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 Adds Icons, Switches to Thunar in v4.4

timothy posted more than 7 years ago | from the longtime-companion dept.

X 83

b100dian points out yesterday's release of XFCE 4.4, writing "If you have already followed the release candidates, you know that XFCE is really evolving. Besides adding desktop icons, introducing Thunar (in lieu of xffm) and MousePad, applications that are as simple as they are effective, and Terminal, which has built-in support for desktop composition (supported by the window manager out-of-the-box), it also introduced (finally!) a shortcut for the pop-up menu (you can see in the tour that Ctrl-Esc is bound to this menu). Congratulations for the lightest and slickest window manager ever:)" I've been using Thunar a lot lately (mostly under Gnome) because the renaming feature is powerful but reasonably intuitive -- very handy for cleaning up digicam photo names.

cancel ×

83 comments

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

Yay! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17710034)

Icons on the desktop and autostart programs on login!!!@!!!
Did somebody show win95 to those guys finally?

Re:Yay! (3, Informative)

stavrosg (893274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710294)

Autostart was in anyway. There is a nice GUI to manage it now, nothing more, nothing less.

Digicam photo names (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17710038)

[...] very handy for cleaning up digicam photo names. Yeees... Digicam photo names. Sure.

Re:Digicam photo names (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710486)

Hey, somebody makes all the pr0n in the world. Why not timothy?

Re:Digicam photo names (1)

Eulex (916528) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711020)

Yes, really. It has a very nice mass renamer.

Re:Digicam photo names (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711374)

I like this idea too and will defiantly use it if it works.
Did you see a problem in the screen shot?

libelle01.jpg => Picture 1.jpg
libelle02.jpg => Picture 2.jpg
[...]
libelle09.jpg => Picture 9.jpg
libelle10.jpg => Picture 0.jpg ???

Re:Digicam photo names (1)

Eulex (916528) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713812)

Yeah. Seems like this was caused by the use of the Insert/Overwrite option, while Search and Replace would have done it correctly.

Lightest? (2, Insightful)

keesh (202812) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710042)

It's hardly the lightest... My entire windowmanager fits in less space than one of those pretty icons they use. Sure, it's not as bloated as KDE or Gnome, but that doesn't make it light any more than a Hummer is fuel efficient because it uses less petrol than a 747.

Re:Lightest? (5, Insightful)

stavrosg (893274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710224)

Indeed - the term 'Window Manager' is used wrongly here.
You cannot argue though that as a desktop enviroment, Xfce *has* the smallest disk and memory footprint.

And all this without leaving too much features, or configurability out

Re:Lightest? (4, Informative)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710964)

Yes, window manager is wrong, desktop environment is right, however XFCE is pretty cohesive and a great alternative to GNOME. I haven't used it in a while because I've been using E17 but I think the stability of XFCE is something to take into account. It's a great alternative for those who hate the bloat of GNOME and KDE but like the flexibility to use a great theme framework like GTK. Combined with multiple taskbars now you really have a powerful desktop in a fast framework. Kudos to XFCE.

Re:Lightest? (1)

stu42j (304634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713510)

It sure looks a lot like Gnome, uses GTK and this release seems to add a bit of eye-candy features. Plus Gnome has put a lot of effort into improving performance in the last couple of releases. Is XFCE still really lighter than Gnome?

Re:Lightest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17716390)

> Is XFCE still really lighter than Gnome?

Yes, and their HIGs aren't fscked.

Re:Lightest? Careful now (1)

cloricus (691063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17720394)

Please don't confuse 'bloat' with 'functional'.
 
I am a _huge_ fan of XFCE though it just isn't there yet in regards of being robust and usable in many different applications. For example I usually have to run a bunch of GNOME apps just to make it a usable desktop...Or an even better example; At work I've been trying very hard to implement a Linux/XFCE environment onto our older PCs to 'upgrade' them from Windows 2000 - due to their memory/cpu power XFCE is the only usable desktop environment.
I have managed to account for every feature the users of these PCs require including all of our propriety apps yet my failure to roll out this implementation came down to XFCEs file manager and it's complete lack of any features required to exist on a network - let a lone a business network - and bringing nautilus into the setup just wasn't practical. From my point of view this was a huge shame as it would have been nice to see a bunch of Linux PCs out side the server room and in production and XFCE fit the bill nicely.
 
So yes...Don't confuse the terms.

