Xfce 4.2.0 Released 275
kelnos copies and pastes: "The Xfce Team is pleased to announce the availability of Xfce 4.2.0, the next major version of the Xfce Desktop Environment and Development Framework for Unix and Unix-like platforms. Xfce 4.2.0 can be downloaded here. Xfce 4.2.0 includes new applications like a session manager and an application finder, a new and beautiful icon theme, support for bleeding-edge features (like the X.org Composite extension), usability and performance improvements, better support for multihead desktops, new and updated translations, additional themes, and various other improvements over the previous stable releases. See this page for a complete list of changes between Xfce 4.0 and Xfce 4.2. Furthermore, Xfce 4.2 is the first desktop environment to ship with an easy-to-use and platform-independent graphical installation wizard, which takes care of compiling and installing Xfce on your system. Visit the os-cillation installers website for download links and instructions. If you want to try Xfce 4.2.0 first, without installing anything on your system, you might want to try the Xfce Live Demo 0.2, provided by os-cillation, to discover the power and efficiency of Xfce."
How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, wait, I found it. It requires GTK+. Hm. Are there any good WMs which don't have any gtk+ or Qt dependencies? Remember, I said GOOD. I've used wmaker and its ilk, but something a little more modern would be nice.
Oh, and I'm also familiar with DSL [damnsmalllinux.org], but I hate Debian...
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:5, Informative)
Toolkit API wrappers (Score:3, Interesting)
Such a "Toolkit--" could be a good enhancement, or spinoff, of the Gtk/Qt unification projects underway. The holy grail is
Re:Toolkit API wrappers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Toolkit API wrappers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Toolkit API wrappers (Score:2)
Re:Toolkit API wrappers (Score:2)
Generally, however, Gtk is pretty fast for what it does. "Slimming" it down would entail removing real functionality.
Re:Toolkit API wrappers (Score:2)
Of course that won't address bloated apps directly. They should all reduce their bloat by using toolkits for common functions. But
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:3, Insightful)
WindowMaker is an excellent window manager - I don't know what else you expect a "small window mangler" to do. If you want something "modern", then I would advise you to stop using an operating system that can trace it's origins back to the 1960's.
Blackbox is another personal favorite - it's about as lightweight as you can get.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, ION [cs.tut.fi] is as light as you can get (or ratpoison, but let's be realistic and err on the side of usability). Windows ary typically full screen, without borders. Everything is basically in "workspaces", b/w which you switch by alt-1, alt-2 etc. Works like a charm on that server if you still want to use a browser or GUI apps every now and then.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
Young at Heart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.os-works.com/view/debian/
--For the impatient:
deb http://www.os-works.com/debian testing main
deb-src http://www.os-works.com/debian testing main
--I spent like 10 minutes going round the bend with their stupid circular links to find that!!
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:5, Informative)
fluxbox
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:5, Informative)
For any decent-sized drive (128MB and up) on any computer built within the past ten years, XFCE would be fine.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, as a *common* library, it will ultimately *save* space, if you are planning to actually install graphical applications.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2, Informative)
I started using it after I got tired of the mainstream window managers, fluxbox included.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
I use KDE, and have GTK installed because I use GTK apps, but I have no Gnome installation.
What are you going to run from the pen drive anyway? Most non-KDE X11 apps use GTK now (it's not just for Gnome programs like QT is for KDE apps).
The above must look quite like a lot of acronyms connected by grammar...
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
As for light DEs, look no further: XFCE is the best. And by far. Give it a shoot, it runs very well on an old PII of mine.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:4, Informative)
IceWM [icewm.org] is my favorite.
Aaah yes, canned Mac troll #17... (Score:5, Informative)
(see http://www.kottke.org/98/11/ for a nearly word-for-word identical post made 6 years ago)
Re:Aaah yes, canned Mac troll #17... (Score:2)
I still can not find any reason why this was posted, except to sound like an idiot.
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
Re:How lightweight, if it requires gtk+? (Score:2)
frog ~ # genlop -i kdemultimedia
* kde-base/kdemultimedia
Total builds: 11
Global build time: 12 hours, 33 minutes and 23 seconds.
Average merge time: 1 hour, 8 minutes and 29 seconds.
