternative and convince me to switch.
OpenSSH. It's not a fancy GUI but it works for just dumping your files into your home directory then using SSH to deal with them.
(Since according to Blakeyrat, all FTP is SFTP now.)
-
@dhromed said:
Then suggest me an alternative and convince me to switch.
WinSCP is probably the best option for Windows, but it still sucks ass. I haven't seen a truly good FTP client for Windows yet, honestly. But you can do better than FileZilla man.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
I bet 90% of the time you use a split pane FTP
client, you end up opening the local half of the pane in Explorer sooner
or later anyway, right? Right? Admit it, I'm right.
No. Never. Not once, not ever.I don't understand why I'd want to open up the folder in a file manager when I'm transferring files. That just seems like you're intentionally sabotaging your workflow. Of course, 99% of the time I use something like scp or sftp or even ftp from the command line, but it's a lot easier to throw WinSCP onto a Windows box than getting ssh set up there. So much easier to type directories (especially with autocomplete) than to have to navigate them graphically. And ssh keys allow remote autocompletion with scp.
I suppose a multi-tabbed terminal program is sorta like a split pane application, though.
-
@dhromed said:
TC doesn't show the folder tree when FTPing, so I'm still bound to FileZilla. :<p>
Why do you need the folder tree? When I open a web site project, my local copy is updated (so folder tree is local also) and any changes uploaded to the test server by my IDE.
If I want to access any files directly, the servers are connected to drive letters, so they act just like local drives.
It's still nice to use the built in FTP client, when I rarely need it.
-
@boomzilla said:
but it's a lot easier to throw WinSCP onto a Windows box than getting ssh set up there.
What is there in the SSH setup? Once its setup once, just copy the config over to the new PC, enter your password and click connect and your drives appear. If you don't have a config, you'll need to type the host, username, select your private key, etc, but thats the same regardless of app.
-
@blakeyrat said:
WinSCP is probably the best option for Windows, but it still sucks ass. I haven't seen a truly good FTP client for Windows yet, honestly. But you can do better than FileZilla man.
As far as UI goes, Filezilla feels quite a bit better than clunky-ass WinSCP.
Apart from not supporting SFTP, what other under-the-hood flaws does Filezilla have that should make me detest it?
-
@Mole said:
Why do you need the folder tree? When I open a web site project, my local copy is updated (so folder tree is local also) and any changes uploaded to the test server by my IDE.
Having the folders in view is more efficient and less error-prone when I'm putting some files into production, copared to one-dimensionally doubleclicking deeper into the structure and going back up again.
-
@Mole said:
@boomzilla said:
but it's a lot easier to throw WinSCP onto a Windows box than getting ssh set up there.
What is there in the SSH setup? Once its setup once, just copy the config over to the new PC, enter your password and click connect and your drives appear. If you don't have a config, you'll need to type the host, username, select your private key, etc, but thats the same regardless of app.Honestly, WinSCP is usually on there already for me. Putty always seems like a hassle to get keys set up, and cygwin is a PITA in general. WinSCP is the path of least resistance (espeically if it's already there). Anyways, Windows' directory layout always just feels hostile to CLI navigation.
What ssh do you install on Windows?
-
@dhromed said:
Apart from not supporting SFTP, what other under-the-hood flaws does Filezilla have that should make me detest it?
I couldn't tell you, I rejected it because of over-the-hood blatantly obvious flaws. And that was years ago, so I no longer remember the specifics.
It doesn't support SFTP? Jesus, they can't even get the technical shit right.
-
@dhromed said:
OMG, you put files into production directly?!Having the folders in view is more efficient and less error-prone when I'm putting some files into production, copared to one-dimensionally doubleclicking deeper into the structure and going back up again.
I manage all the files locally, and once that works, synchronise with the test server, and if that works, then hit the Deploy button and it synchronises with the production server. If it goes pear-shaped at either server, you just hit the "Rollback" button and hopefully it starts working again.
-
@Mole said:
OMG, you put files into production directly?!
Yeah I gotta agree, WTF Dhromed. I thought you were cool.
I do dev on localhost, deploy to test/staging (we don't have separate test and staging servers here, but the process is managed by an idiot so I take what I can get), then push live when its tested. Like, you know, competent people do! SO THERE!
-
@blakeyrat said:
@MiffTheFox said:
Sorry, I do keep saying that all that remote file access is available in my computers native file browser.It just happens to be that I use Windows at work and the native file browser there is piss poor and offers access to fuck all.Also, people still use FTP!? But it's unencrypted! Over the open Internet!
People who aren't pedantic dickweeds seeing "FTP" in a discussion about user interfaces would have read it as, "FTP, SFTP, or similar technologies where remote files are accessed, but are not mapped to the computer's native file browser."
-
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan2 said:
I have the evidence that the majority of FTP software does it like that. I make the logical assumption there's probably a good reason for it, a point that is presumably too difficult for you to fathom. Oh, and before you go on a rant about it not being the best way and that we should try to change stuff for the better, blah blah blah, read the posts here and take note of the amount of people who actually like split panes. Most people here seem to thing they are useful too.@blakeyrat said:
Are we allowed to know these reasons? Maybe you could enlighten us instead of being vague as shit?
