Does anyone have a work-around for the right-click file handling behavior in Rox? [unresolved]

[williwaw]

Search for a string that will take a long time searching. Grab the window with the mouse and drag it around. This is a bug.. But no one cares, so why bother?

lol..
let make a comparision to the car sale you mentioned above....

1. go for a test drive out on the interstate and put the pedal down hard to the floorboard until the car wont go any faster....... and hold it there.

2. then Grab the window with the mouse grab the steering wheel and swerve the car back and forth as hard as you can without flipping it.

3. when the car salesman in the passenger seat starts yelling, tell him the car has a bug.

[Governor]

Search for a string that will take a long time searching. Grab the window with the mouse and drag it around. This is a bug.. But no one cares, so why bother?

lol..
let make a comparision to the car sale you mentioned above....

1. go for a test drive out on the interstate and put the pedal down hard to the floorboard until the car wont go any faster....... and hold it there.

2. then Grab the window with the mouse grab the steering wheel and swerve the car back and forth as hard as you can without flipping it.

3. when the car salesman in the passenger seat starts yelling, tell him the car has a bug.

Seriously? So you claim that the demonstrated behavior is not a bug? It is patently obvious that it is, but you would rather mock and ridicule me (the newbie) instead of acknowledging the obvious? So that would also mean, you think it is wrong to move an app window with the mouse.

[geo_c]

Seriously? So you claim that the demonstrated behavior is not a bug? It is patently obvious that it is, but you would rather mock and ridicule me (the newbie) instead of acknowledging the obvious? So that would also mean, you think it is wrong to move an app window with the mouse.

No.

What's wrong is to do what you did using pfind, which anyone reading this thread probably can discern, whether they ever used puppy-linux or not, and should be evident by your reference to encountering the same problem in Windows, yet, not bothering to answer the 5 questions put to you by me, which enable you to discover the anwser to your own issue.

Especially question number 5:
5) And what was Windows Support reply to your issue ticket?
Or were you not qualified as a "newbie" Windows user to ask them why your desktop was bogged down?

But not to minimize question number 1:
1) ...what drives and/or directories did you search?
hint: were they over 200GB?

But I'm not going to say what it is that's obvious. You'll have to take some initiative first.

[Governor]

Seriously? So you claim that the demonstrated behavior is not a bug? It is patently obvious that it is, but you would rather mock and ridicule me (the newbie) instead of acknowledging the obvious? So that would also mean, you think it is wrong to move an app window with the mouse.

No.

What's wrong is to do what you did using pfind, which anyone reading this thread probably can discern, whether they ever used puppy-linux or not, and should be evident by your reference to encountering the same problem in Windows, yet, not bothering to answer the 5 questions put to you by me, which enable you to discover the anwser to your own issue.

And.... you persist in trying to frame me as doing something wrong. I did nothing wrong. Accept it.

Especially question number 5:
5) And what was Windows Support reply to your issue ticket?
Or were you not qualified as a "newbie" Windows user to ask them why your desktop was bogged down?
[/quote]
I have never used any windows support at any time for any reason. I would not even begin to know how that might work.

But not to minimize question number 1:
1) ...what drives and/or directories did you search?
hint: were they over 200GB?
[/quote]
Irrelevant. You cannot escape the bug.

But I'm not going to say what it is that's obvious. You'll have to take some initiative first.
[/quote]

The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me.

[geo_c]

And.... you persist in trying to frame me as doing something wrong. I did nothing wrong. Accept it.

Of course it's wrong to not give the relevant actions and circumstances surrounding a "bug" discovery. How else will they be taken seriously and solved?

I have never used any windows support at any time for any reason. I would not even begin to know how that might work.

Why?

You encountered the same "bug" in Windows (OS with billions of dollars in development resources) as you did in puppy-linux (a loosely affiliated group of enthusiasts scattered around the world working for free.)

Why wouldn't you pursue Microsoft for bug fixes when they charge money for their OS, but make these attempts to lambaste the puppy-linux community for not meeting your demands of "user-friendliness" and perceived bug fixes?

Irrelevant. You cannot escape the bug.

Since I have never encountered this "bug" except when trying to play a 2GB movie file on a single CPU 1.6GHZ laptop with 2GB of ram, there is nothing to escape, however you have managed to generate this grievous "bug" in two disitinctly different operating systems, so it's incumbent on you to get to the root of it. Not me, or anyone else here.

The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me.

