Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 31st Oct 2004 20:40 UTC
Xfce The second beta of the upcoming XFce 4.2 is now available for testing.
Order by: Score:
v cool
by Anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 20:49 UTC
Why not link to Xfce homepage?
by Anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 20:58 UTC

Why not link to Xfce homepage which has the whole information (eg graphical installation wizard). Does gnomefiles.org really needs those extra hits?

Posting links to apps
by Motz on Sun 31st Oct 2004 20:59 UTC

Eugenia, why must you keep linking to Gtk applications via gnomefiles? It's starting to get rather annoying and I can imagine that the developers of the applications would find it so too. They created their project pages to have an impact on the viewer and show them what the project is all about. When you link by proxy of gnomefiles this is missed out upon unless the user clicks through to the project homepage. Please do it in moderation when neccessary, not all of the time - it becomes irritating.

Cool too
by John Blink on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:02 UTC

I like the fact that they have made an installer.
Xfce 4.2-beta2 is the first desktop environment to ship with an easy to use graphical installation wizard, which takes care of compiling and installing Xfce and contributed packages on your computer.

BTW is it possible to minimise windows the old way, which was more like CDE?

RE: Why not link to Xfce homepage?
by Eugenia on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:06 UTC

>Why not link to Xfce homepage which has the whole information

The last time we did, the XFce server was not ready, we had received an email from its admin.

The installer
by Metic on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:11 UTC

Does anyone have experience with the new installer? How well it works, with various flavors of Linux or BSD?

As very few distributions ship with XFce included out of the box so far, an installer like this makes sense, and could increase XFce's popularity too.

(and yep, the link should point to XFce home page instead of gnomefiles.org...)

RE: Cool too
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:11 UTC

No, you cannot minize to desktop unless you use ROX pinboard.

RE: The installer
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:13 UTC

The installer has been tested with FreeBSD, NetBSD and several Linux distributions so far. Its still BETA like Xfce itself and therefore we depend on user help/feedback to make it the perfect installation tool. :-)

Graphical Installer!
by Simon on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:14 UTC

Wow... Gnome take note!!

RE: Why not link to Xfce homepage?
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:16 UTC

Well, I have no problem with Eugenia linking to gnomefiles, she's supporting her site, which is ok IMHO. But it would be nice if a direct link to xfce.org would be included as well.

Debian packages
by AAC CEnsi on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:19 UTC

Debian packages available in os-cillation.de. See:
http://www.os-cillation.com/article.php?sid=37

RE: Graphical Installer
by Julan on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:23 UTC

Didn't Ximian provide a graphical installer for Gnome (Ximian Desktop)?

RE: RE: Graphical Installer
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:24 UTC

Ximian provides Binary installers for Gnome, limited to a few linux distributions.

problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:29 UTC

with every Window Manager, I can send to WM with Rox Filer. Only XFCE handles the Root window different.

Is this now fixed? So I have the right context menu from Rox-Filer over icons and a nice context menu from xfdesktop over the background?

I think, only this way it feels perfect? Or is it only me?

Thx!

Cool. This is ine of the best DE out there
by Aaron on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:35 UTC

Just one question, and apologies to all that hate
it being asked, but we may as well get it out at the
start of the thread. Does it import the Start menu items
from other DE's like the later version of Gnome and KDE ?

RE:Graphical Installer
by Motz on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:36 UTC

Do these run standalone on an X server or do they require a host DE/WM? If the latter is the case then it seems pretty pointless imo, since it can only be installed in the pretty graphical way by those who had the knowledge to install a previous DE a la command line =

Yes, the desktop menu picks up application starters from your system in the usual way as used by KDE and Gnome as well.

RE: RE:Graphical Installer
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:41 UTC

A plain Xserver does the job (tho a window manager would be helpful of course :-). A curses frontend for the installer is planned, but this will take time to finish. It's not a big deal either, since nearly every linux/unix systems installs a graphical environment by default (atleast twm is nearly always installed :-), which can then be used to install Xfce using the installation wizard.

