191–200 of 216 posts
To install, you need no admin rights. To uninstall, admin rights are required !!! How can i uninstall this ??????
Sorry for the trouble - does it also "require" admin rights when you run C:/Users/ /AppData/Local/fman/uninstall.exe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry for the trouble - does it also "require" admin rights when you run C:/Users/ /AppData/Local/fman/uninstall.exe?
Yes, it works. Thank u but this is counter-intuitive!
[1]: https://trello.com/c/onDHN3Q5/150-windows-uninstalling-via-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially when you make licenses scarce: https://fman.io/buy > I'm sorry, we're sold out :-( 100 licenses were made available on March 1, and all are gone. Please join the waiting list below to be notified when new licenses become available. Not sure I understand the intent here of keeping people from paying you.
This was rightly also pointed out by others. I'm sorry. I didn't expect to be sold out and am working on a solution. If you leave your email on the waiting list [1] then you'll know immediately when a solution is available. [1]: https://fman.io/buy
Nvm. Found your comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was rightly also pointed out by others. I'm sorry. I didn't expect to be sold out and am working on a solution. If you leave your email on the waiting list [1] then you'll know immediately when a solution is available. [1]: https://fman.io/buy
Curious now. How is it a problem to sell it more than a 100 times? Nvm. Found your comment
I just did a blind purchase. Partly because I hate osx finder that much, partly because I want to support people who ask the right price for their products, and partly because it was the right time;I like to get up early tomorrow and install something new. And who knows, it might even replace my xplorer2 ( http://zabkat.com/ ) on Windows..
Can people even explain why they hate Finder, or is it just a fashionable bandwagon to jump on? While I do prefer Path Finder [1] for file-heavy workflows, Finder is perfectly usable with a few tweaks here and there: - Get TinkerTool [2] to show hidden and system files, pathname in the window title etc. - Tweak and create your own keyboard shortcuts for Finder in System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Shortcuts -> App Sho…
Gnome shells super key magic, which is way less than finder, is working way more intuitive for me. Finder always appeared to me like a tool i have to build my workflows for and not a tool that helps me with my existing workflows.
May does not help that i am not used to using file explorers other than ls and cd at all.
This looks like a lovely project but I would also suggest [midnight commander]( https://www.gnu.org/software/mc/ ). It's a console based file manager that is available everywhere.
I tried mc ftp client, and it was not a enjoyable experience.
Glad I looked inside the .deb file before I installed this. It does the following things: - Adds `/etc/apt/sources.list.d/fman.list - Adds `/etc/cron.daily/fman`, which does this: #!/bin/sh update-fman The `/usr/bin/update-fman` script does this: #!/bin/sh set -e apt-get update -o Dir::Etc::sourcelist="/etc/apt/sources.list.d/fman.list" -o Dir::Etc::sourceparts="-" -o APT::Get::List-Cleanup="0" apt-get install --only…
This behaviour is described on the home page [1]. Sorry it's not to your liking. fman's features are prioritised according to the number of votes they receive on a public Trello board [2]. There's a card for making it possible to disable automatic updates [3]. The intention is obviously not for it to come back when you delete it. If you remove it in the same way you installed it (via the package manager), then the fi…
I meant that if I remove the cronjob and update script, the next time I get an fman update via my regularly scheduled update manager, fman's .deb installer will put the cronjob and script back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, paying attention to the comments here, you should consider that your communication is an issue. The whole license in general, the need for it, the "it feels OSS, but its not" ... the artificial license limit... lots of red flags, and a lack of clarity.
The person who said the thing about OSS corrected himself (I assume it's a he) and admitted he just hadn't read the page properly. I just explained why the limit isn't artificial. But you're right, I'm sure my communication can improve. I've been spending a lot of time on this project so am somewhat "blind" to mistakes. All I can do is listen to the feedback here and improve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because the packages are already signed with gpg. That way you can verify the checksum already.
Interesting (sorry, I'm new to Linux packaging). So would it be safe then to replace by http? (Not that I'd take this at face value, but I am interested in your opinion)