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 27683
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: not for me
by japail on Tue 6th Sep 2005 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: not for me"
Member since:

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[4]: not for me
by DigitalAxis on Wed 7th Sep 2005 06:02 in reply to "RE[3]: not for me"
DigitalAxis Member since:

It's not anachronistic, it's just one way of doing things. Either you have systems that attempt to do everything as an all-in-one solution, or you have small modular linkable programs that do one thing and do it well.

KDE more or less follows the small modular linkable programs idea- the supposed bloat seems to come from the fact that they include small modular programs for every purpose under the sun, that they distribute in large bunches. Well, that and the way that all the interconnected libraries, once loaded, take up a lot of room.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: not for me
by japail on Sat 10th Sep 2005 01:17 in reply to "RE[4]: not for me"
japail Member since:

The UNIX mechanism of redirecting untyped data through pipes and massaging it as text through a number of intermediaries is anachronistic. Component-oriented development has evolved considerably on all platforms, including both Windows and KDE. Suggesting that a methodology is valid because it's "UNIX-like" (that can either mean any historical snapshot of the platform's lifetime since the '70s or it can continually change meaning as the platform evolves) is stupid, whereas justifying it based upon advantages is quite sensible. If I said component-oriented development was great because it was Windows-like, I think you'd see the obvious silliness a bit better.

Reply Parent Score: 1