While I think downvoting this comment is unfair, it should be noted that if you care about your OS and tools being open-source, you probably shouldn’t be running OSX in the first place.
This all or nothing mentality doesn't often end up being useful in practice. For example, try doing some deep learning on Linux with CUDA without installing closed source NVIDIA drivers. The important detail is who provided the software and in this case most people are going to trust Apple or NVIDIA significantly more than a small third-party software developer they've never heard of.
(FWIW many of us tried running Linux as a desktop OS but found the UI and driver situation to be abysmal so it continues to just power our servers)
Linux is actually good now for desktop use. I install it (= Fedora or Antergos w/ GNOME) on everything now and it just works(tm).
If I got a dollar every time I heard this... I have a Linux machine at home, but GNOME still crashes 50% of the time when I switch the screen off/on. If it switches on without crashing, many applications are LoDPI until I restart them.
The machine doesn't always come back properly from sleep. Sometimes there are display artifacts, sometimes I cannot show windows of running applications.
This is all on well-supported hardware (RHEL-certified Dell Precision, an AMD GPU supported by amdgpu, etc.).
Linux has become pretty great, but it's definitely not a 'just works' experience on a lot of hardware and for a lot of uses.
While Windows keeps crashing and is glitchy, laggy, likes to crash and is generally disgusting and mac OS (Hackintosh) is unreliable and with a not very customizable UI, Elementary OS works very well on the Xiaomi Mi Notekook Air 13 (what a name).
If something breaks I can fix it. I can easily schedule jobs (tried it on Windows, fucking night mare), define my own trackpad gestures, lower the screen brightness to an acceptable level ...
Linux, with all of its flaws, is by far the least frustrating OS, imo.
You’re trying to run MacOS on unsupported hardware and configuring it yourself (instead of letting Apple do it as they always do) which is the only reason it’s more frustrating than Linux. Buying Linux vs. MacOS directly from the manufacturer is a different story and for most users MacOS clearly wins.
Hackintosh is not the only reason mac OS doesn't work well for me. It the system runs surprisingly well on many system, the problem is often mac OS itself. That said: It's better than Windows.
It simply doesn’t have the polish, or flexibility that I’d need to effectively stay on it for long. I always end up spending longggg times customizing things only to feel little integration, little support, and a lack of decent third party software. Sketch is Mac only. Spotify barely has a Linux client. Certainly no photoshop, medocire native email clients, zero IM that integrate with any networks I use (sms/iMessage), etc etc. Yes there’s lots of options as a webpage, but that’s a shallow substitute.
If you happen to need only the stuff that’s available, and your workflow is largely CLI-driven, then it’s probably fine. Otherwise it’s macOS for me.
Is it an Electron app now? Last time I poked around on macOS (admittedly, about a year ago), it didn’t look like an Electron app to me, but it most definitely was using a web view of some kind.
Sounds like you're doing graphic design. Unless you're doing animation (in which case https://krita.org/en/ is much better than any Adobe thing I've used) you're definitely better off with a Mac.
Depends on what's required. I installed Linux (Ubuntu and Xubuntu) on an old Mac, and found it extremely hard to get file sharing (with SMB shares) done. I also gave up on installing a VNC server. For both these, I was looking for GUI based options. On the Mac (for longer than a decade), one just goes to Apple menu->System Preferences->Sharing and then turn on screen sharing, file sharing, etc., very easily.
I also had to configure certain other things using the shell. I personally didn't experience Linux being adequate for desktop use.
I’m not going to say I don’t believe you, but I find comments like this one (which I see surprisingly often) funny because I’ve never not had it working perfectly, OOB, with no effort on my own, for as long as I can remember
Instead of buying whatever windows/mac computer looks like a good deal and hoping it runs linux buy with linux in mind and you will have an easier experience.
I don’t disagree with your point but it only addresses part of my problem.
For one thing, the Linux UIs like GNOME and KDE are terrible. They do the job for some people but I would willingly pay more to use OS X without hesitation.
I also have experienced many situations like the following, although typically not quite as extreme...
A coworker decided to purchase a Lenovo with Linux as a developer at a company where everyone else had MacBook Pros. He was very smug the first day or two about the specs of his laptop and it being open source Linux instead of OS X. Within a few days he was having such major issues connecting it to a 30” monitor (along with a few other issues related to Bluetooth/USB as far as I recall) that he called it a lemon and returned it for a MacBook.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m waiting for the amazing developer Linux laptop that replaces my MacBook Pro. But I just don’t see it coming for a while.
