XFce Desktop 4 Released

Cutest logo by questamor · 2003-09-25 16:36 · Score: 4, Funny

I vote for xfce as having the dang cutest logo yet.

*squeeee* lil rodent

Re:Cutest logo by commodoresloat · 2003-09-25 16:39 · Score: 5, Funny

yeah but how many buttons on that mouse?
Re:Cutest logo by questamor · 2003-09-25 16:40 · Score: 1

You get my vote to be modded up. thank you. I laughed a lot =).
Re:Cutest logo by ProfessionalCookie · 2003-09-25 16:44 · Score: 3, Funny
I vote for xfce as having the dang cutest logo yet.
- Laden or Unladen?
- African or European?
Re:Cutest logo by code_echelon · 2003-09-25 16:46 · Score: 1

They are trying to get across a new way of computing see the X and the mouse represent a ten button mouse. They use roman numerals to take them back on a flashback to there legacy system days. I look forward to my new computing with my ten button mouse and will be getting rid of my keyboards after this post.
Re:Cutest logo by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-09-25 16:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Unladen, it's not a terrorist after all.

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Cutest logo by devphaeton · 2003-09-25 16:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I say we have 2 8-button mice in stereo... plus foot pedals on the floor.

Fwiw i've been using XFCE4 for about 3 months now. I finally made the step up from Windowmaker or Blackbox to a "huge" Desktop Environment ;)

--

do() || do_not(); // try();
Re:Cutest logo by bastard42 · 2003-09-25 17:14 · Score: 1

I vote for xfce as having the dang cutest logo yet.

My vote goes to Glenda, the Plan 9 Bunny. Astronaut bunnys, can't get much cuter.
Re:Cutest logo by Aqua+OS+X · 2003-09-25 17:59 · Score: 1

Yup, I want to pet the ^#$@ out of that cute bastard. More tech companies need cute logos.

--
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Re:Cutest logo by perlyking · 2003-09-25 20:08 · Score: 1

Its a girl?
I always thought it was male because at a glance it looks like it has a moustache.

--
no sig.
Re:Cutest logo by Organized+Konfusion · 2003-09-25 20:20 · Score: 1

Only two mice?

I have three connected to this computer, they are all wireless and they are all on my desk right now.
Re:Cutest logo by bastard42 · 2003-09-25 22:44 · Score: 1

Does it matter? All bunnies look the same to me :)

I think the name comes from the movie "Glen or Glenda", where Ed Wood (director of "Plan 9 from Outer Space") justifies being a transvestite.

Astronauts are cool,
chris
Re:Cutest logo by Jaysyn · 2003-09-26 00:44 · Score: 1

If you really want a 10 button mouse, just hack a Logitech Optical together with a Claw.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Cutest logo by Progman3K · 2003-09-26 00:44 · Score: 1

How should I kn-- *whah!*

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Cutest logo by code_echelon · 2003-09-26 02:24 · Score: 1

You are a genius, however with a claw in each hand I could have 12 buttons. Thats perfect and mac users say u only need one button. Simpletons!
Re:Cutest logo by Jaysyn · 2003-09-26 08:06 · Score: 1

Umm wouldn't it be 20 buttons?

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Cutest logo by code_echelon · 2003-09-26 12:12 · Score: 1

Damn these evil keyboards and your mathmatical skill.

The joy of screenshots by commodoresloat · 2003-09-25 16:41 · Score: 5, Funny

It's incredible, really. Here I was reading slashdot, trying to procrastinate doing some work, but it's the same stories I read earlier.... just when I am almost forced to stop reading /. and actually do some work, along comes slashdot not only with a new story for me to procrastinate more, but a story that involves looking at pictures of other people doing work! Thank you slashdot!!

Re:The joy of screenshots by sinserve · 2003-09-25 17:09 · Score: 4, Funny

I spent the day pushing my "good boy" debian stable to the dark side by introducing it
to the sinful pleasures of the "unstable" apt sources. In the process, I documented
minor GNOME quirks and posted a couple of screen shots to freshmeat. I still have to
configure VideoLAN since I am missing the OGG codecs.

So you see, not every screenshot envolves a "working" person, some of us are just
broken.

lighter is better by SHEENmaster · 2003-09-25 16:42 · Score: 5, Informative

I run TWM on my server and OpenBox on my iBook. Smaller window managers leave more ram and more proc. time for the processes that matter.

Try comparing compile times of the kernel between TWM and KDE3, no surprise which will win.

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:lighter is better by phraktyl · 2003-09-25 16:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I agree. I'm a big supporter of light. I use PWM. All keyboard shortcuts. No cute GUI stuff. And very fast...

--
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
Re:lighter is better by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 16:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Depends on what the box is like for me.

My laptop? Blackbox. Small, sweet, sexy.

My workstation? KDE3. My workstation has the beef to handle running it and anything else at the same time. Plus, there's the aesthetic advantage.

I'm not talking about crazy eyecandy and sickening animated whatnots; rather, everything looks like it belongs on the desktop. I open up the mail program, it looks and feels the same as the browser. Et cetera.

Can't really get that on 'light' wm's without all sorts of crazy hax0ring. (Or, installing a 'heavy' desktop environment and just using the apps.)
Re:lighter is better by bersl2 · 2003-09-25 17:03 · Score: 1

Similar thing with me. I run a simple Fvwm environment on everything I have. And Slack. I like my overhead at a minimum, so that all my programs get the resources.

After all, I'm trying to escape the 'Doze, ain't I? Why waste cycles and memory on fancy effects? It can look pretty without all the sugar.
Re:lighter is better by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 17:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

I used pwm right up until i found pekwm.

I'm not so sure about their post-1.2 development, which is adding on a lot i don't really need, but pre- that it's been great.
Re:lighter is better by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 17:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Use ratpoison - when that one app is the only app on the desktop, it fits in with everything else on screen.

