>>72
1. Speed. Krusader or any other attempt for a fully graphical OFM is pig disgustingly slow.
Got nothing to do with being graphical. Blame poor development priorities.
It does; there's a lot more work when you're to draw bitmaps in various formats, calculate gradients, etc. over just rendering a fixed-spacing bitmap-cached font (which is often hardware-accelerated). Also, X is probably fucked as it's always going to be kinda slow. (And GTK is something else. I can run an errand as I wait for it to fully refresh.)
2. Enforced usability. Any graphical OFM I've seen is pestered with icons, toolbars and worthless bullshit wasting space and making it look like a Hong Kong street. You cannot add useless bullshit to the application if you can only use text.
But you can not add useless bullshit to the application when you use a bitmap display.
I don't quite understand what you meant. Of course you can; you can pest it with stupid icons and bullshit.
>> 3. Terminal support. It's easy to do in text, hard to do with a graphical OFM. IIRC Krusader almost got it right, but you can't use both the panels and the command line at once and have to switch with the mouse which is, again, pig disgusting.
Nice for lazy devs, but so what?
Oh, so you have to be a developer to use the command line or an OFM? Well then, I'm a lazy dev.
You mean the proper font that makes everything look right and filenames line up nicely?
What display errors are you envisioning?
Not errors, just uglyness.
Can't you envision a better future with me, a future with output devices chosen to maximise usability and capability?
I wish I could, but then users who want an "easy search" icon on their internet and developers willing to satisfy these retards come to my mind.