Re:Lightest? Careful now (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17728176)

"I've been trying very hard to implement a Linux/XFCE environment onto our older PCs to 'upgrade' them from Windows 2000 - due to their memory/cpu power XFCE is the only usable desktop environment."

I don't believe it. If it runs Windows 2000 it runs KDE. I'm telling this from a PIII 860MHz with 256MB RAM that runs KDE 3.5.5 full bells&whistles (from Debian Etch) just smoothly. And I've run it decently on a K6-II too.

Re:Lightest? Careful now (1)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17767284)

I don't believe it. If it runs Windows 2000 it runs KDE. I'm telling this from a PIII 860MHz with 256MB RAM that runs KDE 3.5.5 full bells&whistles (from Debian Etch) just smoothly. And I've run it decently on a K6-II too.

I don't know about that. I've had Windows 2000 running on a Pentium with 64 MB of RAM. KDE is not going to run on that.

Re:Lightest? (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710402)

Well, I used to use light window managers like XFCE before... That was until I realized my wallpaper was larger than my window manager, when compressed.

Do lightweight window managers matter anymore? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17711782)

In the past one of the things that I loved about linux was that you could choose a lightweight window manager, and run just fine on older hardware. Now-a-days that doesn't seem to work anymore, because it isn't the WM that are heavy weight (sawfish, metacity and KWM really aren't that bad), or even the desktop apps (how big is the doc), it is the libraries. And if you use a single Gnome or KDE application, you end up having to load those anyway. GTK is especially bad now, especially if you aren't using an accelerated (aka proprietary) video driver. I just cannot make linux useful on lower-end machines anymore, without restricting myself to older distros.

That was actually part of the reason that I started using OS X. If I am going to have to buy a hefty machine, I might as well get a Mac. And if I am going to have to use proprietary drivers, and codecs of iffy legality just to do the work I need, I might as well use an OS that has that nicely integrated.

Re:Do lightweight window managers matter anymore? (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17718040)

And if you use a single Gnome or KDE application, you end up having to load those anyway. GTK is especially bad now, especially if you aren't using an accelerated (aka proprietary) video driver. I just cannot make linux useful on lower-end machines anymore, without restricting myself to older distros.

Good call, Mr. Coward. I wish I had mod points. Lightweight window-managers nowadays are, in my opinion, becoming pretty useless. They're fast and lightweight and use very little memory... until you open an application like firefox or amarok, and then they're just as unresponsive as all the DEs. You can use a lightweight WM and a series of light applications (i.e. dillo, xterm, rox-filer, etc.), but is the speed improvement worth the loss of features?

Re:Do lightweight window managers matter anymore? (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17719242)

You can use a lightweight WM and a series of light applications (i.e. dillo, xterm, rox-filer, etc.), but is the speed improvement worth the loss of features?


Yes, if it allows one to use less powerful hardware effectively. Those applications you mention + a light WM can turn a PS2 into a basic desktop machine. And even on a more powerfulf machine, using smaller apps will mean you can run more of them before performance suffers.

Re:Do lightweight window managers matter anymore? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17728320)

Who modded the previous one +1 interesting? It's a troll per definition! It starts saying something that seems to make sense ("Now-a-days that doesn't seem to work anymore, because it isn't the WM that are heavy weight") but then it goes for the controversy ("GTK is especially bad now") and raises false consecuencies ("If I am going to have to buy a hefty machine, I might as well get a Mac").

Of course he gives no reason why "GTK is especially bad now" against say, Qt and falsely asumes that my old PIII I bought second hand in a hurry (I was moving so I bought a use-and-trash computer for about 200; it's only it works good enough and I haven't taken the time to buy a new one, reinstall, etc.) is going to cost nearly that of a new Mac, or that really such a new top of line equipment is needed to run KDE or (so I assume last Gnome).

+1 Interesting? -1 troll I say!