Personally, all i want is very little. Small title bar and window dressings, no icons (wtf are they for???), no "start up bar", and tabbed windows so i dont need twenty million separate windows and/or icons. My window dressings are so small they fit with everything else. My mail client (and most everything i do, minus web browsing) is via terminal windows, so my text can fit with anything. pekwm satisfies my needs.
Re:lighter is better by belrick · 2003-09-25 17:16 · Score: 1, Redundant

Lightweight? Hah! Who needs pixellated wm's when you can have screen! All ASCII, all the time! And detachable sessions. Who could ask for more?
Re:lighter is better by beddess · 2003-09-25 17:17 · Score: 1

you do realize you can kill kde while you're compiling something big when you're in a rush right?

The whole point is that KDE or any of the other more involved desktop environments is doing more things for you than twm and will obviously take up more resources.

--
"Weasling out of work is important to learn; it is what separates humans from animals. Except for weasels."
Re:lighter is better by kfg · 2003-09-25 18:23 · Score: 1

". . .icons (wtf are they for???)"

My mom. Got a problem with that?

Doan'chew go talkin' 'bout mah Mama.

But I'm workin' on her. I sat her down at a Mandrake/KDE box ( she uses Mac OS8 ) and she took right to it. No problemo.

I'm breaking her in to the terminal. She's pretty adaptable for a 70 year old.

KFG
Re:lighter is better by grumbel · 2003-09-25 18:26 · Score: 1

With todays processors I don't care all that much about CPU time, but much more about my time. If a good window manager (sawfish here) can save me time and improve my workflow, a bit of wasted CPU and RAM is well worth it, after all that CPU is idling half of the time anyway, so why should I care?
Re:lighter is better by shellbeach · 2003-09-25 18:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Try comparing compile times of the kernel between TWM and KDE3, no surprise which will win.
But there is a "middle-ground" between butt-ugly TWM and big-and-bloated KDE (which is also, IMHO, butt-ugly, but that's more because I can't see the GUI for the kitchen sink that's in the way ...)
That's why environments like xfce, ROX, WindowMaker and IceWM exist - providing speed, but not at the expense of being so minimal they interfere with usability. I'm currently using IceWM and ROX as a desktop, but having had a quick look at xfce4 I'll certainly give it a try. It looks very neat indeed ...
Re:lighter is better by shellbeach · 2003-09-25 19:00 · Score: 1

I run a simple Fvwm environment on everything I have.
Heh, I hate to tell you this, but I had a quick look at FVWM and FVWM isn't simple any more! It's now got themes (as in window decorations)! And png support! Even the menu looks half-decent!
Who'd have thought it ... ??
Re:lighter is better by ajr_trm · 2003-09-25 20:08 · Score: 1

I use WMX. It has virtual desktops you can switch using mouse wheel or keyboard. It also lets you switch beetween windows in very convenient way (one keystroke or pressing mouse right button).
Re:lighter is better by noselasd · 2003-09-25 20:58 · Score: 1

Also compare the compile time between tcc(http://wandel.ca/homepage/tcc/) and gcc(http://gcc.gnu.org).
gcc compile is quite a few tens of thousands % slower, and tcc uses _significantly_ less memory. Does that mean tcc is better and fits most peoples needs ? I think not.
Re:lighter is better by noselasd · 2003-09-25 21:02 · Score: 1

ahem.. I meant the tcc at (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/tcc/index.org.html ;)
Re:lighter is better by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2003-09-26 00:16 · Score: 1

I run TWM on my server

This begs the question:

Why the hell are you running a WM at all on a Server? Your workstation, OK I can see that (I wouldn't live without my WM of choice on my workstation), but on a Server?

--
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Re:lighter is better by CommandNotFound · 2003-09-26 01:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not talking about crazy eyecandy and sickening animated whatnots; rather, everything looks like it belongs on the desktop. I open up the mail program, it looks and feels the same as the browser. Et cetera.

XFCE4 uses the Gnome theme settings, so once you set the theme in XFCE, then Evolution, etc, all look the same. You can then set a similar theme in kcontrol for KDE, and everything looks unified.

And BTW, I'm runnning this lightweight WM on a Dual Athlon 2600+ with a Gig of ram, and I can still feel the speed difference between it and KDE/Gnome. Regardless of the speed, my favorite feature is switching desktops with the scroll wheel. :)
Re:lighter is better by talmage · 2003-09-26 01:38 · Score: 1

I agree about that but I think that all modern window managers get it wrong. They aren't built according to the UNIX philosophy of small programs that work together.

Window managers should manage (decorate, place, tile, open, close, resize) windows. They shouldn't manage desktops, deal with icons, handle keyboard mappings, or provide an application menu. Those actions are the jobs of other programs.

If there was a window manager and a suite of supporting programs, then you could have more choices about the way you work. You could choose the best of breed, the supporting programs that work the way that you want.
Re:lighter is better by Cro+Magnon · 2003-09-26 01:44 · Score: 1

I agree! TWM is, well, nothing! Just an xterm to run X programs at the command line. KDE is ok on a brand new box, but on older boxen it's a big fat pig (Gnome too). Xfce provides some functionality, but it's much faster than KDE/Gnome, and I like it better than the other "mid-size" envionments that I've tried.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:lighter is better by FroMan · 2003-09-26 02:19 · Score: 1

One time for kicks, I wanted to figure out how much ram is 768Mb, so what I did was this:

Loaded X, with KDE, with Mozilla with as many tabs as I have bookmarks (~25), then konqueror, then gimp with about 40 pictures, then openoffice. Then gnucash. Then on and on, with every app that I thought would take up as much memory as possible.

I did finally touch swap. But it was quite a while later.

Saving a little memory on the window manager isn't that big of a deal.

That being said, I usually use window maker as my window manager, since I find gnome and kde too much. Simplicity is nice, but memory footprint isn't much of an issue on a
desktop.