Wow
by Tuaregue on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:47 UTC


1st - Ubuntu
2nd - Windowmaker 0.9
3rd - XFCE with this wow realese
4th - Suse 9.2

What more??? Will Fedora, beat in performance Ubuntu??

Shortcut keys
by Anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:50 UTC

How can I assign shortcut keys for window manager actions and menu items in XFce? Is there a GUI utility for this or do I need to edit some config file?

Cool
by foo on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:53 UTC

Very cool. Sort of breaks package management though. What if I want to upgrade just one part of xfce? What ever happened to autopackage? It seemed like it had a lot of momentum to finally solve the package management problem on linux but they have been pretty quiet lately. It is great that xfce guys are doing this but at the same time it is really unfortunate that they have to.

Also, the distinction between the gtk+ and normal xfce installer is not very clear from the installer web site.

RE: Shortcut keys
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:54 UTC

Yes, Xfce includes a shortcut editor. Just open the settings manager, choose Window manager settings -> Keyboard.

AMD64 Fedora
by Athens101.com on Sun 31st Oct 2004 21:57 UTC

Has ANYONE ever had luck building this on Fedora Core 2 64-bit?

RE: Cool
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:01 UTC

The installer has its own, light-weight package management (it installs package information into $prefix/etc/i2t-packages/xfce4/). The goal of this lightweight package management is to allow for tools to transform the installed component into a native package (RPM, deb, BSD pkg, whatever) later on without being dependent on a specific packaging system. It is planned to have an option in the installer that allows the user to choose, whether he wants to register the Xfce installation with the local package database.

On the different installers: The 'Xfce Installer' contains the core Xfce desktop with all the required components, which can be installed to virtually every directory in your system. The 'Gtk+ Xfce Engine Installer' contains the Xfce Gtk+ Engine and Themes, which must be installed in the same prefix as Gtk+ to work properly. Thats the reason why two installers exists.

RE: Cool
by foo on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:04 UTC

Build failed because of missing howl-devel package and then I had to start from the very beginning. Lame. Oh well I guess this *is* a beta and a first releast so I should shut up.

Very cool in any case and very cool that ultimately it will be possible to integrate with rpm (or whatever) backends.

RE: menu
by Anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:07 UTC

yes

RE: RE: Cool
by Benedikt Meurer on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:09 UTC

Uhm, I don't see why `howl-devel' should be required to build Xfce. From what I know, howl is a Rendezvous implementation for unix/linux.

Way cool apps
by iongion on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:19 UTC

Graphical installers for GNOME :
- Dropeline Gnome, Ximian Gnome.

Linux distros :

1'ST Ubuntu (indeed) ;)
2'ND Slackware (such a clean and easy distro - religious issues posted on the forums made it fall into the nerd side)

1'ST Linux commercial software : VMWare
2'ND Linux commercial software : Cedega + CrossoverOffice

Favourite:
3D - Maya4Linux
2D - Gimp+Sodipodi+Inkscape
IDE : KDevelop
Widget : DiaCanvas(2) + Scintilla
Language : Python
Library : wxWidgets(c++,python,c#)
Tool : ANTLR

Ar you content enough ?

- Just one tool needed in this space : Macr. Flash like IDE for linux.

And the award for the best couple :

Slackware + Dropeline.

RE: Cool
by foo on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:24 UTC

Yeah, I don't really know why either. But, it does. The xfce session manager requires it.

btw, Fedora Core 3 is released!!
by anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 22:53 UTC

cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg)

runs smooth like Heidelberry-Softice ;-)
It's time to forget XFCE and KDE for me, because Gnome's feature of mounting/unmounting with udev/dbus/hal is really really great!

Great, after middle of november I've a full featured Fedora 3 at my Desktop when the rest from freshrpms comes out :-)

Re: btw, Fedora Core 3 is released!!
by Anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 23:13 UTC

>It's time to forget XFCE and KDE for me, because Gnome's
>feature of mounting/unmounting with udev/dbus/hal is really
>really great!

