Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

XFce Desktop 4 Released

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the minimalist-approaches dept.

GUI 261

BladeMelbourne writes "After thorough RC testing, version 4.0 of my favourite 'lite' desktop environment has been released. Sporting purty eye candy, XFce is leaps and bounds ahead of the legacy XFce 3.8.18 release, whilst retaining it's performance. Release notes are available, as well as binary and source packages. Bring that PII back to life!" While it may not have all the bells and whistles, it's pretty clean looking.

cancel ×

261 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I for one (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061167)

welcome our new eye-candy overlords!

First post!

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061168)

Huah!

Cutest logo (4, Funny)

questamor (653018) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061172)

I vote for xfce as having the dang cutest logo yet.

*squeeee* lil rodent

Re:Cutest logo (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061185)

yeah but how many buttons on that mouse?

Re:Cutest logo (1)

questamor (653018) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061192)

You get my vote to be modded up. thank you. I laughed a lot =).

Re:Cutest logo (1)

code_echelon (709189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061225)

They are trying to get across a new way of computing see the X and the mouse represent a ten button mouse. They use roman numerals to take them back on a flashback to there legacy system days. I look forward to my new computing with my ten button mouse and will be getting rid of my keyboards after this post.

Re:Cutest logo (2, Interesting)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061277)

I say we have 2 8-button mice in stereo... plus foot pedals on the floor.

Fwiw i've been using XFCE4 for about 3 months now. I finally made the step up from Windowmaker or Blackbox to a "huge" Desktop Environment ;)

YOU ARE SUCH A WOMAN!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061186)

Re:Cutest logo (3, Funny)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061214)

I vote for xfce as having the dang cutest logo yet.

  • Laden or Unladen?
  • African or European?

Re:Cutest logo (3, Funny)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061226)

Unladen, it's not a terrorist after all.

Small footprint needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061254)

Can we just get around to a stable os with a graphical windowing environement which takes 16mb ram to run?

Re:Cutest logo (1)

bastard42 (575318) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061362)

I vote for xfce as having the dang cutest logo yet.

My vote goes to Glenda, the Plan 9 Bunny [bell-labs.com] . Astronaut bunnys, can't get much cuter.

Re:Cutest logo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061378)

I really hope you are femaile...

Re:Cutest logo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061457)

Why? You're fucking gay anyway, turd-tamper.

Re:Cutest logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061460)

Let us hope that questamor is a female, or we'll have to excommunicate him for using the word cute.

Way to not be l33t!

Re:Cutest logo (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061517)

Yup, I want to pet the ^#$@ out of that cute bastard. More tech companies need cute logos.

Re:Cutest logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061537)

Apple used to have the 3D rainbow one which was kind of cute in a girly way. Microsoft just had that goddamn flying window in the sky which looks retarded. Redhat's Red Hat is semi amusing but not much. Debian's squiggle doesn't inspire me, and Tux isn't so much cute as a representation of a fat guy after a good meal. I can identify with that but it's still not cute.

We do need more cute logos.

I may have to check this out. (-1, Redundant)

eightball01 (646950) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061184)

Looks like a good Desktop environment to tinker with. Also, like mentioned, the logo is cute.

Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn (0, Redundant)

keirnoff (709325) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061188)

I just rsync'd and it still isn't there. I'm so disappointed.

Actually... (2, Informative)

YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT (651184) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061263)

It's been in the tree ( or at least the ~x86 tree ) since at least thismorning.

-----------
curious@clyde x11-wm$ emerge -s xfce4-base
Searching...
[ Results for search key : xfce4-base ]
[ Applications found : 1 ]

* xfce-base/xfce4-base
Latest version available: 4.0.0
Latest version installed: 3.99.4
-----------

I'll probably be excommunicated from the Gentoo community now for being 0.00.6 of a release behind. ;-)

Re:Actually... (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061286)

I'll probably be excommunicated from the Gentoo community now for being 0.00.6 of a release behind. ;-)

I bet you only have 2 lines of redundant compiler options as well!

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061328)

It's been in the tree ( or at least the ~x86 tree ) since at least thismorning.
Been there much longer than that. Check the Gentoo CVS [gentoo.org] for timestamps.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061349)

Hey, seven hours 59 minutes ago was thismorning here. ;-)

I live in another country, you insensitive clod!