Also, unless you are short on memory, your kde/twm compile shouldn't have much, if any difference. Compiling the kernel is mainly a IO bound or CPU bound, memory isn't really used that much by the compiler.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:lighter is better by pavon · 2003-09-26 03:04 · Score: 1

Yes, and actually TWM and FVWM are not actually the lightest window managers around, just the simplest.
Re:lighter is better by julesh · 2003-09-26 03:23 · Score: 1

Why the hell are you running a WM at all on a Server? Your workstation, OK I can see that (I wouldn't live without my WM of choice on my workstation), but on a Server?

I have run WMs on my server. I occasionally use Xvnc to access the server's desktop to run config utilities, etc, and at that point in time you kind of need a window manager (OK, I could just run Xvnc and put apps directly onto it, but it wouldn't exactly be pleasant...).
Re:lighter is better by julesh · 2003-09-26 03:27 · Score: 1

Also, unless you are short on memory, your kde/twm compile shouldn't have much, if any difference. Compiling the kernel is mainly a IO bound or CPU bound, memory isn't really used that much by the compiler.

That's what I thought at first, but there is a lot of I/O going on, and a lot of it is repetitive (loading include files, compiler support files, stuff like that) and can benefit from a large disk cache. Don't know how much it uses, but would be unsurprised if it couldn't benefit from at least 50 or so Mb. So on a 128Mb machine (not uncommon still) your desktop environment could start hurting it, and on a 64Mb machine it almost certainly does.

Not a huge amount, though.
Re:lighter is better by Janon · 2003-09-26 05:14 · Score: 1

You know, that is what xfce 4 is.

--
And poke her, with the soft cushions!!!
Re:lighter is better by talmage · 2003-09-26 06:01 · Score: 1

The last time I looked at xfce, there was no separate program for menu and for translating keystrokes into window manager events. I'll give xfce 4 a closer look.
Re:lighter is better by markhb · 2003-09-26 08:43 · Score: 1

I agree. I'm a big supporter of light. I use PWM. All keyboard shortcuts. No cute GUI stuff. And very fast..

You use my local airport for a desktop???

Remainder of my .sig: be the majority of voters.

--
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Re:lighter is better by talmage · 2003-09-27 00:32 · Score: 1

OK, I installed xfce4. xfdesktop manages the root menu. That's good. It looks like xfwm4 manages keystrokes. That's not good. It's not as bad as, say, watching your cat get hit by a car, but it's not the way I want my window manager to behave.

Does it support a scrolling viewport? by Esekla · 2003-09-25 16:43 · Score: 1

Where your monitor seems to be a moveable window on a workspace that is bigger than the monitor's viewable area? This feature is the one thing that's kept me with fvwm all this time. I don't like seperate desktops.

Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by silvaran · 2003-09-25 16:46 · Score: 2, Informative

The desktop environment / window manager is irrelevant in this case. You want X to take care of that. man XF86Config and do a search ('/') for "Virtual"... It'll make the virtual desktop as large as your video card can handle (usually the same as the video card's max resolution). You'll get your movable window.
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by Esekla · 2003-09-25 17:09 · Score: 1

As large as my video card's max resolution? That won't do it. My current workspace is 3840x3072 and I'm sure my video card can't handle that resolution. Granted, I seldom use more than half that workspace, but being limited to my video card's resolution wouldn't cut it, so I think I still want fvwm's implementation.
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by gaijin99 · 2003-09-25 17:39 · Score: 1

Where your monitor seems to be a moveable window on a workspace that is bigger than the monitor's viewable area? This feature is the one thing that's kept me with fvwm all this time. I don't like seperate desktops.

Just goes to show, I suppose. I can't stand having a workspace bigger than my monitor. I have to be too careful moving to the "edge" when I want to use a scroll bar. Which is the best thing about Linux, you can have what you want, and I can have what I want.
Though, I did have to manually tweak my XF86Config file after I installed Gentoo, for whatever reason it defaulted to a screen bigger than my monitor. Dunno why.

--
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by HermesHuang · 2003-09-25 19:13 · Score: 1

I use an xfce plugin in fvwm2 and get the advantages of both. It takes a bit of work to get it going, and I'm an extreme desktop user (I use a desktop space that's 6 times my screen size) but it handles it just fine because it's fvwm2 managing the desks.
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by SharpFang · 2003-09-25 20:26 · Score: 2, Informative

It's all matter of scrolling distance setup. If you have edgescroll set to 50-100%, it's real pain in the ass. Set scroll to 5% and the fact that your screen shifts when you touch the edge with your cursor becomes a great feature instead of a problem.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by SharpFang · 2003-09-25 20:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I use Afterstep (it's Great!) for that, with desktop size like 7000x7000, and I often use more than 50% of it - in rather random pattern so that if it was smaller, things would get locally crowded. Afterstep has that great app of Pager that allows you to navigate the desktop quickly, move windows around, etc. Plus looks that beat most of the others. (say, Enlightenment was prettier, but Enlightenment wasn't something that one could use as a standalone DM.)

I just never use "minimise" :)

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by BrokenHalo · 2003-09-25 23:07 · Score: 1

I was under the impression you could have a bigger desktop than the window space under any desktop environment. IIRC, that's an X11 function, you don't have to use fvwm.
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by BrokenHalo · 2003-09-25 23:09 · Score: 1

Personally, I find it hard to cope with huge workspaces; I find it more useful to just have more of them, with a good switcher.
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by CommandNotFound · 2003-09-26 01:16 · Score: 1

This feature is the one thing that's kept me with fvwm all this time. I don't like seperate desktops.