???
That's not a Gnome feature -- it's Freedesktop's work. And BTW, preliminary HAL support has gone into kde cvs last week.

RE: btw, Fedora Core 3 is released!!
by Anonymous on Sun 31st Oct 2004 23:13 UTC

boohoo. Can I kiss you goodbye? *Sigh*

Wonderful!
by X on Sun 31st Oct 2004 23:14 UTC

I like it. I have installed a while ago the 1st beta in SuSE 9.1. This is a wonderful desktop.

@anonymous (dialin)
by AdamW on Mon 1st Nov 2004 01:05 UTC

the Utopia stuff is really meant to be desktop-independent, though GNOME is currently most advanced in implementing it. MDK 10.1 uses some of the Utopia components to do auto-mounting in KDE as well as GNOME.

downloaded it, tried it, don't get it
by foo on Mon 1st Nov 2004 01:47 UTC

Really. Man the file manager is annoying. I double click on the folder in the tree view on the left and the pane on the right doesn't follow. They are both tree views? WTF? Seems, a) bad ui, b) doesn't really work.

The installer was cool though. And xfce is fast. I'll admit that. Gnome, even though it is #1 in my book, has so many issues that it is ripe for someone to eat gnome's lunch. Unfortunately I don't think that "someone" is going to be xfce. What posessed them to create a CDE knockoff? Clue: CDE sucks. Weird.

mmm
by David Pastern on Mon 1st Nov 2004 02:18 UTC

I've been using 4.2 beta 1 now since it was released (on and off between my main desktop environment which is KDE)...it's nice...very nice. Very impressive, very fast. Looks fantastic. Only thing stopping me from going across is the lack of desktop icons...sorry, but I really like my desktop icons! It's not something i'm prepared to part with. Other than that XFCE gets top marks.

Dave

@foo:
by AdamW on Mon 1st Nov 2004 02:20 UTC

that kind of double-panel file manager is a classic design. It makes working with two folders very easy, though it has other drawbacks. Personally I think it was best suited to the DOS days, but hey. Some people love it.

CDE does not suck =)
by Victor Hooi on Mon 1st Nov 2004 02:45 UTC

Hi,

CDE does *not* 'suck'...*grrrr*. Seriously, on SolExpress, I prefer it over Gnome for the 1. consistency, 2. lightweight, and 3. somebody actually bothered to put some thought into UI design, layout, structure etc.

Bye,
Victor

missing sounds
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Nov 2004 03:05 UTC

Replace xfterm4 with aterm and xffm with xfe and you've got a very attractive desktop in XFce4. The only thing I'm really missing are the funny sounds for window manager actions from XFce3. I've saved the XFce3 sound files and now I use them in Window Maker. :p

Amazing
by eightiesdude on Mon 1st Nov 2004 03:20 UTC

The last one I tried was xfce4.02 on debian found this story and someone posted the deb servers for the beta. I installed it and all i can see is holy moly batman! I love this new look, fonts, clean and the speed of it. It is so nice. Great work XFCE team keep it going please.

File manager?
by opa on Mon 1st Nov 2004 03:48 UTC

Has the file manager recieved much love, and if so, how is it?

I found the file manager in 4.0x to be pretty awful, and ended up really just making use of ls, mv and rm and occasionally mc instead.

Nice... very nice
by harper on Mon 1st Nov 2004 04:30 UTC

KDE and Gnome should have such wonderfully easy ways to install

RE: File manager?
by earlymorning on Mon 1st Nov 2004 04:40 UTC

Beeing a long time XFCE user I must admit that the filemanager shipped with XFCE4 is its weakest point for the following reasons:

1. Its bad UI (this is subjective yes, but honestly it really is bad - the UI mimics nothing familiar)
2. Its more than a file manager, its also a network browser (which also makes some annoying requirements, nmblookup etc.)
3. Has some predefined items such as "Book" ?? Why this in a file manager? What if I also wanted "Fish" for my fish files?