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn (1)

Klowner (145731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061289)

now it is!

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061353)

I've been running a pre-release beta whatever version of xfce4 on Gentoo for several months.
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~x86' nice emerge xfce4

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn (1)

rockiams (12481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061455)

How well does xfce work with gentoo and xinerama? I have 4 video cards/monitors and plan to add 3 more/each. I had some trouble getting deadrat..er redhat to play nice with gtk2+ and glib2, any advice?

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061469)

Sorry, I haven't been using xinerama. Don't know.

The joy of screenshots (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061195)

It's incredible, really. Here I was reading slashdot, trying to procrastinate doing some work, but it's the same stories I read earlier.... just when I am almost forced to stop reading /. and actually do some work, along comes slashdot not only with a new story for me to procrastinate more, but a story that involves looking at pictures of other people doing work! Thank you slashdot!!

Re:The joy of screenshots (4, Funny)

sinserve (455889) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061350)

I spent the day pushing my "good boy" debian stable to the dark side by introducing it
to the sinful pleasures of the "unstable" apt sources. In the process, I documented
minor GNOME quirks and posted a couple of screen shots to freshmeat. I still have to
configure VideoLAN since I am missing the OGG codecs.

So you see, not every screenshot envolves a "working" person, some of us are just
broken.

mutterfuckin' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061202)

RUMPUS!!!

who wants it?

rumpus!

Slashdot should setup a caching mirror... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061203)

How is this offtopic? The site's near death. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061236)

Nazi moderators.

See! Nazi Mod! Told you so! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061446)

bwahahaha, bow before my prescience.

!! MOD PARENT UP !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061284)

Slashdot should stop murdering websites, completely negating the attention cast their way.

lighter is better (5, Informative)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061205)

I run TWM on my server and OpenBox on my iBook. Smaller window managers leave more ram and more proc. time for the processes that matter.

Try comparing compile times of the kernel between TWM and KDE3, no surprise which will win.

Re:lighter is better (4, Interesting)

phraktyl (92649) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061237)

I agree. I'm a big supporter of light. I use PWM [cs.tut.fi] . All keyboard shortcuts. No cute GUI stuff. And very fast...

Re:lighter is better (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061293)

Depends on what the box is like for me.

My laptop? Blackbox. Small, sweet, sexy.

My workstation? KDE3. My workstation has the beef to handle running it and anything else at the same time. Plus, there's the aesthetic advantage.

I'm not talking about crazy eyecandy and sickening animated whatnots; rather, everything looks like it belongs on the desktop. I open up the mail program, it looks and feels the same as the browser. Et cetera.

Can't really get that on 'light' wm's without all sorts of crazy hax0ring. (Or, installing a 'heavy' desktop environment and just using the apps.)

Re:lighter is better (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061365)

Use ratpoison - when that one app is the only app on the desktop, it fits in with everything else on screen.

Personally, all i want is very little. Small title bar and window dressings, no icons (wtf are they for???), no "start up bar", and tabbed windows so i dont need twenty million separate windows and/or icons. My window dressings are so small they fit with everything else. My mail client (and most everything i do, minus web browsing) is via terminal windows, so my text can fit with anything. pekwm satisfies my needs.

Re:lighter is better (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061340)

I used pwm right up until i found pekwm.

I'm not so sure about their post-1.2 development, which is adding on a lot i don't really need, but pre- that it's been great.

Re:lighter is better (1, Redundant)

belrick (31159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061373)

Lightweight? Hah! Who needs pixellated wm's when you can have screen! All ASCII, all the time! And detachable sessions. Who could ask for more?

Re:lighter is better (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061329)

Similar thing with me. I run a simple Fvwm environment on everything I have. And Slack. I like my overhead at a minimum, so that all my programs get the resources.

After all, I'm trying to escape the 'Doze, ain't I? Why waste cycles and memory on fancy effects? It can look pretty without all the sugar.

Re:lighter is better (1)

beddess (91414) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061377)

you do realize you can kill kde while you're compiling something big when you're in a rush right?

The whole point is that KDE or any of the other more involved desktop environments is doing more things for you than twm and will obviously take up more resources.

