Best Finder alternatives / File managers

[gilby101]

I use my Finder replacement to access so many places on my computer. I consider it a substantial risk, but I do it anyway.

Do you, or does anyone else, know how to get a full list of all permissions I've granted or denied to QSpace?

I don't.

But are you mad? You are running a bit of software that you don't trust - remove it thoroughly.

macOS permissions are about letting you know what access an application requires ** - giving you a chance to say that as a consequence you don't want to run the app.

macOS permissions are NOT about allowing you to safely run untrusted applications.

**Alternatively you might say that app permissions are Apple trying to scare you from running apps not from the Apple App Store. In which case just allow them.

 

[svenmany]

I don't.

But are you mad? You are running a bit of software that you don't trust - remove it thoroughly.

macOS permissions are about letting you know what access an application requires ** - giving you a chance to say that as a consequence you don't want to run the app.

macOS permissions are NOT about allowing you to safely run untrusted applications.

**Alternatively you might say that app permissions are Apple trying to scare you from running apps not from the Apple App Store. In which case just allow them.

You seem to have concluded that I don't trust QSpace - not sure where you got that from.

But, in fact, I don't know what you mean by trust. I'll need you to define it. Trust to me is not a boolean - I trust or I don't; it's a level. How do I determine how much trust is required before I run a piece of software.

What would cause me to distrust QSpace to the point that I wouldn't be willing to run it. It's available on the Mac App Store or directly from their site. It's been around a while and is heavily used. I've had direct communication with the developer. My gut instinct is to trust it enough, but I can't justify it beyond that. This is true for all software I run.

This thread is about Finder replacements. If you've installed any, then what you chose reached a threshold of trust such that the benefits justified the risk, which would be substantial with a Finder replacement. The safest computer is one which runs nothing that has access to your data. But no one does that.

Do you have an objective measure that you apply to some software before you decide to trust it enough to run it?

 

[svenmany]

Regarding running QSpace without full-disk access - it doesn't really work. It won't prompt for particular folder access and just checks for full-disk access when trying to work with files on my Desktop (as an example). I guess this gives something like Forklift an edge since it allows for a bit more refinement in granting access.

 

[gilby101]

Do you have an objective measure that you apply to some software before you decide to trust it enough to run it?

I like to think that I take a risk based approach - consequence and likelihood. This provides an objective measure of risk allowing some comparison of different life activities as well as in the more restricted technology field. It leads to accepting some level of risk because the benefits outweigh the risk. It also is a guidance as to where I might want to mitigate the risk. Do I do this rigorously? Of course not, but it is in the back of my mind.

You seem to have concluded that I don't trust QSpace - not sure where you got that from.

How about:

I've decided to run QSpace without full-disk access for a while

That does suggest you don't fully trust QSpace to run as intended and consider the risk of QSpace being malware sufficient for you to place restrictions on what it can do.

Comparing ForkLift and QSpace in terms of risk and benefit, I rate ForkLift higher in terms of being risk free (essentially lower likelihood of being malware - Binarynights is a long established software company with a good reputation), but QSpace as having greater benefits (more functionality).

By the way, having used ForkLift, PathFinder and (briefly) QSpace in the past, I am happy with Finder and a few add ons.

 

[svenmany]

That does suggest you don't fully trust QSpace to run as intended and consider the risk of QSpace being malware sufficient for you to place restrictions on what it can do.

Ok. Just a misunderstanding then.

Apple doesn't want you to give full-disk ask to every program you run, it wants you to be cautious about it. My goal was simply caution. @gregmac19 said that they ran Forklift without it, I wondered if I would be successful running QSpace without it. I wasn't. Not granting full-disk access to a program does not imply the one has suspicion of the program having malware.

With some programs full-disk access is optional; if you don't grant it you lose some functionality. QSpace does work without it, but it doesn't offer a way to access my Documents folder if I don't grant full-disk access. It could have prompted for the permission to access the Documents folder directly, but didn't do that.

I wish Apple offered more find-grained user control of folder permissions for an application. It seems to be up to the application to make course-grained permission requests.

 

[gilby101]

Just a misunderstanding then.

Yes. And I was being a little bit forceful. 🙂

And it is interesting that you have found that ForkLift is fine grained in folder permissions whilst QSpace is not. I must admit, there are so many apps that need full disk access that I don't worry about it unless I am very unsure of the developers reputation. I have 69 apps in System Settings > Privacy & Security > Files & Folders. Many of these (47) are in Full Disk Access, many ofl the others have Removable Volumes access.

I am more particular about System Settings > Privacy & Security > Screen & System Audio Recording, > Accessibility, and > Automation.

 

[allan.nyholm]

Yes. And I was being a little bit forceful. 🙂

And it is interesting that you have found that ForkLift is fine grained in folder permissions whilst QSpace is not. I must admit, there are so many apps that need full disk access that I don't worry about it unless I am very unsure of the developers reputation. I have 69 apps in System Settings > Privacy & Security > Files & Folders. Many of these (47) are in Full Disk Access, many ofl the others have Removable Volumes access.