If you define not working like OSX I guess its terrible seems pretty functional to me.
Personally I prefer i3wm and keyboard driven workflow and find the way mac handles multi monitor loathsome. This doesn't mean that it is objectively bad it means I find it unsuitable as a matter of taste.
The fact that he had hardware issues hardly means linux is terrible in fact its a fairly nonsensical way to qualify an entire OS.
You could I'm sure find someone who bought a singular mac and had issues with it in a workplace full of linux users and try the equally nonsensical if opposite conclusion.
As I said, the point wasn't that one person had hardware issues. Its that I constantly see people buy Linux laptops and have hardware/software issues as the two are quite related on Linux due to bad driver support and inconsistent hardware configurations. I relayed an anecdote that summarizes many of the problems I've seen. This one involved an extremely senior engineer with successful exits who was beside himself trying to make a brand new Linux laptop work.
Here is another anecdote, no hardware involved. Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 upgrade was busted and several friends couldn't boot at all after upgrading via the GUI option. Sure that could happen on a Mac but its way, way less common.
Upgrading existing OS install to new versions is a known issue. On a non rolling release distro you are better off keeping /home separate and doing a fresh install for major releases.
This takes about 30 minutes every few years with Ubuntu lts for example. You don't lose or even have to move your files.
Since day one, every time I boot up there has been some sort of display error. The networking has never worked correctly.
Desktop linux needs to do what Apple did. Pick a hand full of laptops and desktops (or just ditch desktops) with some combination of hardware and just support those.
Until then, it's always going to be an "it works for me" situation.
Your methodology appears sound but if I can offer you some improvements.
Ubuntu's non LTS releases seem to suffer far more issues comparatively. I would suggest you stick with LTS releases and for software which you need more recent versions you may look to individual ppa's for that project. It's a common misconception that such releases are years out of date. By default they are for say the kernel meanwhile user oriented software like say your web browser is easily quite up to date and can even be bleeding edge if you don't mind adding a few repos for the software most important to you.
Unlike Apple there is no singular entity that called Linux that can opt to do anything like say abandon the desktop. This is rendered doubly insane when you realize that desktop workstations actually work fantastic right now and are an area where Linux makes a ton of sense. The hardware is standard and interchangeable. Unlike a laptop if a part does not have good Linux support its trivial to swap out just that part for something that does. Business users care about stability and a small finite number of apps. While users are turning to laptops or even mobiles some workstation users will continue to need the significant horsepower that a desktop provides. Triply nutty when you consider that there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by abandoning the desktop. You are thinking in terms of a company narrowing its focus to enable it to devote increased resources to a smaller group of products but desktops but there is nothing about this analogy that actually works.
While improving support for particular laptops is a laudable goal I'm not sure it makes any contextual sense. People working at improving Linux are presumably worried about broad projects and subsystems not device specific hacking. Presumably part of improving things is taking bugs from users but how do you propose they focus on a small subset of laptops? Privilege the tiny subset of bugs that come from those users?
Developers are already paid to focus on particular laptops. Those paid by the oem to support those sold with linux reinstalled. There are dell machines sold with Linux preinstalled as well as a number of smaller vendors. If you really want this to be a happening thing the logical thing to do is to support vendors that sell Linux machines with your money.
In short we can continue improve Linux support on a particular subset of laptops without abandoning the desktop and you can help.
I'm using a HP Elitebook 840 running Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. Didn't work with 14.04 LTS either.
I hope you appreciate that you wrote 4 paragraphs on how I could improve on picking a laptop from the Ubuntu Certified list to have fewer problems.
>If you really want this to be a happening thing the logical thing to do is to support vendors that sell Linux machines with your money.
I've been using Linux since 99. It's never worked without problems. It's been 20 years and I can't pick a laptop off a list of Certified hardware and be confident. I abandoned linux for home use a decade ago which makes me sad because I wish my side project laptop could be a linux machine. Development is so much easier on linux.
Limiting the number of entities you need to trust with closed-source software is perfectly sound wisdom, but that number doesn’t need to be zero to be useful.
That’s not to say Marta’s author has any ill intent, because I doubt he or she does.
I've been using Nimble Commander for a while now. Snappy, similar to Total Commander on Windows and I love it. The developer recently made it open source and published the code on GitHub here: https://github.com/mikekazakov/nimble-commander
I'm not sure if that's the kind of open source you were looking for, but may be worth checking out.
