FileUtils updated to 1.6.1 with completely rewritten batch rename files

Sidebar icons aren't really "fixed", it's more a workaround, since the "problem" is not really fixable. I don't want to go into details here, but if you'd interested I can write a "novel" about that :-) As for menu items, you have "menu" settings, have you tried customizing menus there (see attached picture). If you don't really understand what you need to do in there, let me know and I'll try to explain.

I assume you're referring to batch file renaming, since FileUtils can do much more… I think your best bet is to try both and compare yourself. It's hard to avoid bias towards my product, if I do it. What I can modestly say is that FileUtils is significantly faster, both in transforming names (from original to final to be) and in actual renaming. Transforming names may not be so crucial in this regard, as it's noticeable only with large list of files, but renaming is very obvious. For example, adding a sequence number for 10,000 files takes ~0.25s in FileUtils and ~1.15s in Transnomino (both not completely accurate, more subjective measurements). But actually renaming those files takes ~2.9s in FileUtils, while Transnomino needs almost 5 minutes! I really don't understand why it needs that long. On the other hand, Transnomino is much longer on the market, specially dedicated to file renaming, so it has more options and settings. As of UI, I guess that comes to personal taste and preferences. Use both for some time and judge yourself.

It will be very soon. I don't know what's the best way to handle two different variants (non-sandboxed and sandboxed) in homebrew-cask, do I need two separate casks or one can handle more variants. Currently waiting for answers from the support…

Yes, someone asked about that quite some time ago. My plan for immediate next features are flags (hidden, hidden extension, stationary pad…) and EXIF editor. I'm not a photographer, so I'll have to figure out how far I should go with EXIF, should I make it like a complete EXIF editor in a separate window. Any advice is appreciated.

It will be very soon. I don't know what's the best way to handle two different variants (non-sandboxed and sandboxed) in homebrew-cask, if I need two separate casks or one can handle more variants. Currently waiting for answers from the support…

Sparkie for variants download on the website, Mac App Version does its own (that is MAS) thing. All updating related settings are available in the "Updates" settings, see attached picture. Default update period is set to "Daily" and forced updates "Automatically download updates" is off by default. Updates becomes forced if user checks that button, of similar button "Automatically download and install updates in the future" in the Sparkle's new version panel. But that can be changed anytime in the settings. (Now I realized I should probably change that "Automatically download updates" to "Automatically download and install updates" in the settings window to match Sparkle window and to match the real action).

Mac App Store (MAS) variant is sandboxed (of course). Additionally, there are a few additional limitations, specific to MAS variant: MAS variant cannot execute operations, which require privileges escalation (admin password). If, for example, you work under a standard user account and you try to modify a file for which you don’t have privileges to (e.g, delete an application from “/Applications” folder), non-MAS variants will prompt you for admin’s username and password to complete the operation. MAS variant will show you the “Permission denied” error instead, with additional explanation instructing you that if you need to execute operations with privileges escalations, you need non-MAS variant of FileUtils. non-MAS variant makes sure FileUtils Finder Sync extension (showing menu items in Finder) is (re)enabled every time the application launches, because there’s a little point of running the application without the embedded extension running as well. MAS version application cannot do that (it requires usage of private API, not allowed in MAS), so in a rare case macOS fails to register the extension of first application launch, user will need to do it manually in System Settings. There’s the whole answer dedicated to that in another FAQ on the support page. More about differences between non-sandboxed and sandboxed version, plus additionally MAS, can you find at FileUtils support page (https://fileutils.com/support), FAQ section, the very first question (“Why three different variants: non-sandboxed, sandboxed and Mac App Store?”). If after reading that you still need further clarification, just ask here.