A Syllogism:
a) The truth is obvious
b) I say a thing is obvious
c) The thing I say is the truth

"Logic is a very beautiful thing. As long as it is not abused." -Eugene Ionesco

[bigpup]

In single click navigation in Rox.
The only thing that can happen, is what you left click on, will run or open in a program for accessing it.
How is that dangerous?

It's dangerous because you might inadvertently start an application that is supposed to be run from a terminal. Particularly nasty if it's an interactive shell script that now awaits user input in the background. You will have to fire up the task manager, find the stuck application and kill it. In the worst scenario it can crash or mess up your system.

bigpup response: If I left click on something and nothing seems to happen. Right click on it and if it has run in terminal. Choose that and it will open in the terminal and show what it is doing or has done. Then close the terminal to kill it.
But all I want to do is access the right click options menu.
So I am not going to use the left click.
My finger is not on it.

You could easily by accident left click twice on something using double click navigation.
When it is in your mind all the time that you must double left click, it is easy to forget to only do a single left click.

Double click navigation is what requires always two clicks to do a proper operation.

So what? That's a GTK standard. All file chooser dialogs, e.g "Save As" or "Open file", work this way. Most alternative file managers work this way.
I switched to double click navigation many moons ago and I'm glad I did. Safer, more consistent with the behavior of other applications and without the need to push the Ctrl key selecting single files is easier.

Well the topic is about using double click navigation and not understanding that you need to left click to select and right click to get options menu for the selected item.
You can not just right click on a different item and get a right click menu for that item.

But we have found that in double click navigation.
Open a Rox window and do not left click on anything. Nothing has been selected.

Then a single right click on an item will open the right click options for that item.
Right click on a different item and it gives options menu for it.
So the right click does select the correct item.

But not if you ever left click on any item in the Rox window.
Then it is left click to select, right click for selected item options menu.

[Governor]

8<----snip
Open a Rox window and do not left click on anything. Nothing has been selected.

Then a single right click on an item will open the right click options for that item.
Right click on a different item and it gives options menu for it.
So the right click does select the correct item.

But not if you ever left click on any item in the Rox window.
Then it is left click to select, right click for selected item options menu.

Yes that is how it works, and that is why it is illogical, because it works like that. We are not in grammar school; do we really have to de-select before we are allowed to select another file? Should we not have the right to change our mind as to which file we want to work on? A right-click on a different file should automatically de-select the previous file and open the options menu for the new file. Period. Why force an extra click?
As it turns out, once a file is selected with a left-click, it is a "sticky" left-click and you can't right-click in the file manager window without that left-click selection following you around. Someone ought to fix that.

This behavior slows me down. I am used to right-clicking on a file and choosing an action on that file, trusting it is the file I clicked on. Now, I must check carefully that it is not the wrong file in the dialog box and that takes extra time.

Let's say you are busy working. You right-click on the file manager window, and surprisingly, the file-handling dialog box pops up instead of the usual menu below.

File manager right-click blank space pop-up dialog.JPG (56.01 KiB) Viewed 309 times

And you think, where did that come from? So, then you have to left click in the file manager window to get rid of it, because right-clicking on the file you actually want to work won't do it.

In image below, the right-clicked file (with the mouse pointer over it) might look selected, but it isn't.

File looks selected, but isn't.JPG (87.77 KiB) Viewed 309 times

[fredx181]

Endlessly talking about this issue becomes very boring IMO.

[geo_c]

Endlessly talking about this issue becomes very boring IMO.

@Governor

In addition to what @fredx181 said, here are three things to consider :

1) Since @MochiMoppel took the time to read the manual and discover that the behavior you point out is in fact the intended Rox behavior, and it's not an error, you could edit the title of the topic and change it to: DOES ANYONE HAVE A WORKAROUND FOR THE RIGHT-CLICK FILE HANDLING BEHAVIOR IN ROX?

2) If this particular behavior in ROX is a deal breaker for you, there are many other file managers to use as been previously noted. At this moment I'm experimenting with Double Commander portable, which is a true a portable and can be found here: https://github.com/doublecmd/doublecmd/releases

I'm liking it so far, but only experimenting until I understand all of it's capabilities and configurations before using it do anything big.