Total Commander is the best piece of software I ever used! I even bought a license for it, they sent me a cd with an installer and the license and I promptly lost it. At some point i even had tc as a replacement for the Windows shell. These days i dont care that much about where my files are, I have a "work" folder and thats that. My music is on spotify, my videos on netflix/amazon prime/now tv, i dont take that many meaningful pictures anymore and I dont see a reason to care about files anymore. But Total Commander was my life for a very long time, along with piracy :-P
If that's the case (and I take it the absence of a source code repository is how you're reaching your conclusion), that's ironic. The Marta webpage linked to this story includes "Because I want to own what I pay money for." yet one never truly owns proprietary software regardless of price; one can never really tell what it is doing, and users are prohibited from inspecting the program to find out, as well as sharing copies (modified for sure, often verbatim copies too).
I agree with you that the open source software has higher level of trust than the proprietary one, but I afraid I just can't maintain Marta steadily for a long time if it was open-sourced (and then forever free). And I doubt the community will do that instead of me. In case if you're interested, I expressed my thoughts about this here [1] earlier.
I do promise, though, that Marta will never collect personal data, display ads or do some other bad things. I just don't see any sense in that, and I'd rather have a good reputation.
Personally, I'm happy to pay for high quality software as I understand someone needs to be paid in order to maintain it, but I like having access to the source in order to reduce risk and maintain more control over my environment.
I think it's possible to release the source and still sell the app, Textual [0] seems like a good example of that. The make my favorite IRC client. Although I'm not sure if the author is that well off or not.
Sidestepping the actual open-source issue, from a morning's use I think you've done a wonderful job with Marta. I'll be more than happy to pay for it when the time comes.
Actually one doesn't need to trust free software because one has the freedom to inspect and modify the software to make it do what the user wants. Whether users choose to do these things is their choice and besides the point; the freedoms remain.
Trust comes into play when users are denied these freedoms; users have nothing else on which to make an informed decision. Therefore users are left to evaluate promises such as the promises you made. Belief in those promises essentially boils down to uninformed trust. It's no secret that many other proprietors do spy on their users (Microsoft purposefully changed Skype protocol to better allow spying, according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-co...). I'm pretty sure Microsoft wants to have a good reputation despite their behavior.
As you said in the post you linked to, "Although this is my current mindset, it can change in the future.". This could apply to the promises you made (or strong convictions you posted about on github.com) as well.
The question of maintaining Marta is another issue I think is misstated in your response here and on github.com: with free software users can maintain software too. They could even choose to hire you to do the job. And they can certainly host their own discussions regardless of Marta's license. The underlying issue has to do with whether users will be able to make the software they run on their computers do what they want the software to do (which is the issue with which I raised my first post on this thread) and thus retain control over their computer.
Is there a reason to not license it under a dual license?
Have the source code open with a non commercial license and also distribute the binaries under a commercial license.
I’m not sure that it will have a significant impact on the revenue since most people would likely opt out and purchase the binary rather than building it on their own.
According to what I know, in case of desktop applications, the revenue drops almost to zero, unless you have a Free and Pro versions. "Free edition" then lacks almost all features that make the product competitive, and it's not really good.
It's reasonable, though, if your potential user base is totally different. For example, IntelliJ IDEA has a Community edition that lacks enterprise frameworks support, but that's not a problem for "single users" because they basically don't do any enterprise. But it looks like it won't work for Marta.
So I'd rather choose the Sublime Text strategy (though I think that Sublime costs too much).
Don’t listen to them. The HN crowd wants everything to be open-source, but likely wouldn’t want to pay for anything even if it was dual licensed. This seems to be a great product, and you deserve to charge for it and keep it closed source.
Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I correctly guessed from the domain name and later, the contents of the page, that [1] the author is Russian, and [2] the file manager resembles the layout of FAR, another file manager of Russian origin and seemingly very popular among them.
In short, what is it with Russians and this type of file manager? It's a very curious association.
Norton Commander (and its clones, such as Volkov Commander, DOS Navigator) was very popular in ex-USSR — almost every computer running DOS (the majority of PCs in ex-USSR back then) had nc running as the main user interface to the PC, and was introduced in most computer education courses in the 90's.
I always found it amusing that in Chasm: The Rift (a midlate-90s FPS for DOS made by Action Forms, a Ukrainian game developer), the computer monitors had Norton Commander running:
If you only use a file manager for browsing/opening files, a single window makes sense. But as soon as you want to do a copy/cut and paste, you end up having to browse back and forth between two directories anyway. Dual pane is optimized for that workflow.