Re:Lightest? (2, Informative)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17719302)


  PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND

fluxbox 0.9.13
4668 CronoClo 0 0 2028 1376 972 S 312 0.0 4.5 0:19 fluxbox

Enlightenment 16.999

7398 CronoClo 0 0 11520 11M 4080 S 3312 1.7 37.7 0:34 enlightenmen

XFCE 4.2.2

7506 CronoClo 0 0 10200 9940 7056 S 5996 0.0 32.5 0:18 xfce4-panel
7504 CronoClo 0 0 5980 5684 4124 S 3560 0.0 18.6 0:15 xfdesktop
7502 CronoClo 0 0 4424 4036 3408 S 2532 0.0 13.2 0:01 xfwm4
7497 CronoClo 0 0 2808 2412 2000 S 1868 0.0 7.9 0:00 xfce4-sessio
7499 CronoClo 0 0 3100 1780 1312 S 1296 0.0 5.8 0:00 xfce-mcs-man

KDE2.2.2

7617 CronoClo 0 0 8192 7592 6848 S 6448 0.0 24.8 0:03 kdeinit
7619 CronoClo 0 0 5368 4700 3668 S 3116 0.0 15.4 0:09 kdeinit
7615 CronoClo 0 0 3428 2648 2252 S 2040 0.0 8.6 0:02 kdeinit
7630 CronoClo 0 0 2272 1380 1128 S 944 0.0 4.5 0:00 kdeinit
7598 CronoClo 0 0 2124 1324 1072 S 888 0.0 4.3 0:01 kdeinit
7595 CronoClo 0 0 1916 1184 1004 S 860 0.0 3.8 0:00 kdeinit
7614 CronoClo 0 0 1608 968 704 S 652 0.0 3.1 0:01 ksmserver
7613 CronoClo 0 0 1876 708 508 S 412 0.0 2.3 0:00 kdeinit
7589 CronoClo 0 0 1476 688 620 S 480 0.0 2.2 0:00 kdeinit
7592 CronoClo 0 0 1372 588 456 S 372 0.0 1.9 0:00 kdeinit
7632 CronoClo 0 0 1548 552 416 S 312 0.0 1.8 0:00 kdeinit


Re:Lightest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17722192)

What about étoilé?
This seems to be a promising attempt to create a desktop environment based on GNUstep (http://www.etoile-project.org)

Daniel

Thunar... (4, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710046)

Although the link is incredibly informative, here's more info about Thunar [foo-projects.org] .

Re:Thunar... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710218)

In case the parent's sarcasm is missed, there's no href in the link. At any rate, given that neither Thunar nor xffm is exactly a high-profile application (I brace for another lecture from the "You must be living under a rock!" guy...), I agree with the others that a little more context would have been appropriate.

Personally, besides the fact that WindowMaker just meshes perfectly with my habits, I've never been able to overcome the aversion to a CDE look-alike.

Re:Thunar... (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17719024)

I've never been able to overcome the aversion to a CDE look-alike.

Ditto. XFCE looks like ass. Maybe not as bad as the hairy pimplefest ass that was Sun's CDE. But even with the shave and baby oil it still looks like ass.

p.s. Now if they ever made a real desktop out of WindowMaker, I would be all over it like kraut on brots!

Re:Thunar... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17723310)

p.s. Now if they ever made a real desktop out of WindowMaker, I would be all over it like kraut on brots!

My all-time favorite Unix desktop environment was in the days of KDE 1 when you could run kfm within Window Maker or any other window manager to get desktop icons. Once both KDE and GNOME shifted to a fake "desktop window" on top of the real root, it never works properly anymore. (Note: I know you can change the window manager within KDE or GNOME -- that's the reverse of what I want.)

Re:Thunar... (1)

jsight (8987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17726052)

Then what do you want?

Konqueror or Nautilus can still run inside of WindowMaker, and I believe WindowMaker still supports the Gnome and KDE extensions.

Re:Thunar... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17727040)

That gives you a file manager, but kdesktop and kicker don't work properly. (In theory, kdesktop has an option that allows it to run as true root, but it's never worked for me.) Same for the GNOME counterparts.

With kfm, you could start it and basically get the KDE "desktop" in WindowMaker.

Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (0, Flamebait)

hatredman (740429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711276)

Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support.

That's the only (IMHO) problem with Thunar. It would be easy to integrate it with SMBCLIENT (like xffm does, by the way) but apparently they are too lazy to do that [xfce.org] .

Re:Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (2, Informative)

armanoid57 (943339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711508)

Re:Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (1)

hatredman (740429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715210)

The Thunar site was Slashdotted at that time. Sorry, Pal.

Re:Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (3, Insightful)

stavrosg (893274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711582)

That's the only (IMHO) problem with Thunar. It would be easy to integrate it with SMBCLIENT (like xffm does, by the way) but apparently they are too lazy to do that.

Nope, this feature was intentionally held back for a proper and transparent implementation instead of some hackish solution that would happen to work for some.