Surprisingly little is said of XFce's use of Java (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061206)

Even though Sun's Java Desktop could run XFCe (assuming you downloaded and built XFCe, of course).

Re:Surprisingly little is said of XFce's use of Ja (1, Troll)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061542)

Oh, I don't know. I think all too much is said about KDE's use of C++ and Gnome's use of C ( even though I'm a KDE user who dislikes coding in C++).

I'm not sure why saying much about XFce's use of Java should get even more mention.

What Sun's Java Desktop has to do with it I'm not sure. Since it's a Linux distro it goes pretty much without saying that any Linux pacakage you download and build on it will run.

More to the point, since the only real reason to run Sun's Java Desktop (tm -- Don't call it Linux) is to use their version of Gnome I'm clueless as to why anyone would want to build XFCe for it, since you can also build it on any other Linux (sorry Sun, call my lawyer) distro.

Unless maybe you've popped the C note for Sun's Java Desktop (See? I've repented already), realized you've made a terrible mistake, but are too obstinate in your investment to download Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian or Slack for free?

KFG

Does it support a scrolling viewport? (1)

Esekla (453798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061209)

Where your monitor seems to be a moveable window on a workspace that is bigger than the monitor's viewable area? This feature is the one thing that's kept me with fvwm all this time. I don't like seperate desktops.

Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? (2, Informative)

silvaran (214334) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061223)

The desktop environment / window manager is irrelevant in this case. You want X to take care of that. man XF86Config and do a search ('/') for "Virtual"... It'll make the virtual desktop as large as your video card can handle (usually the same as the video card's max resolution). You'll get your movable window.

Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? (1)

Esekla (453798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061352)

As large as my video card's max resolution? That won't do it. My current workspace is 3840x3072 and I'm sure my video card can't handle that resolution. Granted, I seldom use more than half that workspace, but being limited to my video card's resolution wouldn't cut it, so I think I still want fvwm's implementation.

Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? (1)

gaijin99 (143693) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061459)

Where your monitor seems to be a moveable window on a workspace that is bigger than the monitor's viewable area? This feature is the one thing that's kept me with fvwm all this time. I don't like seperate desktops.

Just goes to show, I suppose. I can't stand having a workspace bigger than my monitor. I have to be too careful moving to the "edge" when I want to use a scroll bar. Which is the best thing about Linux, you can have what you want, and I can have what I want.

Though, I did have to manually tweak my XF86Config file after I installed Gentoo, for whatever reason it defaulted to a screen bigger than my monitor. Dunno why.

Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (4, Interesting)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061215)

How funny, just last week I was wondering what desktop to put on an old P133 with 48mb of RAM. I stumbled on Xfce and I was going to try the 4.0 release candidates. Does anyone here use Xfce, and if so, how well would you expect it to run on this computer ? Any tips ?

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061224)

I like to run XFce while wearing a tinfoil hat while singing "It's raining men". Although this does not improve the performance of the desktop, it does make the experience more tolerable.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (0, Offtopic)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061246)

There's no way a tinfoil hat will protect you from men falling out of the sky. That's just crazy talk.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (5, Informative)

Door-opening Fascist (534466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061249)

I use it. Right now, I'm using it on a dual 450MHz Xeon machine with 1GB of RAM, and it's just snappy. At home, I've run it on a 133MHz 486 with 32MB of RAM, and it's just snappy. At work, I run it on 2.0GHz P-4s with 512MB of RAM, and it's snappier. :)

In short, as long as you can run X, you can run XFce. I really like it because of its extensible and easy configuration (an uncommon combination, unfortunately), in addition to its low memory and CPU footprint.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061271)

I'm tempted to try it on my main computer, but I like KDE. Also, the wife is still getting used to Linux, so I don't want to switch everything on her :)

I'm putting this on my P133 for sure. Thanks for the input.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (2, Interesting)

Door-opening Fascist (534466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061302)

I started using Linux back in the Red Hat 5 days, and XFce was really the only good desktop available at the time. At one side of the spectrum was TWM (which, IMHO, is too minimalist), and at the other was GNOME (which defintely was too big and too buggy). XFce landed nicely in the middle, and actually hooked the entire family. My dad, mom, and sister all still use XFce when they use the Linux machine, so it's not impossible to convert people over. :)

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (1)

YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT (651184) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061306)

There's no reason that it shouldn't co-exist with KDE quite happily. Its quite a small set of binaries when compiled, and you can just shut down X and invoke "startxfce4" to start it, XScreensaver and XWindows all in one fell swoop.