The canonical 80s/90s Mac OS answer would be, just open 2 (or 3 or 4 or n) file browser windows next to each other. Arguably the workflow of moving/copying stuff between windows was a key motivator for the creation of windowing systems in the first place. But today that multi-window workflow, while of course still possible, somehow feels less salient... the DOS/MDI-era Windows UI norm of "one window ≈ one application" seems to have taken over culturally as a baseline expectation for how GUIs should work - perhaps reinforced by non-windowed smartphone OSes these days as well.
I'm mainly a Windows user and I regularly have a dozen or more explorer windows open, all showing directories of interest to my current work. From that perspective, using a file manager with only two effective "windows" feels more constraining.
Have you tried Q-Dir? I installed it on my work PC using Chocolatey. I've found a couple instances of Q-Dir superior to a bunch of Windows Explorer windows for most of the things I do on a Windows PC.
I pretty much write, compile & run a large chunk of my C, C++, Python and other code in FAR every day.
I use it because I can do so many things in FAR so much faster than any other alternative (or my colleagues). I can view/navigate file/folder structure. View/Edit/Copy/Move/Archive files. And search recursively. Either by file name/extension or in contents. Also run command-line stuff (make, python, git). Inspect output from commands, quickly select text - copy&paste between contents of file, command-line and output of command. And much more. All that with just a few of keyboard shortcuts. No mouse.
And when I'm showing/explaining something to my colleague, I often hear "wait, what just happened?" or "how did you do that so fast?"
// not russian, but using FAR every day (started with Norton Commander, then used Volkov Commander, then Dos Navigator for a long time)
FAR is fascinating. It may look like a Norton Commander, but it's fully integrated in Windows and the extension system goes beyond most Norton Commander clones. It may be a small thing since the API in windows is fairly simple, but what got me is the fact that you double click an item and you get a copy of windows explorers right click + FAR extensions.
But yes, I agree I've asked myself the same question.
Would you imagine that instead of browsing records in a shop or even listening to radio all you and your friends have is the same mixtape copied over and over again? Sounds weird, but that's how software distributed from 80s well into mid-00s in Russia.
You didn't get particular products, you got a disk with "all the good bits" according to someone. Somehow Norton Commander ended up in the list at some point, so it instantly became a default and nobody knew anything better. Every DOS computer in 90s Russia booted right into NC, or its Russian clone VC.
I don't know, is it? That's kinda how stuff was distributed in Germany back in the days. At least I think, I don't quite remember in detail what was on those disks. Although I don't remember any computer booting straight into nc
Forklift[0] Does a very good job of being a stable and reliable double pane file manager with connectivity such as SFTP, S3, GoogleDrive and nice built in things like batch rename and file transfer queues.
I've used ForkLift for a while but then I got a notification that Transmit [1] was updated to version 5 and it's been great so far for me. I like the UI more.
>Marta is a dual-pane file manager. Most of the time you work with two directory panes placed side-by-side. This allows you to do the basic file operations such as copying or moving files in a fast and efficient way, because you can see both source and target directories, and you can copy or move files directly, without copy-pasting it.
Just in case, it could be categorized as a OFM (Orthodox File Manager):
Thank you, though I knew most of those info as - unfortunately - I was there, in the sense that I was in my twenties when NC came out, I practically started my computing experience at work using NC and I couldn't imagine doing some tasks without a dual pane filemanager, and when the NC was killed by Symantec I mourned the loss (and quickly found some decent alternatives, the one with the most "NC feeling" being IMHO DN - Dos Navigator and later NDN - Necoromancer's Dos Navigator).
As a side note, what not everyone knows/noticed, 7-zip it is also a (almost orthodox) dual pane file manager, very handy to manage, besides files residing on mounted filesystems also those inside archives (obviously) and those inside disk/disc/drive images, such as .iso, .img and similar.
I don't like that file operations are controlled by F1-F8 keys. This UX is unfriendly to macOS environment. Most users' F-row is in media keys mode by default, so you have to hold Fn otherwise. And I'm not even taking into account the Touch Bar.
The default key binding set is a de facto standard for double-pane file managers. I personally used Total Commander for a long time until I switched to Mac, and I really missed a FM with the similar hotkeys.
But I understand now that it's not what all Mac users expect from a file manager. I'll make an option to choose the hotkeys on the first launch [1].