The idea is that the file manager does not have to be able to access anything else apart from a standard filesystem.
Need access to a remote share? OK, mount it somewhere, and presto! Everything can access it, without any special care taken.

Thunar (or some plugin) will get there, eventually.

Re:Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713318)

No kidding! Stuff like GnomeVFS (and whatever the KDE equivalent is) is nice if all your apps are written using it, but they never are, and so it just serves to ruin the overall consistency of the system.

If you need special filesystems, FUSE (or something like it) is probably less leaky abstraction.

Re:Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (1)

hatredman (740429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715352)

> The idea is that the file manager does not have to be able to access > anything else apart from a standard filesystem. > Need access to a remote share? OK, mount it somewhere, and presto! > Everything can access it, without any special care taken.
That is not an acceptable solution. xffm/xfsamba work pretty well. You just can`t tell an end user to "mount it somewhere". Maybe a plugin that searches for shares and mounts them on a temp dir would be great. I think there`s a KDE app that does just that. A Thunar plugin with similar features would be marvelous.

Re:Thunar... lacks SMB/NFS/Network support (1)

kshade (914666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17716510)

fusesmb [freshmeat.net] mounts the "network neighborhood" in a folder and works in userspace, and of course Thunar can access it. And all other apps, too.

"Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment..." (3, Informative)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710066)

Finally a Proper envieronment!.I love Xfce. I use it mainly via Xubuntu. From the release visual tour I can see this version is really nice. However, "niceties" require processsing power to display (like the fancy icons or alpha blending). I am afraid Xfce could end like firefox (which started as the "lightweight" version of Mozilla and now is itself bloated).

The text editor (mousepad) is very nice, simply that, an easy to use text editor (without :icryptic^M^Mkey combinations^[:wq! required to edit a file).
Recently I had to "downgrade" a notebook to only 256 MB and decided to install Xubuntu. It runs really fine and does whatever I need it to do.

Re:"Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment..." (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710836)

Now although I hear your concerns, they are probably nothing to be worried about! Xfce knows their nitch fairly well, and there is more than enough competition in the bloated Window Manager Market that they would slip too much.

Re:"Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment..." (1)

faolan_devyn_aodfin (981785) | more than 7 years ago | (#17718506)

I've found Xfce to be getting better with every release and I make it a point since I first installed Ubuntu to install Xfce since a friend of mine recommended it. I have to say that even though I don't use it, every release just keeps getting better. The only problem I have and really it's the same with GNOME and every other desktop is that most of the DE is hardcoded to use certain apps.

For instance I do not like XFCE's panel and prefer GNOME's to it because ascetically it sucks and has a lot of difficulty with integrating many of the panel applets into the theme. On top of that there are many panel applet's from each that I would like to mix and match. Now with XFCE's panel I can mix and match but if I use GNOME's panel I cannot do so. This is frustrating to no end because I want the applets to look good (GNOME's integrate perfectly into the GTK+ theme) while being functional (I love XFCE's weather applet).

The second integration problem I experience is that I find most the the XFWM themes ugly. I'm not trying to flame the designers or developers, I just do not like them. But I love XFWM's features. Awesome window manager! However, I use metacity because I think the themes are better and until compiz come out of beta, at least comes as the default, or becomes easier to install then I will not use it. To top that off, once I use Metacity or Compiz theme management becomes a nightmare.

What I would really like to see is the DE's go back to swappable interfaces. I've notice that both the "Preferred Applications" setup utility only allows options for the web browser, email reader, and terminal application. There just isn't enough configuration options in either one, but I do to say that the perfect DE would be one the compromises of both features from GNOME and XFCE. When will GNOME use's get the option of a right-click on the desktop to get the application menu like in default XFCE or iconify windows to the desktop option. Those are features I would REALLY want!

Re:"Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17842172)

>I've found Xfce to be getting better with every release and I make it a point since I first installed Ubuntu to install Xfce since a friend of mine recommended it. I have to say that even though I don't use it, every release just keeps getting better.

Thanks.

>The only problem I have and really it's the same with GNOME and every other desktop is that most of the DE is hardcoded to use certain apps.

Really? I certainly don't remember hardcoding anything...
Most stuff is either environment variables (terminal), Preferred Applications setting or other config files. Care to elaborate?

> Now with XFCE's panel I can mix and match but if I use GNOME's panel I cannot do so.

