Sort Files in Linux

[magda]

I'm testing Linux Mint and one thing that annoys me, is that when I open the file explorer and click on sort files by type, it sort files different from Windows.
All the "documents" are sorted together (pdf, doc, etc) e.g.:

aaa.pdf
ttt.doc
bbb.pdf
rrr.doc

Instead of Windows version, like:

aaa.pdf
bbb.pdf
ttt.doc
rrr.doc

Is there a way to change it for the latter?

 

[Nobu]

Depending on which file manager you are using, it may support "group by type" (and also "folders first"). That's what you're looking for.

 

[travm]

I'm testing Linux Mint and one thing that annoys me, is that when I open the file explorer and click on sort files by type, it sort files different from Windows.
All the "documents" are sorted together (pdf, doc, etc) e.g.:

aaa.pdf
ttt.doc
bbb.pdf
rrr.doc

Instead of Windows version, like:

aaa.pdf
bbb.pdf
ttt.doc
rrr.doc

Is there a way to change it for the latter?

It's Linux, there are 300 different bug infested ways to do everything.

But I'm looking at what you wrote and I think I'm missing something. How is that sorted by anything?
I use Linux Mint on my Chrome book and it's file manager just works, and I regularly sort folders.

 

[FSCDiablo]

Which file explorer are you using? Dolphin in KDE works as you are expecting.

 

[magda]

I'm using NEMO. I've solved the problem via preferences and adding sorting by "MIME type".

Why linux has to be so complicated?

 

[FSCDiablo]

I don’t agree with the difficult assessment about this necessarily. Having options just means learning to use them. Dolphin and others work like you expect by default. Ive never used NEMO so can’t explain why they went that way.

 

[travm]

I don’t agree with the difficult assessment about this necessarily. Having options just means learning to use them. Dolphin and others work like you expect by default. Ive never used NEMO so can’t explain why they went that way.

I'm on my chromebook now, can confirm it sorts exactly like windows would. The buttons and options are in different places. I'm still not sure what OP thought his problem was.

 

[Lunar]

I'm using NEMO. I've solved the problem via preferences and adding sorting by "MIME type".

Why linux has to be so complicated?

Complicated or just different from what you're used to? Most users new to Linux, myself included when I first started using it, succumb to the "tyranny of the default" (Credit goes to Steve Gibson for coining this term). Windows or MacOS do it a way, and anything that does it different is wrong. No, it's just doing it in a different way than the user is used to. The nice thing Linux brings to the table is the ability to change most things you don't like. Don't like how the default file manager handles things? Use a different one or adapt to how the file manager works. Now that I use Linux as my daily driver, any time I use Windows I get annoyed by File Explorer's lack of tabs.

 

[ChadD]

Linux uses proper file system meta data. The only thing unexpected here I guess is that sort by mime type wasn't automatically selected. Linux doesn't care if a file is .txt or .txt2 or .txtbak or .TXT or .TxT it its a text file and if the meta data says itext file its a text file regardless of what you add to the file name.

Linux file permissions and naming conventions are different yes... they are more robust more logical and much better. MS does a good job of making things simple and its DOS roots are evident. Linux roots are unix and as its origins involve a target audience of system admins and computer scientist types... the more precise unix style file system is the result. Linux is the evolution of server operating systems... Windows is the evolution of DOS based home machines.

Most modern Linux/Android GUI file explorers at this point default to sort by MIME. I'm not sure if the distro your running for some reason didn't do that... I would have assumed Mint being a new user focused distro would have had that defaulted to sort by mime type. Odd perhaps you installed a little used Mint DE ? Or a different File explorer ? (or you found something that should be pointed out to the Mint Developers so they can change the default behaviour on that one to better their experience... one of the best things about Linux most distros are run by people you can actually communicate with directly. The Mint devs want folks like you to be impressed from the first install and would probably change that default if its not set that way.)

 

[Mazzspeed]

Linux uses proper file system meta data. The only thing unexpected here I guess is that sort by mime type wasn't automatically selected. Linux doesn't care if a file is .txt or .txt2 or .txtbak or .TXT or .TxT it its a text file and if the meta data says itext file its a text file regardless of what you add to the file name.

Linux file permissions and naming conventions are different yes... they are more robust more logical and much better. MS does a good job of making things simple and its DOS roots are evident. Linux roots are unix and as its origins involve a target audience of system admins and computer scientist types... the more precise unix style file system is the result. Linux is the evolution of server operating systems... Windows is the evolution of DOS based home machines.

Most modern Linux/Android GUI file explorers at this point default to sort by MIME. I'm not sure if the distro your running for some reason didn't do that... I would have assumed Mint being a new user focused distro would have had that defaulted to sort by mime type. Odd perhaps you installed a little used Mint DE ? Or a different File explorer ? (or you found something that should be pointed out to the Mint Developers so they can change the default behaviour on that one to better their experience... one of the best things about Linux most distros are run by people you can actually communicate with directly. The Mint devs want folks like you to be impressed from the first install and would probably change that default if its not set that way.)

So you mean the dual extension exploit that's existed since 'forever' under Windows won't work under Linux?

 

[B00nie]

Linux file permissions and naming conventions are different yes... they are more robust more logical and much better. MS does a good job of making things simple and its DOS roots are evident. Linux roots are unix and as its origins involve a target audience of system admins and computer scientist types... the more precise unix style file system is the result. Linux is the evolution of server operating systems... Windows is the evolution of DOS based home machines.

Technically speaking not true. Since Windows 2000 the home desktops have been based on the NT server kernel. But the windowses today do contain ancient code from the DOS era which is an endless joy to all the attackers in the world as they can enjoy 20 year old programming bugs when attacking a fresh windows box. This is especially appealing since the source code of Windows 95 was leaked and the secrets of unpatched bugs could be analysed by all the black hats.

 

[auntjemima]

Technically speaking not true. Since Windows 2000 the home desktops have been based on the NT server kernel. But the windowses today do contain ancient code from the DOS era which is an endless joy to all the attackers in the world as they can enjoy 20 year old programming bugs when attacking a fresh windows box. This is especially appealing since the source code of Windows 95 was leaked and the secrets of unpatched bugs could be analysed by all the black hats.

What he said was accurate. DOS came before windows, and windows was based upon it, loosely, since. So comparing the way windows sorts files by extension is close, if not identical, to the way DOS does it.

I thought ChadD put it very well. I was going to type an argument post based on the first line or so, but I finished reading the post first and it covered the bases I was going to bring up.

NT or not, Windows sorts the same as it did on w9x and DOS. The kernel makes little difference.

 

[B00nie]

What he said was accurate. DOS came before windows, and windows was based upon it, loosely, since. So comparing the way windows sorts files by extension is close, if not identical, to the way DOS does it.

I thought ChadD put it very well. I was going to type an argument post based on the first line or so, but I finished reading the post first and it covered the bases I was going to bring up.

NT or not, Windows sorts the same as it did on w9x and DOS. The kernel makes little difference.

I was just referring to the common mistake people are doing in thinking that a modern Windows still uses DOS underneath. The evolution of the user interface is of course clear.