Info about currently installed ebuild:
* kde-base/kdemultimedia-3.3.2
Install dat
One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I have 4+ desktops (or even one loaded up with applications) and I switch desktops or alt-tab, with XFCE (or Gnome, KDE) it takes longer than it should to redraw the screen or window. I notice this even on fast machines with fast video cards running recent Xorg releases.
Does anybody else experience this?
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah... I'm also still using WindowMaker, and it's great, the only thing that I don't like is the lack of UTF-8 support...
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:3, Informative)
WindowMaker complaints here... (Score:2)
My only feature requests are:
1. History pull-downs for text-entry boxes (like the 'run command...' dialog.
2. A way to pull the same menus out of WM docked apps as the KDE kicker, I'm a noatun user and it's possible to LOSE the noatun UI and end up having to 'k
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, it's so hard to quantify so its impossible to file any meaningful bug reports.
My best guess right now is that Windows seems to draw things to the screen when it is fully rendered so the entire menu/window/dialog will appear at the same time. In KDE I notice that sometimes windows will appear but will be drawn a second time after they are displayed. Perhaps it displays the text first and then redraws the icons or something.
Well this comment is starting to sound like meaningless blather, but I can't describe the problem much better.
FYI I almost exclusively use Linux, so no I'm not a microsoft troll.
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically the problem is that X, your WM, and your program run (and therefore redraw) during different timeslots. In case of GNOME and KDE, they may call other servers out of process before doing the drawing. This becomes really noticable when you move windows, or windows appear.
XDamage and XComposite should solve the problem when you move the windows, as only the buffer actually moves, and no redraws are issued. I am not sure if it will help you get more smooth menues.
And no, XComposite is not enabled by default, because it is beta code, and some applications can behave funny.
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Is that why xchat has a wierd lag in the text rendering? It alt-tabs quickly enough, but (while my computer was still alive and runnning debian unstable) the text inside of it would visibly render down the window. Xchat doens't do
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
I would presume that would be fixed in KDE4, with QT4, which includes hardware acelleration, IIRC
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Re:One reason why I'm still using Window Maker.... (Score:2)
Best Alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Best Alternative (Score:2)
Re:Best Alternative (Score:2)
Re:Best Alternative (Score:2, Interesting)
why did they had to make those flash moves so damn fast that you cant really follow them.
Re:Best Alternative (Score:2)
Oh wait, I found it (Score:2)
Re:Best Alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Best Alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
If you also want to sync audio recording along with the video, it takes some extra work.
Re:Best Alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Best Alternative (Score:3, Informative)
if you absolutely must clutter your desktop with files and icons. add to XFCE the ROX filer from here [sourceforge.net]
it will give you the ability to have thousands of icons and files on your desktop as well as that comforting "my computer" that makes your computer all warm and fuzzy.
torrent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:torrent (Score:2)
Thats the XFCE live demo, the XFCE version of Knoppix. Also quite cool, but it's not XFCE for installing on your main distro.
nice (Score:2, Informative)
Building. (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this release substantially slower/more bloated than the 4.0 release, and less so than the 4.1 release? When I went from the 4.0 release to the 4.1 release, my system couldn't take it and still remain reasonable (I have a junker running FreeBSD). So how does 4.2 run, for those who went right ahead and installed the release? I wonder if there will even be packages built for this version for the 4.x tree.
Re:Building. (Score:2, Informative)
However, it is _much_ (several times) slower to load (they have a splash engine now). However, I don't do this very often, so that doesn't really matter.
License confusion does not inspire confidence. (Score:5, Interesting)
From the download page of the Xfld.org website [xfld.org]:
They have an obligation to do exactly that--keep the licensing straight--so they aren't distributing something they don't have a license to distribute. Perhaps it is time to comb the distribution and make sure the licensing is correct.
Re:License confusion does not inspire confidence. (Score:3, Interesting)
tile windows? (Score:2)
Re:tile windows? (Score:2)
Re:tile windows? (Score:2)
ION (Score:5, Interesting)
Should we look more at build/installation wizards? (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be for essential things like glibc, bash, or other such text-based programs. Maybe the X server itself and up should be buildable by this system.
Re:Should we look more at build/installation wizar (Score:2)
Great for multi-user boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Its slick, light, windowsy-enough to not scare newbies too much, and the lab has run for over a term with no problems.
I set the servers up to give the users a choice of connecting to the Linux boxes or Windows boxes, and 95% of the connections are to the Linux boxes....
