Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Sep 2005 13:38 UTC, submitted by Erik Harrison
Xfce "Every major release of the 4.x series of Xfce has been pretty major. 4.0 was the result of over a years work, a major rewrite of the entire desktop. 4.2 saw the introduction of major features and enhancements that were incomplete for 4.0, and new developers as Xfce4 gained popularity. 4.4 is going to be a major upgrade to Xfce, with new components, major upgrades to old ones, and more tools for developers. So, without further ado, let's take a look at what's coming."
Thread beginning with comment 27556
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: not for me
by on Mon 5th Sep 2005 15:16 UTC

Member since:

If you like your desktop to act like one big application, why aren't you using Windows? Everything is integrated and works more tightly than any desktop environment available today (Gnome, for example, doesn't even have a clipboard). The UNIX tradition is to have specialized, modular components that make up the desktop as a whole.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: not for me
by CaptainPinko on Mon 5th Sep 2005 20:59 in reply to "RE: not for me"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

The UNIX tradition is to have specialized, modular components that make up the desktop as a whole.

I think KDE is more unified than Windows especially with KParts etc. And I disagree about being unified being unUnix-like. Having all your applications linked together is like having pipes between bash commands inseatd of writiing everything to a file and processing every seperately. I think the concept of Unix is to unify and work together seemlessly (e.g. NFS mounts behave like a local harddrive).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: not for me
by japail on Tue 6th Sep 2005 01:20 in reply to "RE[2]: not for me"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Frankly who cares how "UNIX-like" something is? What matters is what's most convenient for people to actually use, not worrying about how something compares to an anachronistic snapshot of behavior.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: not for me
by Terracotta on Mon 5th Sep 2005 21:08 in reply to "RE: not for me"
Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

"The UNIX tradition is to have specialized, modular components that make up the desktop as a whole."

This goes for the underlying programs itself, not for the gui-stuff. Where one program might do it for a lot of people, one user interface won't do it. So the good thing about the unix-stuff is that under the hood they are trying to have the same stuff. But how every thing is implemented in a gui, that's more for other people to decide, than the programmers. I think that's something that's been worked on in KDE as well, having the programmers create the underhood stuff, and artists and users create the gui. For example every burning application in linux is using the same program to burn it, but just has a different gui. That's the strength of it. Sorry my english is bad, but I hope I made my point clear.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: not for me
by elsewhere on Mon 5th Sep 2005 21:25 in reply to "RE: not for me"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

If you like your desktop to act like one big application, why aren't you using Windows? Everything is integrated and works more tightly than any desktop environment available today (Gnome, for example, doesn't even have a clipboard). The UNIX tradition is to have specialized, modular components that make up the desktop as a whole.

So integration and ease-of-use have no place on the *nx desktop, and the only alternative is Windows ?

A good DE should match the user's requirements, not the other way aorund. Xfce likely won't appeal to the kde crowd and vice versa, but there's certainly enough room at the table for both and more. Choice and freedom is good, isn't that the LINUX tradition?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: not for me
by DigitalAxis on Wed 7th Sep 2005 05:53 in reply to "RE[2]: not for me"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Actually, I can't stand Gnome (trying to change the default application for opening files or really anything at all was a royal pain, and I eventually switched to Kubuntu), but for a lightweight desktop I love XFCE4.

I resurrected a Pentium II 333 Mhz machine (that had Gentoo and Fluxbox on it, running extremely crippled for security/obscurity reasons) to run XFCE4, and it runs nearly as fast as the other Windows machines around it- which are also dog slow: Pentium III 500 Mhz machines...

That's

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: not for me
by kaiwai on Tue 6th Sep 2005 01:54 in reply to "RE: not for me"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

True to a certain extent, but it isn't about integration, it is about expandability - everything has a plugin interface; there is no need to have the functionality loaded all the time; load it when required, and when the function is no longer required, unload the plugin.

The key to saving memory is re-using components; create a tool kit of components and re-use them again and again; don't have a different rendering engine for each application, re-use the same engine again and again.

That is where Mozilla came unstuck, they tried to do everything when what they should have done, was simply create a core; rendering engine, JS Support etc. then provide interfaces where by people can embed the core into applications - without the need to carry around the XUL bloat, which quite frankly, is a waste of time and has yet to be proven, outside of Mozilla, as a viable development platform for commercial applications, both locally hosted and remote.

Reply Parent Score: 1