I am more particular about System Settings > Privacy & Security > Screen & System Audio Recording, > Accessibility, and > Automation.

It's a mess.. Even BookMacster requires Full Disk Access now.. because of Safari mostly.

I make a habit of adding all File managers and disk related apps to Full Disk Access and the App Management section too. In addition all graphic editors that I have installed are added to the Screen Recording section. I hate that "oh, we can't utilize the color picker fully because you haven't accepted that we can record your screen" then the os throws up a blocking requester window. I mean,.. stop.

***.. It's a sh^t show, and I wish that Apple allowed for some type of export and import feature for all these categories so that it can be done much easier.. knowing Apple, this level of granularity will never happen. But the other way around Apple sees no issue with their power users doing all sorts of finger gymnastics before applications will shut up and let me use the darn OS.

grrrr.

 

[svenmany]

It's a mess.. Even BookMacster requires Full Disk Access now.. because of Safari mostly.

I make a habit of adding all File managers and disk related apps to Full Disk Access and the App Management section too. In addition all graphic editors that I have installed are added to the Screen Recording section. I hate that "oh, we can't utilize the color picker fully because you haven't accepted that we can record your screen" then the os throws up a blocking requester window. I mean,.. stop.

***.. It's a sh^t show, and I wish that Apple allowed for some type of export and import feature for all these categories so that it can be done much easier.. knowing Apple, this level of granularity will never happen. But the other way around Apple sees no issue with their power users doing all sorts of finger gymnastics before applications will shut up and let me use the darn OS.

grrrr.

Apple has to balance usability for the person who doesn't want to be faced with choices and some level of customizability. They always strike that balance very far away from what I would want. I have no idea if their choices are the best for their user base at large.

They used to resist having more than one mouse button. I'd read that the motivation was to avoid user confusion. Maybe at the time it was a good decision since the mouse, to most users, was still new. Again, I have no idea.

Pablum follows:

Everyone wants what they want. I hope Apple does large studies to best server the greater good of their users in total. But even large-scale user feedback won't give the best result without deeper understanding. Ask a million uneducated consumers, "Do you like ice cream and would you like to eat it every night?" Hopefully some doctors are around to push back on what the consumers want when crafting the menu.

 

[MacBH928]

there should be a tool that acts like a birdge that sends data over instead of full access. For example, if I was browsing photos to open in photoshop it should only "send" that photo to Photoshop, not give photoshop full access to my disk. Similarly, color picker should only send the picked color not full screen recording.

obviously, this is no use for file managers as its main point is to see the whole disk. I guess one can only block its access to the outside so it doesn't report to the "mothership".

 

[svenmany]

I've yet to run Bloom. Does it require full-disk access?

 

[MacBH928]

I've yet to run Bloom. Does it require full-disk access?

any file browser would require full disk access, thats how it works, isn't it?

 

[svenmany]

any file browser would require full disk access, thats how it works, isn't it?

No. As discussed above, ForkLift will still function without it, but will limit access to some folders. The key folder for me is the Documents folder. I'd like to grant access to that folder but not some others. ForkLift allows that. QSpace does not.

 

[MacBH928]

No. As discussed above, ForkLift will still function without it, but will limit access to some folders. The key folder for me is the Documents folder. I'd like to grant access to that folder but not some others. ForkLift allows that. QSpace does not.

maybe do request, i heard from members here qspace are very responsive to user feedback

 

[PhoenixDown]

I am looking for a better file manager and found this ongoing discussion. It seems there's no good options that don't have at least a surface level concern that foreign actors may be able to access our data?

 

[gilby101]

It seems there's no good options that don't have at least a surface level concern that foreign actors may be able to access our data?

Isn't that true of lots of software? If you don't trust a developer, don't use their software. Anyway Apple is a foreign company, so the whole platform is shaky.

 

[MacGizmo]

Anyway Apple is a foreign company, so the whole platform is shaky.

Huh?

 

[svenmany]

I am looking for a better file manager and found this ongoing discussion. It seems there's no good options that don't have at least a surface level concern that foreign actors may be able to access our data?

Path Finder is local to me (30 miles away). I read on their blog a few days ago a brand new post that apologized for their poor support. They wrote that they have listened to the criticisms and are working to improve the situation. I thought that maybe I should try them again. I just went to look again at the post now and their website is hanging when I click on "Blog". Also, I see:

oops​

The page you were looking for doesn't exist​

when I try to go to their support forums. Perhaps I'll give it a month as they work out the kinks to their new support approach.

I used Path Finder for years. I liked it until they moved to their module system. After they did that they introduced a window resizing bug (the position of the divider between the two panes was buggy). I found it too hard to deal with, so I went looking elsewhere.