XFCE will let you switch desktops with the scroll wheel, which I found to be extremely productive. WindowMaker can do this too. All you have to do is put the pointer over any part of the desktop and you can instantly switch to the previous/next desktop. Avoids the window placement issues of mega-desktops.
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by Surreal_Streaker · 2003-09-26 01:51 · Score: 1

Though, I did have to manually tweak my XF86Config file after I installed Gentoo, for whatever reason it defaulted to a screen bigger than my monitor. Dunno why.
the problem with the screen size being too big, is referred to as virtual desktop. use the xfree setup and, make sure your desktop and virtual desktop are the same size, or that virtual desktop is disabled. this varies depending on the tool you are using to configure X.
--http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/archive/ 2/2003/05/4/62619
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by gaijin99 · 2003-09-26 02:05 · Score: 1

the problem with the screen size being too big, is referred to as virtual desktop. use the xfree setup and, make sure your desktop and virtual desktop are the same size, or that virtual desktop is disabled. this varies depending on the tool you are using to configure X.

Actually, I tried that. For whatever reason the "disable virtual desktop" option did not, in fact, disable the virtual desktop. Dunno why.
Not that it was too difficult to tweak the file by hand. Actually, I've been learning more about how to properly setup a Linux box since I got Gentoo than I ever knew before, so its not really a bad thing that I had to learn how to manually configure X.

--
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by Surreal_Streaker · 2003-09-26 02:31 · Score: 1

IIRC the other option is that your default desktop size is smaller than annother possible desktop size...
Re:Does it support a scrolling viewport? by Topos23 · 2003-09-26 04:37 · Score: 1

Using the mouse is a pain for me.
I use fvwm2 with a desktop 9x the
screen size, laid out in 3x3 square,
and mapped the number pad keys to each desktop.
With one keyclick I go to a specific desktop.

Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-09-25 16:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

How funny, just last week I was wondering what desktop to put on an old P133 with 48mb of RAM. I stumbled on Xfce and I was going to try the 4.0 release candidates. Does anyone here use Xfce, and if so, how well would you expect it to run on this computer ? Any tips ?

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!

Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Door-opening+Fascist · 2003-09-25 16:49 · Score: 5, Informative

I use it. Right now, I'm using it on a dual 450MHz Xeon machine with 1GB of RAM, and it's just snappy. At home, I've run it on a 133MHz 486 with 32MB of RAM, and it's just snappy. At work, I run it on 2.0GHz P-4s with 512MB of RAM, and it's snappier. :)

In short, as long as you can run X, you can run XFce. I really like it because of its extensible and easy configuration (an uncommon combination, unfortunately), in addition to its low memory and CPU footprint.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-09-25 16:53 · Score: 1

I'm tempted to try it on my main computer, but I like KDE. Also, the wife is still getting used to Linux, so I don't want to switch everything on her :)

I'm putting this on my P133 for sure. Thanks for the input.

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Door-opening+Fascist · 2003-09-25 16:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I started using Linux back in the Red Hat 5 days, and XFce was really the only good desktop available at the time. At one side of the spectrum was TWM (which, IMHO, is too minimalist), and at the other was GNOME (which defintely was too big and too buggy). XFce landed nicely in the middle, and actually hooked the entire family. My dad, mom, and sister all still use XFce when they use the Linux machine, so it's not impossible to convert people over. :)
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · 2003-09-25 16:59 · Score: 1

There's no reason that it shouldn't co-exist with KDE quite happily. Its quite a small set of binaries when compiled, and you can just shut down X and invoke "startxfce4" to start it, XScreensaver and XWindows all in one fell swoop.

For comparison, I run it ( and Kahakai until this morning ) on a Celeron 300 laptop with 96Mb of ram, and it has never slowed down enough for me to notice it. I would consider the performance comparable to Kahakai.

YLFI

--
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by BladeMelbourne · 2003-09-25 17:05 · Score: 1

48 MB RAM?

I suggest you use version 3.8.18 - the newer version uses at least 6 MB more RAM - which might be needed for other things on a box with less RAM.

Mike
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by ultrabot · 2003-09-25 17:25 · Score: 1

How funny, just last week I was wondering what desktop to put on an old P133 with 48mb of RAM.

Slightly OT, but you might want to try out IceWM. It runs fine on a p200, 32MB, heavy load, remote X.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Feztaa · 2003-09-25 17:48 · Score: 1

XFCE4 is *great*. I've got an AMD k6-2 (360 MHz, 64 Mbs of RAM), and XFCE 4 runs really fast (well, until you launch mozilla, then it swaps like a mofo).

But still, I was very impressed with how great XFCE4 looks (especially relative to XFCE3), and how fast it runs on older hardware.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Grimster · 2003-09-25 17:50 · Score: 1

I think he might mean one of those AMD 5x86 133mhz I had one for a long time and I never overclock. It was a 486 basically.

--
--- www.f-theocean.com
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Paul+Jakma · 2003-09-25 18:17 · Score: 1

Why not?

The 486 DX-4 ran at 100MHz, and I'm almost sure there were non-Intel 486 clones that ran at at least 120MHz. Unfortunately my awful memory cant think of the name(s). Then there's overclocking, as you mention. (100 to 133 isnt a /huge/ stretch, and from 120, even less so.).

--
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by sbryant · 2003-09-25 18:32 · Score: 1

In addition to the already mentioned 5x86 chips, there were in fact also things called the 486DX4. Whereas the DX2 had an internally doubled clock (ran at 66MHz on a 33MHz bus), the DX4 was tripled or quadrupled, depending on whether you had the 100 or the 133 version. I'm pretty sure it was an AMD chip.

I had one, which replaced the DX2/66 I had before. It worked well, but needed a voltage conversion socket and active cooling (ie: a fan), both of which were not required for the DX2.

I think that machine is stacked somewhere in a friend's garage. I stopped using it 4 or 5 years ago when I replaced it with a P-II/350, but the DX4 (and a 32MB SIMM) extended the machine's life long enough that I could do everything I needed to.

-- Steve
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by donscarletti · 2003-09-25 18:48 · Score: 1

Wow, your testemony sure puts to rest all those rumors of GTK-2 being slow if it is snappy on a 133MHz 486 (although I can't claim I have seen a 486 clocked that fast myself)

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by nadaou · 2003-09-25 21:32 · Score: 1

fluxbox is pretty good. use rxvt as a xterm too.