For comparison, I run it ( and Kahakai until this morning ) on a Celeron 300 laptop with 96Mb of ram, and it has never slowed down enough for me to notice it. I would consider the performance comparable to Kahakai.

YLFI

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (0)

Snoopy77 (229731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061412)

A 133Mhz 486? Either you are an uber-overclocker or an uber-bullcrapper.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061472)

Probably an AMD "586" which was actually a i486 core.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061477)

Why don't you eat my turds,

Parent is uber-idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061486)

They [nl.net] might not have come from Intel, but they do exist [amd.com] .

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (1)

Grimster (127581) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061497)

I think he might mean one of those AMD 5x86 133mhz I had one for a long time and I never overclock. It was a 486 basically.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (0, Offtopic)

Cplus (79286) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061267)

I know there's a process to this...with submissions and whatnot, but oh well.

Here's the new Matrix trailer [warnerbros.com] .

Neo must be behind this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061422)

Not only is this completely offtopic, but posted in reply to a comment that is unrelated and not the top most on the page, and it still gets positive karma.

Who but Neo can warp the moderation system like that?

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (1)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061336)

48 MB RAM?

I suggest you use version 3.8.18 - the newer version uses at least 6 MB more RAM - which might be needed for other things on a box with less RAM.

Mike

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061406)

How funny, just last week I was wondering what desktop to put on an old P133 with 48mb of RAM.

Slightly OT, but you might want to try out IceWM. It runs fine on a p200, 32MB, heavy load, remote X.

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? (1)

Feztaa (633745) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061492)

XFCE4 is *great*. I've got an AMD k6-2 (360 MHz, 64 Mbs of RAM), and XFCE 4 runs really fast (well, until you launch mozilla, then it swaps like a mofo).

But still, I was very impressed with how great XFCE4 looks (especially relative to XFCE3), and how fast it runs on older hardware.

... and everything goes faster ! (2, Funny)

Enigma Deadsouls (700792) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061218)

unless its being slashdotted.

Great for Linux, but bad for MS (1)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061241)

I really wish they'd make a nice light desktop for Windows XP. Yes, I know, we all hate M$ here, but some of us really don't mind it. Anyway, Fluxbox and Gentoo almost made me switch about a year ago -- maybe it's time to give it another shot...

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (1)

keirnoff (709325) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061275)

I've run flux and kde3 and gnome2 and enlightenment... xfce, which I haven't tried may hit the sweet spot between gnome2.4 and fluxbox.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (3, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061325)

I really wish they'd make a nice light desktop for Windows XP.

Not gonna happen. Even if it didn't cost them anything, if fact I suspect if they wanted to they could adapt their PDA window manager which I suspect is fairly lightweight. There are two reasons why (I can think of). One is upgrade cycle. Most people who get a new computer do so because their old one gets old and slow. When they buy a new one they also buy a new OS and other software along with it not to mention the other software they buy seperately to go with their new computer. Offering a light WM would allow people to extend their computers life cycle and slow the upgrade cycle, assuming it was free of course but even if it isn't MS would just be taking a slice of their future pie.

Another reason is variety, right now one of MS's biggest advantage is people don't have experience with variety. If they get used to a utilitarian WM without the flashy features they may start to wonder if it wouldn't be easy for someone other then MS to make a good WM and start looking around.

The main rule I've learned about when a corporation gets to be a monopoly is what is good for the corporation is very often not what is good for the consumer.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (1)

ShadowDrake (588020) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061371)

>. Offering a light WM would allow people to >extend their computers life cycle and slow the >upgrade cycle

Wait a minute.

If I buy a new Gateway 2000, they're probably recieving a licence fee of perhaps USD 50 due to super-discount OEM licences.

If I buy "XP-Lite upgrade kit", they're probably getting USD 70 or more of the 90-100 I pay. Alternatively, you can sell it for 20 bucks or so on top of the standard XP upgrade kit.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061452)

If I buy "XP-Lite upgrade kit", they're probably getting USD 70 or more of the 90-100 I pay. Alternatively, you can sell it for 20 bucks or so on top of the standard XP upgrade kit.

