Comments for Xarchiver
Just a big thank-you
I just wanted to say thanks for providing such a great piece of software. I must admit that I do prefer using a GUI rather than the command line for a lot of my day-to-day tasks. Xarchiver really makes things very easy.
Re: Translation to other languages
> Hi,
>
> If I translate to pt_BR, do you put in
> official version ?
>
> Thanks
Yes, in the 0.4 release.
Translation to other languages
Hi,
If I translate to pt_BR, do you put in official version ?
Thanks
Re: maybe...
> thanks for your comment, I'm willing to
> cooperate I think it is better to join
> the efforts, anyway Xarchiver uses a
> very different approach than XArchive.
> The parsing of the contents of the
> archive is done inside Xarchiver itself
> in C language rather than using external
> shell wrappers as XArchive does.
Well it's not *that* much different (expect that I wouldn't be able to add yet-another-archiver *really fast* myself being quite off C for quite a few years). I mean, if the goal is "a lightweight GUI archive manager" then this particularity isn't really crucial if it works this way or another and doesn't pose clear and significant problems in the foreseeable future (e.g. shell wrappers *do* need a rewrite to support password protected archives in any sane way).
Re: maybe...
> maybe it's worth to cooperate with them
> to make one stable and robust product
> instead of two bu^H^Hless-than-perfect?
>
thanks for your comment, I'm willing to cooperate I think it is better to join the efforts, anyway Xarchiver uses a very different approach than XArchive. The parsing of the contents of the archive is done inside Xarchiver itself in C language rather than using external shell wrappers as XArchive does.
maybe...
> I didn't know about xarchive when I
> submitted xarchiver to sourceforge.
maybe it's worth to cooperate with them to make one stable and robust product instead of two bu^H^Hless-than-perfect?
at least xarchive has some considerable usability problems (they're quite natural but nevertheless could be fixed), and inventing yet another extfs-like protocol wasn't a nice idea at all (I've written a handler script or two for it).
finally, if you happen to like something like ROX-Filer (e.g., some lightweight file manager), maybe it's worth to ping them regarding getting it all merged up to achieve better yet thingie.
as someone has put it here: "But in the long run, you will find much more satisfaction from working on a project that everyone knows and respects, than being the sole author of and world-wide expert on some poopoo-kaka that no one has heard of. I speak from experience!"
Re: What is with the name
> Not that this project is a bad idea, but
> why choose such a similar name to an
> existing project (XArchive is on the
> freshmeat project listing also).
>
I didn't know about xarchive when I submitted xarchiver to sourceforge. Unfortunately the name can't be changed anymore on sourceforge. I apologize for any inconvenience.
What is with the name
Not that this project is a bad idea, but why choose such a similar name to an existing project (XArchive is on the freshmeat project listing also).
Re: Just a big thank-you
> I just wanted to say thanks for
> providing such a great piece of
> software. I must admit that I do prefer
> using a GUI rather than the command line
> for a lot of my day-to-day tasks.
> Xarchiver really makes things very easy.
Many many thanks for your kind works. Words like
yours keep on pushing me to improve xarchiver more and more.
Giuseppe Torelli