--
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Jellybob · 2003-09-25 21:41 · Score: 1

Isn't that what user accounts are for? So that every user isn't stuck with the settings that the last person to use the computer wanted.

Just create yourself an account, and your wift an accout, and you can happily coexist in the world of multi-user computing.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 23:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

I started using Linux back in the Red Hat 5 days, and XFce was really the only good desktop available at the time. At one side of the spectrum was TWM (which, IMHO, is too minimalist), and at the other was GNOME (which defintely was too big and too buggy).

I have also been using Linux since just before Redhat 5 was released, and from what I recall, the main window managers back then were WindowMaker and FVWM. Enlightenment was starting to gain ground, but the idea of a "desktop" as such hadn't taken root.

I vaguely remember trying the "XForms Cool Environment" sometime in 1999 or 2000, and it was promising, but the butt-ugly XForms toolkit turned me off. XFce has really made amazing progress!

IIRC, some time between Redhat 5 and 6, v1.0 of the "Kool Desktop Environment" emerged into the spotlight, and later GNOME was started to address the problem of KDE's (then) non-free Qt toolkit. I remember thinking that they were bloated monstrosities that would never catch on.

Ah, those were the days.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Door-opening+Fascist · 2003-09-26 02:07 · Score: 1

I'm talking about the AMD 5x86, which is a pin-compatible clone of the Intel 80486, and runs at 133MHz. Read all about it here.
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by ChristTrekker · 2003-09-26 07:52 · Score: 1

I've run IceWM on a 16MHz 68030, 80MB. It's fast enough for typical browsing/email/terminal situations, i.e. not real heavy load, even on this old box.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:Any experience with this on a slow computer ? by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-09-26 16:41 · Score: 1

Yeah I tried that, but she keeps wanting to use my account :)

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!

... and everything goes faster ! by Enigma+Deadsouls · 2003-09-25 16:45 · Score: 2, Funny

unless its being slashdotted.

Great for Linux, but bad for MS by Txiasaeia · 2003-09-25 16:48 · Score: 1

I really wish they'd make a nice light desktop for Windows XP. Yes, I know, we all hate M$ here, but some of us really don't mind it. Anyway, Fluxbox and Gentoo almost made me switch about a year ago -- maybe it's time to give it another shot...

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by keirnoff · 2003-09-25 16:53 · Score: 1

I've run flux and kde3 and gnome2 and enlightenment... xfce, which I haven't tried may hit the sweet spot between gnome2.4 and fluxbox.
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by quantaman · 2003-09-25 17:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I really wish they'd make a nice light desktop for Windows XP.

Not gonna happen. Even if it didn't cost them anything, if fact I suspect if they wanted to they could adapt their PDA window manager which I suspect is fairly lightweight. There are two reasons why (I can think of). One is upgrade cycle. Most people who get a new computer do so because their old one gets old and slow. When they buy a new one they also buy a new OS and other software along with it not to mention the other software they buy seperately to go with their new computer. Offering a light WM would allow people to extend their computers life cycle and slow the upgrade cycle, assuming it was free of course but even if it isn't MS would just be taking a slice of their future pie.

Another reason is variety, right now one of MS's biggest advantage is people don't have experience with variety. If they get used to a utilitarian WM without the flashy features they may start to wonder if it wouldn't be easy for someone other then MS to make a good WM and start looking around.

The main rule I've learned about when a corporation gets to be a monopoly is what is good for the corporation is very often not what is good for the consumer.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by ShadowDrake · 2003-09-25 17:16 · Score: 1

>. Offering a light WM would allow people to >extend their computers life cycle and slow the >upgrade cycle

Wait a minute.

If I buy a new Gateway 2000, they're probably recieving a licence fee of perhaps USD 50 due to super-discount OEM licences.

If I buy "XP-Lite upgrade kit", they're probably getting USD 70 or more of the 90-100 I pay. Alternatively, you can sell it for 20 bucks or so on top of the standard XP upgrade kit.

--
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by the_bahua · 2003-09-25 17:33 · Score: 3, Informative

LiteStep, GeoShell, bb4win, and countless others are available as shell replacements for windows. I have been using LiteStep for about 5 years, and it even made win98 look stable. Very fast, very configurable, modular, and much prettier than the plain default explorer startmenu.

ShellFront and Desktopian are great places to start.
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by quantaman · 2003-09-25 17:38 · Score: 1

If I buy "XP-Lite upgrade kit", they're probably getting USD 70 or more of the 90-100 I pay. Alternatively, you can sell it for 20 bucks or so on top of the standard XP upgrade kit.

If they're selling an "upgrade kit" then their market would be microscopic. The vast majority of people won't buy software for their 'ancient' computer that barely works now only to extend it's lifespan a couple years by sacrificing functionality. If they're in the mood to spend money on their computer they'd much rather get a flashy new computer that runs all the latest software or some new hardware (RAM, newer CPU) that has a much longer lifespan and makes things other than the window manager run faster then just get an upgrade kit and makes your desktop less flashy.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by gaijin99 · 2003-09-25 17:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Another reason is variety, right now one of MS's biggest advantage is people don't have experience with variety. If they get used to a utilitarian WM without the flashy features they may start to wonder if it wouldn't be easy for someone other then MS to make a good WM and start looking around.

This is actually a good point. MS, by promoting a ruthlessly standardized desktop environment, has managed to get large numbers of people quite used to doing things one way (the MS way, that is). It really is a struggle for some of the more ossified types to even change to another browser simply because the buttons have slightly different icons from IE.
By eleminating diversity, the MS designers have quite neatly gotten a psychological lock into the minds of many people. Gamers tend to switch more easily because games don't follow the MS standard interface, but non-gamers are very used to/addicted to the MS look and feel.
Not, mind you, that standardization doesn't have its place. When every program makes the scrollbars look and behave differently even the most flexible of mind can get a bit worn out. I wonder if there's a happy medium between over-compliance with a standard UI, and over-diversity in UI look and feel?