If they're selling an "upgrade kit" then their market would be microscopic. The vast majority of people won't buy software for their 'ancient' computer that barely works now only to extend it's lifespan a couple years by sacrificing functionality. If they're in the mood to spend money on their computer they'd much rather get a flashy new computer that runs all the latest software or some new hardware (RAM, newer CPU) that has a much longer lifespan and makes things other than the window manager run faster then just get an upgrade kit and makes your desktop less flashy.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061413)

But it has happened. Sorry.

Litestep and tons of other shell replacements, including blackbox, are available for Windows. Thing is, the default Explorer shell is usually better -- the others are novelties that wear off quickly once you realize that Explorer isn't actually inefficient, but rather efficient and stable.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (5, Insightful)

gaijin99 (143693) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061489)

Another reason is variety, right now one of MS's biggest advantage is people don't have experience with variety. If they get used to a utilitarian WM without the flashy features they may start to wonder if it wouldn't be easy for someone other then MS to make a good WM and start looking around.

This is actually a good point. MS, by promoting a ruthlessly standardized desktop environment, has managed to get large numbers of people quite used to doing things one way (the MS way, that is). It really is a struggle for some of the more ossified types to even change to another browser simply because the buttons have slightly different icons from IE.

By eleminating diversity, the MS designers have quite neatly gotten a psychological lock into the minds of many people. Gamers tend to switch more easily because games don't follow the MS standard interface, but non-gamers are very used to/addicted to the MS look and feel.

Not, mind you, that standardization doesn't have its place. When every program makes the scrollbars look and behave differently even the most flexible of mind can get a bit worn out. I wonder if there's a happy medium between over-compliance with a standard UI, and over-diversity in UI look and feel?

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (3, Informative)

the_bahua (411625) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061435)

LiteStep, GeoShell, bb4win, and countless others are available as shell replacements for windows. I have been using LiteStep for about 5 years, and it even made win98 look stable. Very fast, very configurable, modular, and much prettier than the plain default explorer startmenu.

ShellFront [shellfront.org] and Desktopian [desktopian.org] are great places to start.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061521)

and it even made win98 look stable.

Not the most flattering endorsement, if you ask me.

Re: Light desktop (4, Informative)

dcuny (613699) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061447)

I don't know how light it is, but you might consider looking at the ROS Explorer [franken.de] . It was written as a replacement for the NT Explorer, and runs under XP. Its current goal in life is to run as the ReactOS [reactos.com] (i.e. NT clone) desktop, although currently the ReactOS doesn't currently implement enough functionality to run it.

It works just fine under XP as a shell. If you want to test it without replacing your current shell, just launch it from the command line with the -desktop option.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061466)

Yes, I know, we all hate M$ here


And, of course, we wouldn't actually be aware of this if it weren't for the large number of vocal windows users pointing it out constantly.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061484)

Just set your shell to PROGMAN.EXE. It doesn't get any lighter!

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS (5, Informative)

johnwroach (624103) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061562)

I really wish they'd make a nice light desktop for Windows XP.

There are a few:

There's also progman.exe*, shipped with windows. I've heard tell of a "winfile" also supposedly built in, but I don't know anything about that.

I've tried a few of these, but some of them (Blackbox) seemed to take more resources than Explorer! Another caveat, the ports of *nix windows managers retain the *nix settings system, so setting them up can be a pain if you don't have experience with them.

*Yes, that is progman of Win16 fame.

/.ed (1, Funny)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061250)

must be running their website on that PII he mentioned.

Re:/.ed (1)

Enigma Deadsouls (700792) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061279)

It seems that way. as I said in an earlyer post that got modded down by some stupid kid with mod points who didn't even check out the XFce site..

... and everything goes faster !
unless its being slashdotted.

