Talk:Double Commander

Negative publicity
Double Commander is a highly underestimated file manager, and does not deserve the bad press here. This article looks like negative publicity, especially the screenshot. Of course such old-fashioned colors can be set, but at the first sight it looks like a text-based user interface, which is misleading, and effectively deters potential users. Double Commander is free and open source but has many useful features. For example copying/moving files can be queued, and you can even set many queues and decide in which order they will be processed. Directories can be synchronized in every way possible, asymmetrically too. 85.193.209.247 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about adding a new screenshot and a list of features? Wasn't that hard. -- Dandv  02:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't upload my screenshot, because it is configured to the point of not being recognizable anymore. Of course, I don't use the white color, which is, IMO, a conspiracy of lizard-people to hypnotize and empty the brains of the rest of the Earth's population :) . Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, I'm not connected in any way to the IP editor who added the topic. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually succeded in making a screenshot after a lot of work to make it all look vanilla. I added it to the page with the text "Double Commander 1.0.11 running on Windows, configured for a plain look". The settings for the screenshot are partially explained in the image description on the Commons. Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Linux Installation
Remember, people, if you are using a downstream flavor of a listed build, you might not have all the dependencies. My example: I use LMDEv2, a flavor of Debian on Mint. The build is supposedly up-to-date, v.9.0, but doesn't have all the dependencies needed to install (1.9.x libdbus-1.3 instead of 1.8.x). Just back off to the Debian 8.0 version. The installation works, and having one file manager across all my machines is less confusing. (this is relevant in light of negative publicity this program has received. the problem I had was not the software, but my choice of OS flavor choosing to delay an update for some reason) 98.114.244.79 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)-maxnort

No info about the stable release.
The article suggests that the program is still in the alpha stage, while it is neither alpha nor beta. I have been using the program for years, and early versions did have some issues, but even in 2016 the program was pretty mature. The first release, not marked as beta, was 1.0.7. Currently, I use the version 1.0.8 - every day, very extensively, for serious works and cannot see any problems. The program seems to be extremely mature and stable. The current official stable version is 1.0.9 (as of 2023-01-04) - see here and here. Unfortunately, I do not know how to change it in Wikidata. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In order for the release to show up in the info-box, you have to mark the release as having a "preferred" rank on the WikiData. Also, you have to remove the "preferred" rank from an old release (apparently, as this is the first time that I have edited WikiData). This is caused by the info-box settings of DC, which are currently set to (apparently) show only the preferred releases. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)