All in all I think that the XFCE4 team should reconsider the design layout of the "file manager", and also reconsider what constitutes a "file manager" because xffm4 seems too bloated at the moment. Currently they would be better off not including xffm4 as it is looking now in my opinion.

Keep it simple, it should be _just_ a filemanager managing files via an intuitive UI.

Re: File manager? Fish???
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Nov 2004 07:01 UTC

Do you have "Fish" files???? I have electronic books... never saw an electronic fish (well, just a screensaver)

Re: RE: File manager?
by Artem on Mon 1st Nov 2004 07:11 UTC

"3. Has some predefined items such as "Book" ?? Why this in a file manager? What if I also wanted "Fish" for my fish files?"

I guess this is bookmarks :-)

Got parted with XFCE some time ago
by Artem on Mon 1st Nov 2004 07:43 UTC

I used to use XFCE 4.0 exclusively before KDE 3.2. And then I found that I can happily use KDE with prelinking enabled and all eyecandy turned off (including wallpapers and K menu picture). I really can't see any difference in speed (besides launching times, which are not bad too thanks to the prelinking) -- and this is on Celeron 266 with 128M RAM! But the gain in functionality is significant.

The main reasons why XFCE loses IMO compared to KDE are the following:

* Panel functionality. As much progress as XFCE has made with 4.2, the panel stays basically the same: you have to open a dialog that creates an application launcher and then manually enter information in it. I think in the 21 century it's become pretty standard to be able to drag-n-drop a launcher on the panel from the application menu.

* Application Menu. I understand that this is the first implementation, but the way it exists today, application menu in XFCE is extremely messy compared to KDE's or GNOME's.

* Desktop icons. Those who say that desktop icons are bad believe usually that they exist for launching apps, and for this kind of use they are indeed useless. But desktop is NOT a kind of launcher panel! To me, it is a special filemanager window that is accessible by one click (the Show Desktop button) and DOES NOT TAKE SPACE ON THE TASKBAR! This is the location where you put all the stuff you haven't yet decided where to put, and for such a purpose desktop icons make perfect sense.

I heard though that the panel is going to be rewritten in the future (probably in the 4.4 version), so maybe it will invalidate some of my complaints...

@earlymoring
by opa on Mon 1st Nov 2004 08:43 UTC

I agree fully. I honestly find it practically unusable while the rest of XFCE is _amazing_. You'd think they'd wonder why Cobind (for example) ships with Nautilus as opposed to XFFM.

They really should do something like navigational mode Nautilus. Have a bar at the top with Back, Forward, Reload, Home buttons etc. Then also have a sidebar like Nautilus, with a dropdown menu with the following views: information (on the selected file), search (and make it optionally plug into some metadata system, perhaps libextractor + libdoodle?) and history. Sure, it may not be particularly innovative, but it would work.

...
by opa on Mon 1st Nov 2004 08:44 UTC

...and one of the views would tree view, so it was like Windows Explorer, like in Nautilus.

File manager
by rehdon on Mon 1st Nov 2004 09:31 UTC

Last time I tried XFce (4.0), I liked all of it except for the file manager: is it the same one? is it easy to integrate Rox instead of xffm?

rehdon

RE: File manager
by bogomipz on Mon 1st Nov 2004 10:40 UTC

In my experience, ROX-Filer works very well with any WM/DE, including XFCE. I haven't tried ROX's desktop icons combined with xfdesktop, though. If I wanted desktop icons and this combo didn't work, I would disable xfdesktop (actually, I did that last time I tried xfce4 anyway because i prefer setting my wallpaper with something like Esetroot and xfdesktop didn't really add any value)

No matter what environment I try switching to, I always seem to end up back with Openbox + Rox, though.