--
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by johnwroach · 2003-09-25 18:14 · Score: 5, Informative
I really wish they'd make a nice light desktop for Windows XP.
There are a few:
- Litestep
- Geoshell
- Shell City has a few links
There's also progman.exe*, shipped with windows. I've heard tell of a "winfile" also supposedly built in, but I don't know anything about that.
I've tried a few of these, but some of them (Blackbox) seemed to take more resources than Explorer! Another caveat, the ports of *nix windows managers retain the *nix settings system, so setting them up can be a pain if you don't have experience with them.
*Yes, that is progman of Win16 fame.
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by JCholewa · 2003-09-25 18:47 · Score: 1

> > and it even made win98 look stable.
> Not the most flattering endorsement, if you ask me.

Bad wording. I think grandpa over there meant that installing LiteStep made Windows 98 act stable (as in, LiteStep made it not crashy).

--
-JC
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by glassesmonkey · 2003-09-25 19:22 · Score: 1

You want WindowsXP lite? Jeebus, save me I'm giving XP tips on /.

I found this site one time (in band camp) and it's made me tolerate WindozeXP ever since.

The site (listed above) is way too complex, so the summary is this -- create another "Hardware Profile" then when you go into Services, click on the "Log On" tab under "Properties" for each service, and disable just about everything except RPC and Server for your new profile. Then on bootup you'll see nifty new boot profile with no damage to registry or real changes to system. And when you need to let M$ remotely log into your computer or spread viruses or take part in the latest worm... you can reboot into original HW profile.

My $0.02 on the whole worm thing is that 100% of the blame goes to M$ and not the average user (also all of the Outlook script problems in the past). M$ by DEFAULT ships with stupid crap turned on. It's hard for *me* to know how / what to turn off, let alone what a Service is, let alone what Services are running. DID YOU FORGET they had to tell people that it is SAFE to turn off the computer!?! And people (including M$) are bitching cause 'users need to patch their computers'. Car makers have millions of recalls and people don't pay attention to those and their lives are at risk! (Granted, computer user's lives might be somewhat more valuable than the average Ford driver's) [1 in 2 American homes has a computer --- 1 in 7 American males are currently in prison --- 1 in 100 Americans are mentally ill or retarded --- No actual facts we harmed or used in the formation of this sentence]
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 21:56 · Score: 1, Informative

When every program makes the scrollbars look and behave differently even the most flexible of mind can get a bit worn out.

Oh, you mean how just on a default Windows XP/Office XP desktop there are 4 different kinds of scrollbars, and three different kinds of toolbars? The idea that the MS UI is more standardised than the linux GUI is ridiculous. Every new version of office introduces it's own new toolkit, often breaking existing UI guidelines.
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 00:42 · Score: 1, Informative

that is why, we shoud never teach a product but a concept.
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by penguin7of9 · 2003-09-26 03:17 · Score: 1

This is actually a good point. MS, by promoting a ruthlessly standardized desktop environment, has managed to get large numbers of people quite used to doing things one way (the MS way, that is)

Which "ruthlessly standard desktop environment" would that be? 95? 98? ME? NT? 2000? XP? They are all quite a bit different, you know, and they all require retraining and relearning. And each of them can be customized in lots and lots of ways. With third party apps, you can completely change their behavior.

Sorry, Microsoft's secret isn't some great master plan or some fundamental insight into technology or marketing, it's having a near monopoly on desktop systems. That's why they can get away with everything.

By eleminating diversity, the MS designers have quite neatly gotten a psychological lock into the minds of many people. Gamers tend to switch more easily because games don't follow the MS standard interface, but non-gamers are very used to/addicted to the MS look and feel.

If that were all that mattered, then Linux could take over easily: there are plenty of window managers and toolkits that emulate Windows more closely than one release of Windows emulates a previous one.
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by grantsellis · 2003-09-26 03:41 · Score: 1

It really is a struggle for some of the more ossified types to even change to another browser simply because the buttons have slightly different icons from IE.
Agreed. I lived this with my mom and Firebird last week. The back arrow is a different pic so she couldn't find it ... though I would substitute "less technically inclinded" for "more ossified."
Re:Great for Linux, but bad for MS by Krunch · 2003-09-26 10:22 · Score: 1

Gamers tend to switch more easily because games don't follow the MS standard interface[...]

On the other side, gamers tend not to switch because of the lack of support for Windows games with Linux (and other Free operating systems). But things are changing.

--
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.

/.ed by no+reason+to+be+here · 2003-09-25 16:49 · Score: 1, Funny

must be running their website on that PII he mentioned.

--
my pet machine

Re:/.ed by Enigma+Deadsouls · 2003-09-25 16:54 · Score: 1

It seems that way. as I said in an earlyer post that got modded down by some stupid kid with mod points who didn't even check out the XFce site..

... and everything goes faster !
unless its being slashdotted.

Keyboard shortcuts by TheFlu · 2003-09-25 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've been keeping up with XFCE for a while now, and I've really enjoyed using it. I typically use either it or fluxbox when I'm in the mood for a minimal window manager. Anyhow, if you'd like to edit your keyboard shortcuts in XFCE (one of the first things I do when I install a new WM), you can do that in the following file: /usr/share/xfwm4/themes/default.keys/keythemerc

--

--It's Pimptastic!--

Re:Keyboard shortcuts by goodEvans · 2003-09-26 01:30 · Score: 1

you can do that in the following file: /usr/share/xfwm4/themes/default.keys/keythemerc

heh. What I read was "key the merc", that well known pasttime in the dodgier areas of large cities worldwide of adding racing stripes to the sides of large teutonic cars...

Actually... by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · 2003-09-25 16:51 · Score: 2, Informative

It's been in the tree ( or at least the ~x86 tree ) since at least thismorning.

