Most file managers I’ve encountered default to icon view. One of the first things I do is set the default to detailed list view. Might be a preference for seeing names and dates over many identical folder icons, or just an old habit from using Windows. But I’d be curious to hear about the benefits of icon view and why it’s usually the default in Linux GUI file managers.
What does everyone else use and any reasons to prefer one over the other?
List. I hate icon view. Hate it
Detail unless it’s pictures or something where the icon is a preview of the file’s content.
I work in a design industry that requires a lot of source files so I end up having to constantly switch. Lists when I’m looking for the relevant folder, or looking for a particular file based on name, or icons if I’m looking for something based on image. There’s no consistent way to switch between them with a keyboard shortcut among different OSs, either.
ls -hal
I’ve personally become a fan of
-rtAh, to see the most recently modified files last (i.e. above my prompt).ls -shitwhich is (iirc, guessing from memory): block size, human readable sizes, inodes, sort by time.
Dolphin filemanager from KDE. Nowadays I default to “compact” view without “preview” enabled. This is similar to “Icon” view, but the icons are small. Lot of files scrolls horizontal instead vertical.
- filenames in compact mode can be longer in one line, which is kind of similar to the look as “details” view, but are all displayed in a multiple rows instead one row
- preview disabled, because this is extremely fast, as I have ton of files that do not even have a preview image
That’s my default. Occasionally I enable preview image and switch to bigger “icon” view when I look into images or videos. Or sometimes I enable “details” view when needed. In normal usage I don’t need the details anyway.
Detailed list view for everything except videos and images, and sometimes even for those
ranger, a terminal file browser, which is obviously a list
if i need a gui file browser, i use pcmanfm with normal grid view
The last time I found icon view useful was in Mac OS 9. There were three main characteristics that made it useful that no current systems have AFAIK:
-
The icon grid was tight (32 pixels) and you could either snap items to that grid or place them freely.
-
Window sizes and places were directly associated with folders. (There was no “browser-style” single-window mode.)
-
File names used dynamic spacing. Longer names would occupy multiple grid spaces as needed.
These factors meant that every folder had a consistent and potentially unique size, placment, and layout.
OS X took the Finder and either ruined or neglected everything good about it. Windows explorer has always been garbage. Never found a Linux file manager with a compelling icon view either (though to be fair, I’ve never looked all that hard). The lack of system-level metadata for layout kind of mandates an abstraction between a directory and its display.
consistent and potentially unique
What do you mean by that? Aren’t those opposites? That is, if something is unique then it’s being inconsistent.
I mean that an individual folder will always look the same (consistent), and also look distinctly different from any other folder (unique) if that’s how you arranged it. So you could identify a folder instantly.
Everything in list view looks the same at a glance, and most file managers don’t retain a folder window’s size and placement. Modern macOS kiiiind of does but you have to fight it if you don’t want a single-window browsing UI.
-
Detailed view all the way
Icons for pictures, detail view for everything else. Easier to sort in the detail view.
Same. For pictures max size icons.
I think it heavily depends on the files one has to browes the most. I deal with text files all the time, so i dont need an icon to jump in my face telling me, that its a text file.
The media-, design people I know love the previews that icons give them, because its much easier to spot the image file, they are looking for while scanning through a directory
Terminal.
All jokes aside, its personal preference. If you’re working in a dense file tree, you probably need the info that details view gives you. Icon view really only matter for media.
When I am not on the terminal, I use list/detail view all the time. In the details most of the time only last modification date is relevant to me. I always make the list icons one step smaller as the default and sort directories before files in Nautilus.
I don’t need thumbnails. When I need to see pictures, I open them with the now new image viewer in Gnome and use the arrow keys to go through, if I am unsure what I am searching for. I most cases I go by file name.
I mostly prefer Detail view, but I enable Icon view in Videos, Photos, and Music folders so I can see previews.
I’m guessing most file managers have similar behavior, but on XFCE Thunar, I’m able to set detail as the default but have it remembery choice per folder.
Depends what I am doing, but I often like “orthodox” two-pane file managers better, with details.
So my preference list is roughly:
- Command Line
- Krusader
- Thunar