So you want a gnome panel plugin that hosts Xfce panel plugins? Write one, it's not hard.
That said, Xfce's main developers are already too busy, so expect our help, but don't expect us to write one on our own (possible motivation eludes me, too).

>This is frustrating to no end because I want the applets to look good (GNOME's integrate perfectly into the GTK+ theme) while being functional (I love XFCE's weather applet).

Use the source, Luke.

>XFWM themes ugly.

Well, a matter of preference, I guess. Patches are welcome. Bitching on the Xfce list is welcome. Burying it in some slashdot comment doesn't help much (I just found this by luck) :)

>What I would really like to see is the DE's go back to swappable interfaces.

Even _more_? What else is there to swap?

Actually I thought of starting a freedesktop standard that standardizes exectuable names and parameters so if you wanted to replace something, you would just put another start script in $PATH. (i.e. having binaries "compose-mail", "view-mail", "browse", "open-file", "open-terminal", "queue-download", ... something like that)

Of course that would be too easy, KDE would insist on using their config files, Xfce would insist on using their preferred applications setting, GNOME would insist on using their gconf, ... .
Ah, isn't it nice to have to fight against inertia? :-(

> I've notice that both the "Preferred Applications" setup utility only allows options for the web browser, email reader, and terminal application.

Suggestions welcome (preferrably on the Xfce list). We don't bite.

cheers,
    Danny

XFCE - whazzat?? (2, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710074)

Let me be the first to ask that posters include a couple of words when posting about relatively obscure software.

Like "If you have already followed the release candidates, you know that XFCE, COMMA THE BLAH BLAH SOFTWARE PACKAGE COMMA is really evolving."

I have no clue what it is, or Thunar for that matter, and doubt that most others do.

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (2, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710230)

A couple of words? OK, I'll try:

"If you have already followed the release candidates, you know that XFCE, COMMA THE elasticity offputting nigirisushi SOFTWARE PACKAGE COMMA is really evolving."

Nope, can't see how it would help you. Perhaps try Google? Some people say it's really nifty for this kind of thing. Kids today, you know how they are.

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17712282)

The OP wasn't claiming he couldn't find out what these items are. The whole point of the teaser on the front page is to get people to follow and read the article (as if that ever happens). Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to google three words just to decide if I want to follow the link and read the article. Poor writing is poor writing. Apparently you think it is acceptable for an article blurb to impose at least three search engine queries on the audience. The OP is correct. This is a lot of wasted effort that could easily have been avoided by some actual journalistic effort.

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17715092)

I hope you get lupus.

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (2, Informative)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710242)

XFCE is a desktop environment like KDE and Gnome.

Desktop environment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment [wikipedia.org]

But unlike Gnome and KDE, XFCE tries to be lighter than those 2 GUI's.

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17710668)

But unlike Gnome and KDE, XFCE tries to be lighter than those 2 GUI's.

Your statement implies that Gnome and KDE are trying to be heaver than 2 GUI's... somethings. You don't say which two GUI's objects they're trying to be heavier than, though, so it would be nice of you to explain. Or did you mean something like, "XFCE tries to be lighter than KDE and GNOME."?

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (1)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710718)

"XFCE tries to be lighter than KDE and GNOME."?
Yeah, that one.

Dock (1)

fwarren (579763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713210)

Now if it only had a dock. I could leave my beloved fluxbox and still keep all my cool dock apps.

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17710338)

Let me be the first to ask that posters include a couple of words when posting about relatively obscure software.

You must be new here

Re:XFCE - whazzat?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17710844)

XFCE / Thunar [justfuckinggoogleit.com]

Thunar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17711258)

Thunar?

Isn't that the actress in those Quentin Tarantino movies?

Looks very good (5, Interesting)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710100)

I have to say, XFCE is looking very impressive. Thunar is, IMHO, a significant improvement over the earlier file manager. The desktop in general is also looking more robust and featureful - XFCE is starting to look like good competition for GNOME and KDE, and in the space of resource light desktops it looks like a clear winner. Better yet, due to freedesktop.org standards it interacts with GNOME and KDE just fine. For a while I had been hoping E17 would provide the impressive option for light desktops but, with interminable delays and XFCE now looking like a perfectly good alternative to GNOME or KDE regardless of whether you are interested in a light desktop or not, it looks as if XFCE is the clear winner.

