To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I actually don't get what's so great about XFCE. Everthing else about the article I understand, but XFCE... I guess I just don't get it. Personally I find its interface far too limiting in terms of customizability compared to the likes of KDE or Gnome, and not particularly visually attractive either. (I admit that KDE can seem a bit flashy and have too many options sometimes, but if you put in the effort it can be customized to perfection). Anyway, the last version of XFCE I tried was over a year ago, when everyone was suddenly espousing the greatness of XFCE as the best DE alternative.... and within a few minutes of using it I got annoyed because it seemed near impossible to add all the icons I wanted, in whatever order I wanted, to the bar without jumping through hoops, so I gave up on it. What makes XFCE (current version or just in general) so special? Or is it just another case of certain people liking minimalism, the same thing which has always kept customizers like me steering clear of the likes of Fluxbox?
Edited 2006-10-12 18:57
I would suggest just trying Xfce 4.4 when it comes out (shouldn't be too long). The panel app has been completely rewritten, so you may find it more customizable. Thunar with desktop icons also makes a nice addition (my favorite file manager, much better than xffm IMO).
Thanks I'll take a look at at the OS9 docs.
Whenever I've looked at OS9, it didn't look like the kind of thing that was very close to being able to run X11 with a standard window manager. Part of the criteria stated in the article is that it must be doable with 1 mil Euros and 1 year.
I knew about the app folders implementation in OSX. The fonts layout sound like it's well designed too. Unfortunately, OSX is tied to proprietary hardware that I can't afford. I haven't used MacOS since 7.x but I wonder if a lot of the good apps are still shareware rather than free? That was one of the other criteria, that the system be based on OSS and give access to loads of FOSS.
How viable running X11 (for day to day use) on top of MacOS would be, I'm not quite sure as I don't have much experience with a recent MacOS.
Mike
Edited 2006-10-13 01:27






Member since:
2006-03-31
"...The directory layout would not be based around Unix/Linux conventions. For example, why not store the fonts in '/fonts'? Again, I know that some Linux people find ``either /usr/opt/etc/X11/fonts or /etc/X11/usr/fonts depending on the phase of the moon'' a bit easier to remember than '/fonts'..."
I recommend the author to read a few Plan9 papers, especially this one:
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html
Also the author should look more into OS X. It already has a lot of these features, especially the whole fonts bit. Fonts are stored in /Library/Fonts for all users, or ~/Library/Fonts for yourself. And it has an X server. And it has a decent GUI, but not nearly as efficient as xfce.