-----------
curious@clyde x11-wm$ emerge -s xfce4-base
Searching...
[ Results for search key : xfce4-base ]
[ Applications found : 1 ]

* xfce-base/xfce4-base
Latest version available: 4.0.0
Latest version installed: 3.99.4
-----------

I'll probably be excommunicated from the Gentoo community now for being 0.00.6 of a release behind. ;-)

--
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.

Re:Actually... by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-09-25 16:55 · Score: 1

I'll probably be excommunicated from the Gentoo community now for being 0.00.6 of a release behind. ;-)

I bet you only have 2 lines of redundant compiler options as well!

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn by Klowner · 2003-09-25 16:55 · Score: 1

now it is!

Warning to RedHat Users by BladeMelbourne · 2003-09-25 16:57 · Score: 5, Informative

I advise all RedHat users (downloading XFce RPMs) not to download and install gtk2-2.2.4-1rh9.i386.rpm from the XFce SourceForge page - it prevented my gdm graphical greeter from loading the login screen.

The error message was: "The theme for the graphical greeter is corrupt. It does not contain definition for the username/password entry element." I clicked OK several times, but the error message stayed there.

If you run into troubles, revert to an older package like gtk2-2.2.2-0.ximian.6.3.i386.rpm or gtk2-2.2.1-4.i386.rpm

Dont play with /etc/X11/gdm/gdm.conf for half an hour like me, changing gdm greeter themes.

Mike

Re:Warning to RedHat Users by Palverone · 2003-09-26 00:19 · Score: 1

Thanks for the warning-was wondering will this add to my suite of WM's or is it a replacement for it?

I have been using Gnome and even though everything I have seen from XFce is great, I don't want to lose my options... thanks
Re:Warning to RedHat Users by sewagemaster · 2003-09-26 03:16 · Score: 1

which is exactly the type of reason why i'm using debian now instead of redhat

--
my blog
Re:Warning to RedHat Users by sewagemaster · 2003-09-26 19:37 · Score: 1

none of the above mentioned problems are there if you use debian unstable. unstable is more stable than any of the redhat releases.

installation is no longer a problem. just pop in knoppix, and run the HDD install script.

--
my blog

GTK2 & Morphix by Linus+Sixpack · 2003-09-25 16:57 · Score: 1

Its the Morphix Light desktop. Its GTK2 based and keeps its configuration data is XML. I recommend the Bluefish editor as your first proggie to go with it.

OK, I've waited long enough.. by michaelhood · 2003-09-25 17:00 · Score: 1

There hasn't been a single XFeces joke. Is everyone alright?

Their desktop may be fast... by kcbrown · 2003-09-25 17:05 · Score: 5, Funny

But their web server sure isn't!

Ah, the power of a good Slashdotting. :-)

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.

XFce 4 + ROX-Filer == uNF by serial+frame · 2003-09-25 17:08 · Score: 1

Really, when you use the ROX pinboard, it's all great. To get the proper feel, hunt down the location of the icons for the icon theme you're using for the XFce panel and use it for your ROX folders. Make sure to set ROX to not override window manager control of the root window.

--

-
And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"

Re:XFce 4 + ROX-Filer == uNF by mixmasta · 2003-09-25 18:58 · Score: 1

uNF?

--
#6495ED - cornflower blue

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn by Sloppy · 2003-09-25 17:10 · Score: 1

I've been running a pre-release beta whatever version of xfce4 on Gentoo for several months.

ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~x86' nice emerge xfce4

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Screenshots by breman · 2003-09-25 17:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is a mirror for the png's.

XFce screens

Re:Screenshots by Principal+Skinner · 2003-09-25 19:36 · Score: 1

Thanks, man. This is exactly what I came to the comments page for.

--
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku

I own a P I... by krahd · 2003-09-25 17:29 · Score: 1

...you insensitive clod!

--krahd

--
mod me up scottie!

Re:I own a P I... by AKAImBatman · 2003-09-26 02:56 · Score: 2, Informative

I used to run XFCE 3.x on a P120 w/120 megs of RAM. KDE wouldn't run, but XFCE acted like it belonged there. Oh, and use FreeBSD. It's a bit more mem efficient.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:I own a P I... by AKAImBatman · 2003-09-26 15:56 · Score: 1

Doh! That was supposed to read 48 megs of RAM.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re: Light desktop by dcuny · 2003-09-25 17:35 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't know how light it is, but you might consider looking at the ROS Explorer. It was written as a replacement for the NT Explorer, and runs under XP. Its current goal in life is to run as the ReactOS (i.e. NT clone) desktop, although currently the ReactOS doesn't currently implement enough functionality to run it.

It works just fine under XP as a shell. If you want to test it without replacing your current shell, just launch it from the command line with the -desktop option.

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn by rockiams · 2003-09-25 17:39 · Score: 1

How well does xfce work with gentoo and xinerama? I have 4 video cards/monitors and plan to add 3 more/each. I had some trouble getting deadrat..er redhat to play nice with gtk2+ and glib2, any advice?

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn by Sloppy · 2003-09-25 17:43 · Score: 1

Sorry, I haven't been using xinerama. Don't know.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Question about taskbar by ecloud · 2003-09-25 17:47 · Score: 1

In KDE I like to use an auto-hiding external taskbar in the upper-right corner of my screen, so if I jam the mouse over there it flies out, and the windows are shown in a vertical list rather than across the whole screen. This method uses real estate more efficiently than a Windows 95 style taskbar, because the horizontal space is only as much as is needed for a single window title, and I never open enough windows to run out of vertical space, and my window titles are seldom truncated. It's like a stack of books, and you're looking at the spines. It's also like the Mac task switcher in systems 7-9.

Is there a way I could that with XFCE?

Re:Question about taskbar by Tribbin · 2003-09-25 22:38 · Score: 1

I used to have that too, the vertical taskbar in the upper-right corner. But I hated it when I wanted to use the vertical scrollbar of a maximized window and I exidently touched the edge of the hidden panel. Then I had to wait 'till the panel shifted back.