Re:Looks very good (1)

Dutch_Cap (532453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710674)

"and in the space of resource light desktops it looks like a clear winner"

I do apologize, but that statement just forced me to mention ROX Desktop [sourceforge.net] , my DE of choice for some time now. It has some very nice features, like drag-and-drop saving (applications have to explicitly support this, though) and support for application directories [wikipedia.org] , which are like bundles on OSX. Also, the file manager (ROX) is snappier than snappy. On my system it goes from login (XDM) to desktop in less than five seconds.

Does anybody know of other light-weight, full-featured desktop environments? Because XFCE and ROX Desktop are the only ones I can think of.

Backported .debs for Edgy? (2, Insightful)

petabyte (238821) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710202)

So I guess this would be a place to ask. I spent a bit of time this morning searching for .debs for edgy. I guess I could do the compile route but I'd like to be able to drop the gnome cruft and go back to XFCE now that 4.4 is done.

Anyone know of any backported .debs for Edgy?

Re:Backported .debs for Edgy? (1)

dsparil (844576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710418)

Xfce in the repos is listed as being 4.3.90. It's technically a development release, but it's been very stable in my experience.

Re:Backported .debs for Edgy? (1)

Eulex (916528) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711078)

4.3.90.x would be one of the betas. You may use them if you want... but don't come screaming if they're buggy...

Be patient (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711934)

Feisty Fawn will be out in April and will probably include it.

Just wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17713520)

For the Fisting Fudgepackers [gaybuntu.com] release.

Re:Backported .debs for Edgy? (1)

b100dian (771163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714390)

You could use the instructions from here [debian.org]
The .txt files with the packages seem to be updated 18hrs ago, with the "XFCE 4.4 released! Woot" comment;)

Biased Drivel (1)

Imexius (967514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710472)

Congratulations for the lightest and slickest window manager ever

What a load of biased drive! After considering Fluxbox, Icewm, wmaker and a slew of other window managers; Xfce doesn't even come close to being the "lightest." Granted, it is light in comparison to GNOME/KDE but come on people lets be a tad more objective.

Re:Biased Drivel (3, Informative)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710774)

What a load of biased drive! After considering Fluxbox, Icewm, wmaker and a slew of other window managers; Xfce doesn't even come close to being the "lightest." Granted, it is light in comparison to GNOME/KDE but come on people lets be a tad more objective.


XFCE isn't actually a window manager. It includes a window manager, but it's a desktop environment. There's a difference. XFCE adds features that you simply won't see in any of the ones you mentionned, because they *aren't* dekstop environments.

TFA isn't biased, it's just ignorant.

Re:Biased Drivel (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711672)

Well, actually, 'slickest' is the biased bit. 'window manager' is the ignorant bit.

I haven't tried XFCE yet, but 'slickest', unless you are measure how slippery it is, is a subjective thing. That's bias.

Re:Biased Drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17718100)

I use a really cool and tiny desktop environment called ratpoison. It integreates very well with GNU Screen, Midnight Commander, and the shell itself. Screen and MC also interract well with the shell and you can script them (as well as ratpoison). It's the ultimate Unix desktop. :-)

Re:Biased Drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17792952)

OK, so b100 goofed up a bit when he said "window manager". XFCE is still pretty light for a desktop, which is what it really is. Competing with GNOME and KDE, it's the lightest desktop (E17 doesn't count), but yeah, there are lighter alternatives if you just want a WM.
I use a triple-desktop system with GNOME, KDE, and XFCE. I prefer GNOME, but when I'm trying older distros, I use KDE, just for some variety. (And I could deal with having to use a KDE-only system, I just like GNOME because it's a bit faster and I have an old machine.) XFCE shines in particular on my system because it's so slow, but XFCE speeds things up. Not that installing some fast distro like Arch wouldn't do the same thing...
I am not an XFCE fanboy, I just think it's a great concept, and achieves its goal well.

Biased Drivel (-1, Redundant)

Imexius (967514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17710506)

Congratulations for the lightest and slickest window manager ever

What a load of biased drivel! After considering such window managers as wmaker, Fluxbox, Icewm and slew of others I haven't mentions; Xfce doesn't even come close to being the "lightest". Granted, Xfce is light compared to GNOME/KDE but come on people lets be a tad bit more objective.

xfce is great (1)

steak (145650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711198)

i love xfce and everything it stands for; would download again.