Ask the devs who make the FTP software. I don't write the FTP software, so I don't know all the reasons. My only reason is that it makes it easier to use, which is enough of a reason for me.So you think it's better, but you have no evidence-- in fact not even any theories-- as to what makes it better? That's not enough of a reason for me.
-
@Mole said:
@dhromed said:
I agree, that does seem a little dangerous. At least put them in SVN/Git/other and then update the live server with that. You won't overwrite anything you didn't meant to, and you can roll back to the last good version really easily.
OMG, you put files into production directly?!Having the folders in view is more efficient and less error-prone when I'm putting some files into production, copared to one-dimensionally doubleclicking deeper into the structure and going back up again.
I manage all the files locally, and once that works, synchronise with the test server, and if that works, then hit the Deploy button and it synchronises with the production server. If it goes pear-shaped at either server, you just hit the "Rollback" button and hopefully it starts working again.
-
@Mole said:
you put files into production directly?!
What, you mean without a staging server in between? No.
@Mole said:
I manage all the files locally, and once that works, synchronise with the test server, and if that works, then hit the Deploy button and it synchronises with the production server. If it goes pear-shaped at either server, you just hit the "Rollback" button and hopefully it starts working again.
That particular bit of automation is not in place here; there's a strict and formal backup process, but it's all manual.
I
fondlyremember the olden days where we had 1 server.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
I have the evidence that the majority of FTP software does it like that.
Really? From my experience it's maybe 50/50. Let's see your evidence.
@ASheridan2 said:
I make the logical assumption there's probably a good reason for it, a point that is presumably too difficult for you to fathom.
Oh I get that you're making that assumption, it's just a bad assumption. I live in a universe where the majority of people do things because It's Always Been Done That Way. And if you re-example how it's done, and do it different (even if it's better), people whine and stomp their feet and throw little temper tantrums and declare they'll boycott the product. Like when Office introduced the Ribbon interface.
There are more McDonalds than steakhouses, so McDonalds must serve better food than steakhouses, right?
@ASheridan2 said:
Oh, and before you go on a rant about it not being the best way and that we should try to change stuff for the better, blah blah blah, read the posts here and take note of the amount of people who actually like split panes. Most people here seem to thing they are useful too.
Yeah but people here are the exact kind of people I described in the last paragraph, people who whine and bitch over the smallest change, even if it's a change for the better. In fact, you're one of those people. So... that ain't gonna do much to convince me.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan2 said:
Suggest an alternative that would be as efficient. Go on, do it.I have the evidence that the majority of FTP software does it like that.
Really? From my experience it's maybe 50/50. Let's see your evidence.
@ASheridan2 said:
I make the logical assumption there's probably a good reason for it, a point that is presumably too difficult for you to fathom.
Oh I get that you're making that assumption, it's just a bad assumption. I live in a universe where the majority of people do things because It's Always Been Done That Way. And if you re-example how it's done, and do it different (even if it's better), people whine and stomp their feet and throw little temper tantrums and declare they'll boycott the product. Like when Office introduced the Ribbon interface.
There are more McDonalds than steakhouses, so McDonalds must serve better food than steakhouses, right?
@ASheridan2 said:
Oh, and before you go on a rant about it not being the best way and that we should try to change stuff for the better, blah blah blah, read the posts here and take note of the amount of people who actually like split panes. Most people here seem to thing they are useful too.
Yeah but people here are the exact kind of people I described in the last paragraph, people who whine and bitch over the smallest change, even if it's a change for the better. In fact, you're one of those people. So... that ain't gonna do much to convince me.
-
@blakeyrat said:
There are more McDonalds than steakhouses, so McDonalds must serve better food than steakhouses, right?
Exactly right. Maybe the first few meals at the steakhouse are better, but pretty soon, I won't be able to afford any more, at which point the food at McDonald's is a lot better than the free water I get before I get kicked out of the steakhouse.
@blakeyrat said:
Yeah but people here are the exact kind of people I described in the last paragraph, people who whine and bitch over the smallest change, even if it's a change for the better. In fact, you're one of those people. So... that ain't gonna do much to convince me.
OK...so what's the evidence that a single paned FTP application is an improvement over multi-paned? Because so far it seems to amount to a couple of things: "People whose arguments I don't read / can't understand like it. I like it."
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Suggest an alternative that would be as efficient. Go on, do it.
An alternative to what? Your debating style? Just throw shit at a wall, that'd be more efficient.
Or you mean FTP client interfaces? Haven't we already covered that? (We have, but you're purposefully ignoring it in order to... what? Prove a point? Hope my memory sucks and I won't scroll up? I dunno.) The alternative is the FTP shows a single window of remote files, and local files are handled by the local file browser. This is, for example, how every single FTP client I've ever seen on MacOS works (which is why I highly doubt you have evidence that the majority of clients are double-paned). WinSCP also can be set this way, which is why I use it.
It's more efficient because the majority of the time, you want the local files open in your file browser anyway. Perhaps you're downloading a document you now need to open. Maybe you need to preview the image thumbnails before uploading. Or any of a million other reasons.