As about the Touch Bar, Marta supports it since 0.1.2.
You can use software like Karabiner to change the default behavior of F keys for specific apps. In my case, function keys behave as F1-F10 in Terminal, Virtualbox, Pycharm and Dosbox, for example.
It's not really unfriendly for developers though, who I would expect make up a decent proportion of the intended audience, and who surely all have the 'Use F1, F2 keys as standard function keys' set.
As for the Touch Bar, yes, that's a problem with the standard keybindings (and is also why I'll probably only be a macOS/Marta user for a few months, as I'll never buy a laptop with a fake keyboard).
But settings to the rescue! Cmd-shift-p & 'open default keybindings' reveals that they're all configurable.
> and who surely all have the 'Use F1, F2 keys as standard function keys' set.
I develop for several different platforms on macOS, and have never felt the need to enable that setting, because I've never encountered any macOS software that required the Fn keys in this particular non-idiomatic way. Even macOS IDEs stay away, tending to map things to complex key-chords instead.
I guess it's a matter of taste whether you converge your familiar environment around the OS or your primary tools. I tend to do the latter (keeping IntelliJ, emacs, Chrome & shell use more-or-less consistent across platforms). I have more faith in my ongoing relationship with those tools than with a particular OS.
On a first look, this looks fantastic. Just what I've been waiting for. Time will tell -- I have thought this about a couple of other file managers, but irritations have always eventually surfaced to drive me back to Finder.
The ST-style command palette alone makes this worth a decent evaluation.
First-run experience was a bit odd - Marta opened up with both panes empty, and all actions unavailable. I had to go to Go->Volumes in each pane and select a volume to show up. That's OK, it's a beta. Seems great so far.
I just tried it and I really liked it. It looks very promising. I applause author's statements about its business model ("The goal for me is to create the best file manager for Mac, not to become rich.").
I have tried everything, from Double Commander, to Forklift,Pathfinder and fman.
I was fman user for about a year (OSX) but it was slow and the quick look (with plugins) was unresponsive and crashed all the time so I cancelled my subscription about one month ago and I was in search for a minimal but powerful dual panel file manager with keyboard functionality.
Thanks for making this, it looks like TotalFinder (which I am a user since the beginning) for power users. Especially the tabs functionality
This is really excellent. I used to use Altap Salamander when I was more of a Windows user, and it became one of my most indispensable tools. I've tried most of the Mac commander-style clones (Forklift, Pathfinder, fman, Nimble Commander) and found them slightly off for various reasons. This one really hits the mark for me in terms of functionality, usability/feel, performance, and predictability. And the Sublime-style command palette makes it even better. Excellent job!
What does this app provide that Finder doesn't? I see something about a background operation queue, which Finder does, archive support, which I have a QuickLook plugin for, and gadgets, which I can accomplish with services.
If you've ever used Total Commander or even Windows 7+ native file explorer it's very hard to go back to or use Finder. Keyboard shortcuts, tokenizing/detokenizing file paths, opening in terminal, searching within files, search for duplicate files, bulk rename, plugins, and more.
Whenever I have a new Mac I spend a couple minutes customizing Finder: adding things like the Path button, showing the Path bar, showing the Status bar, etc. I get that it's supposed to be simple but it's surprising to me that such basic things aren't in the starting configuration.
This. It's the biggest pain point I have with using Windows Explorer. As a Mac user, it's pure muscle memory to select a file and hit the space to look at it. Once I'm on Windows, I feel the whole computer is broken because of this one missing feature.
What does "tokenizing/detokenizing file paths" mean?
"Open in terminal" is actually a built-in Service. It's not enabled by default, but you can go to System Preferences > Keyboard > Shortcuts > Services and enable it, and even give it a hotkey.
Finder also has done bulk rename for a few years now.
> Finder also has done bulk rename for a few years now.
It was worth logging in to HN today just for this, which I had alway relied on third party utilities to do. For anyone else who wasn’t aware, just select multiple files, right click, and select rename.
Those would have been my top two picks also. I'd add: embedded terminal, and plugins. Services are no alternative - try using one, for example, to show/hide hidden files. You'll have time to make a coffee while it's operating.
Looks interesting. I'd love to see more screen shots. Is there a gallery somewhere? I poked around the site a bit but didn't find one. Tthough perhaps I just missed it. Been known to happen.)
I agree, more screenshots would be great to get an understanding of the product before trying it. Though I really like the design of the website (and the current screenshot), it gives me a good feeling about the software.