Baz
Re:Great for multi-user boxes (Score:2)
For instance, if the Windows terminals are slow, then it's unlikely they'd use them if all they're doing is checking their emai
Oh common! (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, what a perfect version number. (Score:2)
I mean, come on... that's just awesome. It's like, "I'm loading XFCE 4.2.0, time to spark up."
XFld (Score:2)
I will resume my opinion of Xfce in three words... (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, give it a whirl, specially if you're unenchanted with KDE/GNOME's last offerings or have older hardware and want to run something better looking than Fluxbox [fluxbox.org]. XFCE has got an increased number of users since version 4, and with good reason. It's great.
The 4.2 version fixes a number of issues with the previous 4.x ones - namely, session management, better configuration options and interface polish, specially in stuff like the taskbar and the panel. The only thing i imagine lacking from XFCE are desktop icons, and they're scheduled for a future version.
Re:I will resume my opinion of Xfce in three words (Score:2)
Re:I will resume my opinion of Xfce in three words (Score:2)
As for the filemanager, it has improved a lot but it's still a little weird to use. It tries to mix the best of dual pannel filemanagers and "explorer" ones, with mixed success. I use it every now and then, but i still preffer XNC [dubna.su] better.
Re:I will resume my opinion of Xfce in three words (Score:2)
The only major thing I miss from fluxbox is its built-in tabbing of like windows. If XFCE had window tabbing, I would be in a singular WM nirvana.
Love XFCE, hate XFFM (Score:2)
The other annoyance I have is the taskbar taking up so much space and looking ugly unless it's on the opposite end of the screen from the panel. I almost wish it had a panel more like KDE's, with a task switcher as part of it.
Re:Love XFCE, hate XFFM (Score:2)
What you are looking for is the taskbar-plugin. Then you can just remove the old taskbar. This is what I do.
Re:Love XFCE, hate XFFM (Score:2)
Re:Love XFCE, hate XFFM (Score:2)
Re:Love XFCE, hate XFFM (Score:2)
My real complaints with Xffm are: speed, poor handling of renaming files, poor handling of files with more than one dot in their names, and no way to get rid of all
recommended that (Score:2)
Several years later, the same story repeated with WindowMaker being the old system and XFCE4 being the newcomer.
My only complaint with it is that I can't cover up the taskbar except for using the auto-hide feature, which I loathe. If I could do that, or even disable it altogether (most of the times I just about know what tasks I've running, thank
there is a complete USB drive distro (Score:2)
http://www.encryptec.net/flashlinux/
This is a 200MB distro complete with openoffice (or abiword/gnumeric)... so it fits on a 256MB stick with space for
bloody slow but useful. With 256MB sticks being thrown out in wheatbix packets it is spot on.
This distro could be trimmed to fit in 128MB if you deleted open office... any smaller and you would need to resort to xdirectFB or
How lightweight is it? (Score:2)
I've been using WindowMaker because it's the most lightweight thing I can find that I don't consider ugly as sin, but I would like to have something that does more than
Buy a new computer (Score:2)
taskbar (Score:2)
Before they are seperated, just like the way the default screenshots look like without a way of combining them.
Eventhough it's easy to combine the two, there isnt a simple way of disabling the default taskbar up top other than killing the xftaskbar4 process or modifying the script to stop it from loading. I think
Installer (Score:2, Informative)
Terrific. Now we can subvert our package management systems, and screw up our computers just like Windows users do. In no time at all we'll be formatting our hard drives and reinstalling everything from scratch on an annual basis. Maybe then GNU/Linux will be considered "ready for the desktop".
Congratulations... (Score:3, Informative)
AGAIN.
It's the e(X)tremely (f)*cking (c)de-like (e)nvironment.
Again... congrats.
GJC
Re:No... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:2)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:2)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:2)
The current KDE and GNOME "desktops" are actually windows covering the true root window, not in it. Supposedly you can run them both as true roots but I've had no success with getting it to work seamlessly. (Admittedly, I haven't tried in a couple of years and thin
Re: rox filer (Score:2)
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
Come on, this is a happy thread, don't search for shadows.
Re:Screenshots (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Focus policy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am a developer on the Xfce 4.2.0 release (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad. I'm one of the people who puts a lot of time in xfce
PS oh yeah to the
PS2 thx to the xfce.org crew... now get back to work for 4.4.0 !