Re:xfce is great (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17717960)

Mod parent up funny, Xfce doesn't stand for anything anymore.

Slickest what? (0, Redundant)

Eric Pierce (636318) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711344)

"Congratulations for the lightest and slickest window manager ever"

But it's a Desktop Environment, Spock, it's a ... Desktop Environment!

Thundarr? (1)

Wabbit Wabbit (828630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17711688)

Oh, not that [wikipedia.org] Thundarr. Thunar.

Meh.

I was hoping for Something LIke xfce Awesome Ariel Edition, or maybe Version 4.4 Mighty Mok.

Does it to automagic USBKeys yet? (1)

Confessed Geek (514779) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712196)

Will it do the automagical plug in your USB/FlashDrive and it pops up on your desktop ready to use thing yet?

Re:Does it to automagic USBKeys yet? (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712544)

Yes it does. Well, it does on Xubuntu anyways

Re:Does it to automagic USBKeys yet? (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17716722)

Automounting and popping up an icon on the desktop isn't part of XFCE; that's a different daemon you're running. In my Zen system, I've got it configured to automount the USB key/hard drive/whatever at /mnt/usb. It doesn't pop an icon on the desktop, because I don't want it to. In the Zen system, that's all handled by a udev monitor and fuse, not the desktop environment itself. I'd be surprised if any DE implemented that functionality directly, as it's way beyond the scope of what a DE is supposed to do.

In other words, it's possible to implement on any DE that supports desktop icons, but it's not the DE's job to automount the key and add the icon.

Re:Does it to automagic USBKeys yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17718934)

It is a part of the new XFCE. They use HAL to do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_(software) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Does it to automagic USBKeys yet? (1)

eugenewithanaxe (938865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712634)

Assuming that since this iteration of XFCE is going to support desktop icons, I would have to say yea. Thunar is very nice, on par with Finder (OS X) and Explorer (Windows.) IMHO, better. Mousepad works great as well.

And yea, try and not confuse a Window Manager, such as fluxbox, with a Desktop Environment, such as XFCE. The difference is features such as file managers. I am not a guru, but even I know that you can't compare apples to oranges...

BTW, Zenwalk has included Thunar and Mouspad since at least the 3.0 release, perhaps before. I am not sure, as release 3.0 was the first that I'd used it.

Thunar (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712230)

I've been using Thunar on Ubuntu (compiling my own from the release), and it's a great file manager. I especially like the compact view it gives, which is very similar to the compact view in MS Windows Explorer.

The one issue I have is that the Trash is not shared with the standard Gnome trash can. Hopefully this can be fixed in time for Feisty.

ROX rox the box! (1)

hubertf (124995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712624)

I've been in search for a slim "desktop" (only) software recently, and found ROX [sf.net] very nice. It's a filemanager that can also manage the desktop.

See my blog entry [feyrer.de] for other experiences made during the quest for a slim desktop, and what ups and downs I found beyond the "big" desktop environemnts. (Includes a screenshot of my desktop [feyrer.de] :-).


- Hubert

Re:ROX rox the box! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17715130)

Just a note that recent VectorLinux releases have given the option of a ROX-ified XFCE desktop. Pretty nice, & it feels surprisingly modern, even on old machines.

Fantastic!!! (1)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713654)

Now the file manager looks like OSX Finder. This is thrilling, fantastic, wonderful...

Wait...

This is a good thing?

(and this from a self-confesssed Mac addict)

BSD = XFCE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17714194)

They're both acronyms and the last phoneme is the same. I can't see any other similarities.

Re:BSD = XFCE? (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715062)

I think XFCE is the favored DE of some BSD flavors.

Re:BSD = XFCE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17717024)

Only for some uses, PC-BSD, a FreeBSD distribution uses KDE. XFCE is just generally preferred by many users because it's not as giant and bloated as either KDE or GNOME, though it is steadily on the rise and will soon be just as useless.

Fluxbox is lighter (0)

UED++ (1043486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715534)

If you think XFCE is light, try Fluxbox. Doesn't look as impressive but it gets the job done and it's much faster on older hardware.

How up to date is etch's? (1)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17731388)

Xfce4 from etch is 4.3.99.2. That seems pretty close to 4.4.

Thunar, on the other hand is 0.4.0rc1, that seems far off from 0.8.

Same versions for unstable of debian.

I guess once etch is declared stable, there is no chance the new thunar will be hitting stable any time soon?
Check for New 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>