Marta looks super nice, but I very hesitant to replace native Finder. I wish Apple would do a complete rewrite of Finder and update it, instead of bolting on these iOS type changes and new applications.
Marta was inspired by (my) https://fman.io [1]. Marta's author criticises that fman doesn't feel native enough because it is also available for Windows and Linux. (It's based on PyQt.) What you get in return however are a more vibrant community and plugin ecosystem in Python.
"The development of Marta started the long before I knew about fman, so it's not any kind of imitation."
"I don't think we are the direct competitors. fman is a completely another project with its own strong and weak points. I tried fman and didn't like it because of numerous reasons, but it's my own opinion."
Two column file manager interfaces have been around for a long time, fman certainly didn't invent it. Marta seems to draw more influence from Midnight Commander / Norton Commander, with the function key reminders at the bottom of the window. The breadcrumbs and tabs in Marta remind me more of Panic's Transmit, and those UI elements aren't in fman. There's elements of the standard Mac finder in there. It is definitely not a clone of fman.
I think that was a really unfair comment, designed to get traffic to a competing product.
Marta is not inspired by fman. The Action panel (I think it's called a Command palette in fman) is likely to be the only common thing between our products – and we both took it from Sublime Text. But it's not really important.
The "doesn't feel native" is not the main problem for me. I use a number of non-native apps (such as IJ IDEA) – and I'm okay with it.
fman is a just slow app without features. It was ok if it was in alpha stages, but why it is a paid product then? Come on, there's still no way to cancel the copy process! And you need to install a third-party plugin to swap panes. I wonder how you made such a small progress since the last year, considering that you work on fman full-time.
You're focused on "features". Given your limited time, that makes sense. But a successful project requires more. I have been working on many things that are less visible (besides the fact that I'm supporting three times as many platforms). This affects things like the number of plugins contributed by users (fman has 10x those of Marta). Or the activity on the issue tracker (compare fman's [1] with Marta's [2], where - except for the past 24 hours - virtually all issues are by you). You're right that fman can improve in terms of features and speed. It will. But those things are just the tip of the iceberg.
The default bindings are just a de facto standard for double-pane file managers. But all key bindings are configurable, and you can set them to whatever you want in the configuration file. Check the documentation [1] for more information.
Nice! I like it and see potential. Was quite disappointed of all the OSX file managers so far and I think I've tried them all.
After staying for a bit with pathfinder I'm back to finder. While not super decent it still doesn't get into my way too often.
Something more advanced would be welcome though and I would even be willing to pay for it, given it suits my needs. That means though I rather wait for v1.0 because I miss quit a lot of features / ui usability in the current state.
Make it the Sublimetext of file managers and you have a customer.
So, I see a plugin API for this, as well as a sample Swift plugin: https://github.com/marta-file-manager/HelloWorldPlugin. How are you making this work? As far as I know, creating plugins in Swift is a bad idea because trying to load two of them with incompatible runtimes (a likely possibility, since Swift doesn't have a stable ABI) would cause bad things to happen.
Well, until Swift introduces ABI compatibility, this is definitely a problem, as both Marta API and a plugin need to be built with the same version of Swift.
Depending on the Swift release roadmap, I'll postpone 1.0 until the release of Swift 5, or make the API ObjC-compatible.
I also have plans for making a "lightweight API" (possibly in Lua). It will support only the subset of features available in the "full API", but if that would be sufficient, nothing prevents it from becoming the "right" way of writing plugins for Marta. (In any case, Swift API won't disappear).
> both Marta API and a plugin need to be built with the same version of Swift
As far as I’m aware, this isn’t a problem, since your communicating between the two using the Objective-C runtime, which is resilient to the underlying ABI because it essentially overlays its own. The issue arises when you have two plugins with incompatible versions of Swift: in this case, each will load its own standard library, which will lead to conflicts since for any given function in the shared library one of the implementations has to “win out”. This will cause at least one of the plugins to be unable to interface with the standard library correctly.
The queue thing is something I've always wanted for Windows. Probably for the last 15 years I've wondered why they have't added this and made it a default.
Just downloaded the beta. Saturday morning. The time I opened the app. I realized I have Emacs dired. I don't need this...
Sorry. The UI does look good.
I would like to try to use this as default manager for things like `open .` and `reveal in finder` actions. `defaults write -g NSFileViewer -string org.yanex.marta` did a pretty good job with some things but others still don't work.
[1] https://github.com/marta-file-manager/