Keyboard shortcuts (4, Insightful)

TheFlu (213162) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061253)

I've been keeping up with XFCE for a while now, and I've really enjoyed using it. I typically use either it or fluxbox when I'm in the mood for a minimal window manager. Anyhow, if you'd like to edit your keyboard shortcuts in XFCE (one of the first things I do when I install a new WM), you can do that in the following file: /usr/share/xfwm4/themes/default.keys/keythemerc

How to pronounce? (0, Troll)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061270)

Ex-Ef-See-Eee or is is Ex-Feese

If it's the latter does that mean if you have lots of computers running XFce your running X-fces [reference.com] ?

BTW Nice logo.

Warning to RedHat Users (5, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061297)

I advise all RedHat users (downloading XFce RPMs) not to download and install gtk2-2.2.4-1rh9.i386.rpm from the XFce SourceForge page - it prevented my gdm graphical greeter from loading the login screen.

The error message was: "The theme for the graphical greeter is corrupt. It does not contain definition for the username/password entry element." I clicked OK several times, but the error message stayed there.

If you run into troubles, revert to an older package like gtk2-2.2.2-0.ximian.6.3.i386.rpm or gtk2-2.2.1-4.i386.rpm

Dont play with /etc/X11/gdm/gdm.conf for half an hour like me, changing gdm greeter themes.

Mike

GTK2 & Morphix (1)

Linus Sixpack (709619) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061299)

Its the Morphix Light desktop. Its GTK2 based and keeps its configuration data is XML. I recommend the Bluefish editor as your first proggie to go with it.

OK, I've waited long enough.. (1)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061309)

There hasn't been a single XFeces joke. Is everyone alright?

Re:OK, I've waited long enough.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061327)

OK, Someone posted it while I was posting this one. Thats the slashdot *I* know. I'm going to post this one AC because this parent will not get modded into oblivion. Bye.

Press Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061314)

The XFce guys have a press release too!!
Read it here:
http://www.linuxpr.com/releases/6260.html [linuxpr.com]

Their desktop may be fast... (5, Funny)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061337)

But their web server sure isn't!

Ah, the power of a good Slashdotting. :-)

Re:Their desktop may be fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061527)

Wow! That is both witty and funny!

XFce 4 + ROX-Filer == uNF (1)

serial frame (236591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061344)

Really, when you use the ROX pinboard, it's all great. To get the proper feel, hunt down the location of the icons for the icon theme you're using for the XFce panel and use it for your ROX folders. Make sure to set ROX to not override window manager control of the root window.

Screenshots (5, Informative)

breman (683776) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061367)

Here is a mirror for the png's.

XFce screens [members.shaw.ca]

Whoohoo!!! (-1)

DaemonBitch (640314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061369)

Now I can dust off my P II 233 and get that box a rollin' one more time! :)

XFce is out... Whoooaaa! Finally... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061392)

... I can run Winodws applications without emulator, thank you, XFce people!

I own a P I... (1)

krahd (106540) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061420)

...you insensitive clod!

--krahd

Question about taskbar (1)

ecloud (3022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061483)

In KDE I like to use an auto-hiding external taskbar in the upper-right corner of my screen, so if I jam the mouse over there it flies out, and the windows are shown in a vertical list rather than across the whole screen. This method uses real estate more efficiently than a Windows 95 style taskbar, because the horizontal space is only as much as is needed for a single window title, and I never open enough windows to run out of vertical space, and my window titles are seldom truncated. It's like a stack of books, and you're looking at the spines. It's also like the Mac task switcher in systems 7-9.

Is there a way I could that with XFCE?

slashdotted (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061498)

Here [plig.org] is a page with some info and links to other screenshots

Not a desktop (0, Insightful)

groomed (202061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061518)

WM environments (because you can't really call it a desktop) like XFce are a step backwards. They don't provide any of the facilities that a modern (or even ancient!) desktop should provide. By and large they're little more than a pretty means to run xterm, xclock and xload on a single screen.

The people using this stuff love to brag about the efficiency of their minimalist "Desktop", but there is nothing efficient about not being able to drag and drop images between applications, about spending hours to get a printer to work, about endless menu editing.

Call me a troll, but that's the way I see it. To each his own and all that, but please, let this stuff die already, don't give it any more publicity than it deserves. It's not a desktop, it's a graphical shell.

troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7061549)

there, i called you a troll, which you most definitely are, you no brained mofo

Hmm. (0, Flamebait)

meff (170550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7061552)

Anyone else pronounce this as "X Fee-cees" :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>