On any given day I use 3-5 different file managers, mostly two terminal file managers Midnight Commander, and Ranger, along with Xfe, Thunar and pcmanfm. I bounce back and forth based on their strengths for any given task I'm currently engaged in. For instance I use Thunar for accessing my smartphone, because it's the only way I know how to do it in the OS's that I run. I use Ranger for managing my calendar which are text files I can view and edit with a couple keystrokes in ranger, I use Xfe for general browsing of image thumbnails. You aren't stuck with Rox in other words. If you don't like the fact that Rox is the default file manager in traditional puppies, there are many other OS's on this forum that don't use Rox as the default file manager.

Since no one here is likely to fork Rox on github and re-write the code, there is no point in further mentioning it on this forum. The guys at Rox are the people to whom you can make your request.

3) There is a lesson to be learned from @MochiMoppel's posts on this topic. All he did to further our understanding of Rox was read the manual and test the behaviors. In doing that he found an actual bug, something that did not work as stated in the manual. So he took the time understand how it's supposed to work, and tested to see if it actually did as stated.

There is nothing holding you back from taking his approach.

The only way a newbie moves into the general linux user category, is to take the time to learn how things work.

You've been on the forum for about 2 1/2 years now.

How long do you plan to be a "newbie?" [this question is rhetorical, and if you want to respond, fine, but please consider everything above that I suggested]

[Imran]

The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me.

Lurker here, but can't resist the urge to chime in. Allow me to state "the obvious" ...

In a nutshell, you want to use rox in double-click mode, while simultaneously expecting rox to operate in a quasi single-click mode, only when using the right button.

And the above is the only "correct" behaviour which you will tolerate, and you need someone to forcibly patch rox now (despite rox working exactly as intended), on your behalf.

[Governor]

The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me.

Lurker here, but can't resist the urge to chime in. Allow me to state "the obvious" ...

In a nutshell, you want to use rox in double-click mode, while simultaneously expecting rox to operate in a quasi single-click mode, only when using the right button.

And the above is the only "correct" behaviour which you will tolerate, and you need someone to forcibly patch rox now (despite rox working exactly as intended), on your behalf.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about, sir.

[geo_c]

The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me.

Lurker here, but can't resist the urge to chime in. Allow me to state "the obvious" ...

In a nutshell, you want to use rox in double-click mode, while simultaneously expecting rox to operate in a quasi single-click mode, only when using the right button.

And the above is the only "correct" behaviour which you will tolerate, and you need someone to forcibly patch rox now (despite rox working exactly as intended), on your behalf.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about, sir.

A syllogism:

a) An error is something I don't like
b) The manual confirms it works it correctly, but I don't like it
c) It doesn't matter what anyone says, it's an error, because I don't like it

"Logic is a very beautiful thing, as long as it is not abused" -Eugene Ionesco

But on the other hand, if you sincerely don't have any idea what he's talking about, it would be good to re-read this topic thread carefully. Because what he's talking about is obviously there. I read it as it unfolded in real time.

"The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me." -Governor

[Governor]

8<----snip

"The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me." -Governor

True statement, IMO. Many people (in general) have a problem with that. Not a secret.

[geo_c]

8<----snip

"The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me." -Governor

True statement, IMO. Many people (in general) have a problem with that. Not a secret.

A Syllogism:
a) I know something about what is obvious to me
b) I know nothing about what is obvious to someone else
c) I have no idea what someone else is talking about when they point out something obvious

"Logic is a very beautiful thing, as long as it is not abused" -Eugene Ionesco

[mikewalsh]

The reluctance for people (in general) to acknowledge the obvious astounds me.

Lurker here, but can't resist the urge to chime in. Allow me to state "the obvious" ...

In a nutshell, you want to use rox in double-click mode, while simultaneously expecting rox to operate in a quasi single-click mode, only when using the right button.

And the above is the only "correct" behaviour which you will tolerate, and you need someone to forcibly patch rox now (despite rox working exactly as intended), on your behalf.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about, sir.

Our elderly neighbour had what we - and other neighbours - termed "selective deafness". She heard exactly - and ONLY - what she wanted to hear.

Translating that to this thread, it seems to me that you must have "selective understanding". You understand that which you wish to understand, or which seems to you to align with your own "requirements". Otherwise, you feign incomprehension....rather than face uncomfortable truths.

And heaven forfend that Governor should ever be "in the wrong".

Right. I think we'll call it a day here. This thread is just treading water now, wearing out the same old path over & over again as it perambulates round and round in ever-decreasing circles. We've all had a good laugh at the stubbornness of some to accept facts, but it's starting to waste bandwidth now.....and it's not going anywhere. So.....

.....thread "locked".

Mike.