Startup load time?
by agva on Mon 1st Nov 2004 11:22 UTC

I was just wondering whether the startup load time improved with this beta2? The first thing I notice with beta1 was that it was significantly slower to load, compared to the 4.06 version. I tried to disable the session manager by unchecking it, which i thought might improve the time, but had no effect.
thanks

RE: Startup load time?
by Benedikt Meurer on Mon 1st Nov 2004 12:23 UTC

Disable the splash screen.

problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by anonymous on Mon 1st Nov 2004 13:47 UTC

with every Window Manager, I can send to WM with Rox Filer. Only XFCE handles the Root window different.

Is this now fixed? So I have the right context menu from Rox-Filer over icons and a nice context menu from xfdesktop over the background?

I think, only this way it feels perfect? Or is it only me?

Thx!

Addon: how can I set other sizes for panel than small, normal, big etc, eg. 32,33,34.. pixels?
If I set it to small, the panel is to small and if I set it to normal the panel is to big and for eg, logout/lock buttons does have 2 rows instead of 1 row. It's to much wasting space.
Also I think, the sound properties size is always to small on a small panel and to big on a big panel size.
Please have look at KDE, Gnome, etc...-Panels to compare and know what I mean.

Thx again!

RE: problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by Jasper on Mon 1st Nov 2004 14:10 UTC

It can't be 'fixed' because it isn't broken. It simply cannot work together because the designs are mutually exclusive.

Both ROX and xfdesktop (and GNOME, and KDE) use a fullscreen window as desktop background.

You either have to convince ROX to add an application menu, or wait for Xfce to add icons on the desktop (it will happen, eventually).

RE: Startup load time?
by agva on Mon 1st Nov 2004 15:15 UTC

Yes, i disabled the splash screen too

RE: problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by bogomipz on Mon 1st Nov 2004 16:32 UTC

Both ROX and xfdesktop (and GNOME, and KDE) use a fullscreen window as desktop background.

Not true. Rox doesn't use a fullscreen window for the pinboard any more. It did ages ago, but that's history. I've used it with Openbox's, WindowMaker's and a few other WMs' root menus and it works just great.

As I mentioned before, I haven't tried it with xfdesktop because I didn't use that part of XFCE4.

RE: problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by Jasper on Mon 1st Nov 2004 19:31 UTC

Both ROX and xfdesktop (and GNOME, and KDE) use a fullscreen window as desktop background.

Not true. Rox doesn't use a fullscreen window for the pinboard any more. It did ages ago, but that's history. I've used it with Openbox's, WindowMaker's and a few other WMs' root menus and it works just great.


Sure it does. It forwards events to the X root window, which are picked up by the window managers you mention.

Xfce is designed differently, using xfdesktop and a fullscreen desktop window and as a consequence what you want can not work for Xfce. Sorry.

RE: problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by bogomipz on Mon 1st Nov 2004 20:28 UTC

Jasper, you're right. I was too sure that I had set my wallpaper with a setroot-style program and at the same time used Rox's pinboard. I just checked; adding a pinboard made the root-window invisible.

I never said that Xfce wasn't different from *box, wmaker and so on, though.

RE: problem with ROX-Filer fixed?
by Jasper on Mon 1st Nov 2004 20:35 UTC

I never said that Xfce wasn't different from *box, wmaker and so on, though.

Heh, no you didn't. I was trying to explain why it does work with WindowMaker and Openbox and not with Xfce ;-)

Taskbar
by Naheem on Mon 1st Nov 2004 21:33 UTC

Hi

I have installed the taskbar plugin for xfce 4.2beta2. No I can get a taskbar in the panel, but cannot disable the original taskbar

I have FC3T3, up to date, and can not seem to disable xftaskbar4

RE: Taskbar
by Naheem on Mon 1st Nov 2004 21:48 UTC

Done it! just type 'pkill xftaskbar4', and save session when logging out!

I got the original plugin from here: ftp://www.os-cillation.de/installers/ as the source would not compile for me, and the other plugins from here:http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/

I used the gui source install for XFce4.2beta2

(Extra info if other n00bs have problems as well.)

No built-in icons?!?
by sLiCeR on Mon 1st Nov 2004 23:32 UTC

I notices that i cant see any standard-icons, neither in the startbar nor in setup ;)