Do you mean I should replace “nautilus-folder-handler.desktop” with “pcmanfm-folder-handler.desktop” or do I need to create a file with the .desktop extension?

I edited “nautilus-folder-handler.desktop” and changed every occurrence of “nautilus” with “pcmanfm”.

Sorry if I am way off.

Many thanks. Thread here if you can help:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=692238

Sorry for the double comment.

Run “update-desktop-database” as root later.

Not this user.

I usually know what network mounts I wish to browse.
I do not need my network hosts to be configured to ‘advertise’ or need reminding of their names to do my work.

If network host discovery tool is such an ‘essential’ feature then perhaps MilanK you might wish to contribute such an add on.

Now I just replace one word in your original sentence to make a security observation:
“…What the worm wants, is to search through LAN, find a share and mount it…”

Here is a little extract of some advice that suggests that browsable shares might not be a great idea, if you wish to have protection against a worm attack:

“You can reduce your network’s susceptibility to worms and viruses by tightening security on network shares. Take these steps to protect your network from worms and viruses:

…

Where possible, hide shares from browsing by adding a dollar sign [$] to the end of the share name.”

The advice above is windows specific, but the principle of avoiding browsable network shares is one that might be good practice, whatever your choice of OS.

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-22_11-5109942.html

You can even set it to open Thunar after it is mounted.
So with 2 clicks i mount & open Thunar at that specific folder.

I have a linux file server and a linux desktop machine Archlinux
and this works very nice. i can copy files in 2 directions using drag & drop.

I also think Nautilus need a lot of thingd to be done/modified

- Midnight commander views
- There’s a lot of lost space around it’s winows
- Some views are not very nice
- The connection to remote hists, v¡a ssh, are clumsy and you need to give the password to many times
-Previws on the sidebar
-Information on the sidebar: information on the content of the file (duration, author, etc. for audio, etc.; size,. for images)
- Nicer icons

All these are enabled by default.

I haven’t tried krusader yet so i guess i should try it out first and then which is better.

2. Network shares are completely inaccessible to Thunar. It cannot connect to networks, view files on networks or copy files to and from network shares. The developers suggest it may never have this capability.

FIle managers have long been a bone of contention with me. I was astonished to read recent reports of the GNOME developers considering their “job done”. Nowhere near, guys! Nautilus needs a LOT of work. How about making it start instantly, rather than taking a few seconds to appear each time I boot? Then we can start working elastic banding of files in list mode, and getting a decent “grid” view for icons so they don’t always look oddly spaced. However, I must admit that the tabbed interface they’ve recently added is a genius stroke, and may lead to me installing Ubuntu 8.10, even though I’m mostly happy with Ubuntu 8.04.

But as for connecting to network shares, I’m not sure what you mean. You should be able to create a network mount and just access that…? Thunar will have no problems because it won’t be aware it’s accessing a network share.

Nowadays Ubuntu provides mount points in the hidden .gvfs folder in your /home directory if you choose to access them using a desktop icon. Or you could just add a permanent mount point in fstab (the old fashioned way). Or even just create a desktop launcher that ran a mount script… There are lots of ways to get around this issue, and none of them would make me stop using Thunar.

BTW. Tim, where is the “following” ?

The deal breakers:

1. No file search capability.

2. Network shares are completely inaccessible to Thunar. It cannot connect to networks, view files on networks or copy files to and from network shares. The developers suggest it may never have this capability.

It’s still amazing to me how heavy-weight and feature-poor most Linux file managers are in comparison to the standard Windows file manager. The 8 year old Windows 2000 file manager is much lighter weight and better featured than Nautilus or Thunar.