-- edit --

I went to the wrong site. I found it:

Cocoatech

Makers of Path Finder for macOS. https://cocoatech.io

cocoatech.io

 

[svenmany]

Path Finder is local to me (30 miles away). I read on their blog a few days ago a brand new post that apologized for their poor support. They wrote that they have listened to the criticisms and are working to improve the situation. I thought that maybe I should try them again. I just went to look again at the post now and their website is hanging when I click on "Blog". Also, I see:

oops​

The page you were looking for doesn't exist​

when I try to go to their support forums. Perhaps I'll give it a month as they work out the kinks to their new support approach.

I used Path Finder for years. I liked it until they moved to their module system. After they did that they introduced a window resizing bug (the position of the divider between the two panes was buggy). I found it too hard to deal with, so I went looking elsewhere.

-- edit --

I went to the wrong site. I found it:

Cocoatech

Makers of Path Finder for macOS. https://cocoatech.io

cocoatech.io

View attachment 2610567

Actually, I think that blog entry (even though it says Tuesday), could be from years ago.

 

[Mike Boreham]

Path Finder is local to me (30 miles away). I read on their blog a few days ago a brand new post that apologized for their poor support. They wrote that they have listened to the criticisms and are working to improve the situation. I thought that maybe I should try them again. I just went to look again at the post now and their website is hanging when I click on "Blog". Also, I see:

oops​

The page you were looking for doesn't exist​

when I try to go to their support forums. Perhaps I'll give it a month as they work out the kinks to their new support approach.

I used Path Finder for years. I liked it until they moved to their module system. After they did that they introduced a window resizing bug (the position of the divider between the two panes was buggy). I found it too hard to deal with, so I went looking elsewhere.

-- edit --

I went to the wrong site. I found it:

Cocoatech

Makers of Path Finder for macOS. https://cocoatech.io

cocoatech.io

View attachment 2610567

I have used Path Finder on and off for several years. I have just come back to it after a gap of a few years and they do seem to have upped their game across the board since last time.

Over the years I have tried Forklift, QSpace, and one or two others, but have found I get on with Path Finder best.

 

[MacBH928]

I am looking for a better file manager and found this ongoing discussion. It seems there's no good options that don't have at least a surface level concern that foreign actors may be able to access our data?

Your best bet is a FOSS option. so far, there is no agreement on which finder alternative is best. It all comes down to personal preferences as it seems. You have to test yourself. There was a project called Spacedrive that i felt has potential but development seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

The only 2 GUI i found were mucommander and double commander , both which seems obscure and not sure if you want to run on your device.

Isn't that true of lots of software? If you don't trust a developer, don't use their software. Anyway Apple is a foreign company, so the whole platform is shaky.

exactly, this is why i am considering a linux switch. Apple is getting harder to trust by the day.

I have used Path Finder on and off for several years. I have just come back to it after a gap of a few years and they do seem to have upped their game across the board since last time.

Over the years I have tried Forklift, QSpace, and one or two others, but have found I get on with Path Finder best.

what did you find in Path Finder better than other alternatives?

 

[Mike Boreham]

what did you find in Path Finder better than other alternatives?

This is a very reasonable question that I can't give a solid answer to. I have used PF more than the others so familiarity may be a large part of the answer. It is extremely customisable, but maybe if I put the same effort into the others I would be able to have the same experience. I like the Preview module which shows a full size view as you browse. I used to enjoy that in the days when I used DevonThink. In PF I really like the customisable contextual menu which brings in options that Finder doesn't have (like a simple 'move to' which has always seemed like an obvious omission to me).

QSpace impressed me most of others I looked at, and it seemed to be even more customisable than PF, to the extent that the number of options is off-putting! Like choosing a dinner menu, you want enough choice but not too much, and you want what is available to be what you want. That seems to be Path Finder for me.

 

[gregmac19]

Actually, I think that blog entry (even though it says Tuesday), could be from years ago.

I saw that blog entry at least a month ago, and thus it wasn’t posted just this week.

 

[gilby101]

In PF I really like the customisable contextual menu which brings in options that Finder doesn't have (like a simple 'move to' which has always seemed like an obvious omission to me).

FileUtils adds 'move to' (and other nice actions) to Finder. FileUtils, the excellent but poorly documented Context Menu, some Quick Actions (built with Automator) and a couple of Keyboard Maestro macros add enough functionality to Finder that I have given up the search for anything better. And I have the structures to build something more if I wanted.

That seems to be Path Finder for me.

That would be my choice if I were to give up on Finder.

 

[Wheel_D]

Considering the widely expressed frustration with Path Finder--both here and elsewhere--I've been reluctant to try it. Perhaps someone here could comment on whether they've gotten their act together?

 

[sundhar1]

I use Path Finder. It is among the better ones. They are certainly not the best. The app crashes some times, updates have caused problems in the past and i had to roll back, CPU usage can spike on initial launch or load of a large drive. However the app has gotten better in my view compared over a period of last 5 -6 years.