Your turn! Gimme something. Anything.
-
I think the argument here is that:
People who prefer to use Explorer prefer to drag files from Explorer into other applications as it feels more natural to them
People who have used a dedicated file manager (eg. TC) for eons would like to stick to that kind of method.
Personally I hate the way explorer works and think TC makes me more productive. If I wanted to download or upload a single file, I'd quite happily drag from TC into my favourite file manager. But if I was doing lots of uploads and downloads from a FTP site, I would prefer both sides of the FTP (local and remote views) in the same application, rather than trying to align up windows and then clicking and dragging. In fact, I pretty much hate the mouse, so if I can select a group a files and hit a key to upload or download them, thats better for me. I can't do that with an explorer window and ftp as seperate windows.
I think thats what I like about TC, I can navigate using the keyboard, and then select a group of files, hit F5 to bring up the copy dialog, hit F2 to throw the file list in the queue, and go back to my business, with the copying being done in the background.
So lets design a FTP client where you can turn off the local directory display if you don't want it. In fact, I'm pretty sure they already exist.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan2 said:
So you think two windows are better than one? I already told you several times I use one file manager for everything, and that one file manager allows split panes. Why the fuck would I want two windows open when I can do it in one? I don't want to clutter my taskbar with tons of windows, and then have to tab between each one because I can't identify them by their thumbnail. If I have all my files accessible via one window, then why the hell not?Suggest an alternative that would be as efficient. Go on, do it.
An alternative to what? Your debating style? Just throw shit at a wall, that'd be more efficient.
Or you mean FTP client interfaces? Haven't we already covered that? (We have, but you're purposefully ignoring it in order to... what? Prove a point? Hope my memory sucks and I won't scroll up? I dunno.) The alternative is the FTP shows a single window of remote files, and local files are handled by the local file browser. This is, for example, how every single FTP client I've ever seen on MacOS works (which is why I highly doubt you have evidence that the majority of clients are double-paned). WinSCP also can be set this way, which is why I use it.
It's more efficient because the majority of the time, you want the local files open in your file browser anyway. Perhaps you're downloading a document you now need to open. Maybe you need to preview the image thumbnails before uploading. Or any of a million other reasons.
Your turn! Gimme something. Anything.
Oh, and I mentioned that I use split panes for file management not only for FTP and not only in FTP software, but you seem to have either a) not read that b) been too busy listening to your shoulder aliens to pay attention c) just being a douche d) all of those. Either way, no skin off my nose. I (and most of the others here as far as I can tell) like split panes for file management for specific cases, and it lets me work a lot faster and more efficiently. It's of no surprise to me that you don't wish to work efficiently or learn a better way of doing something, you're quite clearly a technological dinosaur who pretends to be cool and 'in the know'
-
@blakeyrat said:
This is, for example, how every single FTP client I've ever seen on MacOS works (which is why I highly doubt you have evidence that the majority of clients are double-paned). WinSCP also can be set this way, which is why I use it.
And Mac OS X has a split-pane file manager (last I used it, but I only used it briefly so I could be wrong), unless you're going to pull the reverse of earlier in the thread and claim that Mac OS always definitely refers to Mac OS Classic and not Mac OS X.
Although, to be honest, both metaphors seem to apply for OS X since the only FTP client I've seen on there is the fact that the Finder can browse FTP natively*. (Then again, so can Windows Explorer**.)
** I don't know if it can browse SFTP too***, and I can't be bothered to try to learn too much about a system I not only don't use but don't have any hardware it will run on.
* Has this even come up in the thread yet?
*** Hey, if SFTP is FTP, is TFTP FTP too?
-
@blakeyrat said:
It's more efficient because the majority of the time, you want the local files open in your file browser anyway.
Ah, begging the question. Still, this is one reason why the CLI FTP interface is so efficient for me...I almost always have several already open! It's very rare that I have a file manager open, so that's a real productivity drag to have to open and close windows all the time.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Don't know if PS does relative adjustment but for absolute adjustment GIMP has "Hue", "Saturation", and "Value" blending options.
Repeat after me: GIMP. Does. Not. Currently. Have. Anything. Similar. To. Adjustment. Layers. No, those blending options do not do what adjustment layers do. And while I don't work on the GIMP core, I'm still one of it's developers.
@ASheridan2 said:Oh, and I mentioned that I use split panes for file management not only for FTP and not only in FTP software, but you seem to have either a) not read that b) been too busy listening to your shoulder aliens to pay attention c) just being a douche d) all of those.
He's just doing what he always does: ignoring any and all oposing views for which he doesn't have counterarguments.
-
@ender said:
Repeat after me: GIMP. Does. Not. Currently. Have. Anything. Similar. To. Adjustment. Layers. No, those blending options do not do what adjustment layers do. And while I don't work on the GIMP core, I'm still one of it's developers.
This feature would make Gimp a Photoshop killer, but I understand that implementing this isn't easy. As it is, there are still ways to achieve the same result, but Photoshop just makes it a bit easier. That said, Photoshop makes so many other things unnecessarily difficult or awkward, that I would still use Gimp anyday unless forced.