--
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!

slashdotted by minus_273 · 2003-09-25 17:51 · Score: 1

Here is a page with some info and links to other screenshots

--
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace

Re:slashdotted by minus_273 · 2003-09-26 04:59 · Score: 1

look at the screenshots at the bottom before commenting.

--
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace

Re:Surprisingly little is said of XFce's use of Ja by kfg · 2003-09-25 18:08 · Score: 1, Troll

Oh, I don't know. I think all too much is said about KDE's use of C++ and Gnome's use of C ( even though I'm a KDE user who dislikes coding in C++).

I'm not sure why saying much about XFce's use of Java should get even more mention.

What Sun's Java Desktop has to do with it I'm not sure. Since it's a Linux distro it goes pretty much without saying that any Linux pacakage you download and build on it will run.

More to the point, since the only real reason to run Sun's Java Desktop (tm -- Don't call it Linux) is to use their version of Gnome I'm clueless as to why anyone would want to build XFCe for it, since you can also build it on any other Linux (sorry Sun, call my lawyer) distro.

Unless maybe you've popped the C note for Sun's Java Desktop (See? I've repented already), realized you've made a terrible mistake, but are too obstinate in your investment to download Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian or Slack for free?

KFG

bells.. whistles!?! by wmaker · 2003-09-25 18:17 · Score: 2, Funny

"While it may not have all the bells and whistles, it's pretty clean looking."

Bells, whistles!?!, i've been tring to write c apps that would generate those tone for years!! When is someone going to release code with bells and whistles... damnit!!! i want to see the source so i know what i've been doing wrong!

--

What is slashdot?

hey look the scrollbars are on the right! by JVert · 2003-09-25 18:18 · Score: 1

meh, no they arn't but does anyone know of a way to get scrollbars to default to the right? any os will due. A lefty on a tablet is a terrible thing to waste.

It's quite nice by Galvatron · 2003-09-25 18:58 · Score: 1

I'm afraid I can't speak to 4.0, but I ran 3.x under Red Hat 7.2 on a Dell Latitude, Celeron 233 mhz processor, with (IIRC) 64 mb of RAM. It may have only been 32 mb, can't remember for certain (I just replaced the laptop a month ago). As someone who had previously only used KDE and Gnome, I found it the easiest to use of the various "light" window managers. Also nice is the fact that it's been designed to interoperate with Gnome and KDE, so programs look nice, copy and paste well, and it proviedes access to the Gnome and KDE menus, so you don't have to rewrite all those menus that your distro provides premade for Gnome and KDE.

Others complained about Mozilla usage, but I found it tolerable, and Phoenix (ahem, excuse me, Firebird) ran just fine.

The only complaint I had was that there didn't seem to be a way to force the menu bar to stay on top, so sometimes it could be obscured by other windows. That's really a pretty mild thing though.

As others have said, if you can run X, XFce should be fine, it adds litle overhead.

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD

Re:Not a desktop by Professor+Chaos · 2003-09-25 19:00 · Score: 1

while i agree that xfce isnt really a desktop in the same way that kde or gnome are (application consistancy and integration are key ingrediants of a useable desktop.. where in my opinion kde is the most advanced) still, xpde is a decent project for those without the need for anything more. its more than a window manager in my opinion, but not quite a desktop. i admire what theyve done with xpde (i hated version 1.. totally useless to me :) ) so keep up the good work you guys, even though ill probably stick to kde.. cause in my opinion kde has reached perfect functionality, and merely needs touch ups in stability and some minor places where look and feel can be improved ,and im confident kde 3.2 will solve most of them.

xfce with fvwm by HermesHuang · 2003-09-25 19:17 · Score: 5, Informative

What hasn't been mentioned yet is the xfce plugin for fvwm. I kinda liked xfce, but really liked fvwm but didn't want to spend the time customizing, and then I find that there's a plugin to load into fvwm and suddenly I have the xfce taskbar. It's really the best of both worlds. Fvwm's efficient management of the desktop, and a nice toolbar to keep everything organized. Although I suppose the fact that three of the buttons on the taskbar get set to different sizes and colors of xterms says something about me....

Does Gnome applications work with this? by rasjani · 2003-09-25 19:20 · Score: 1

Im wondering how deeply programs like galeon and evolution are embended into gnome environent or can the be ran and do they behave normally in xfce ? I really would like to make a switch since my computer seems sluggier and sluggier after each upgrade ..

--
yush

Re:Does Gnome applications work with this? by Tirs · 2003-09-25 19:26 · Score: 1

Well, yes, they work. Only that, depending on which programs you load, maybe the performance will degrade somewhat. Anyway, you still have improvement comparing to the full-fledged Gnome.

--
Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!
Re:Does Gnome applications work with this? by rasjani · 2003-09-25 19:54 · Score: 1

My gui program list on the local machine: xmms few gnome-terminal with +4 tabs each galeon evolution gaim xmms and thats it, ofcourse, shitload of ssh connectios and occasional local vim session ;-)

--
yush
Re:Does Gnome applications work with this? by d3faultus3r · 2003-09-26 08:16 · Score: 1

yes they do work, though they take a while to start up when you first run them due to the fact that a stripped down version of gnome or kde is being launched in order to run the program.

--
read my blog
musings on politics and technol

Not a desktop. So what? by Tirs · 2003-09-25 19:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh yes, XFCE is not a desktop. So what?
I have migrated from KDE to XFCE. KDE is fine, but it has lots of functionalities I never use; the presence of icons on the desktop disturbs me (and KDE keeps creating them at every restart when I remove them), and all I need is a good menu system with some buttons for the apps I use most often (Opera, xterm, XMMS, xterm, kmail, xterm, the Gimp, xterm, SciTE and xterm). The printer? Less than one minute to configure my remote Samba printer. And everything runs faster now, because
I more free memory! XFCE has been a gift from Heaven for my poor 64MB-laptop.

So, although I respect your choice of KDE/Gnome, and I may enjoy some friendly waste of time with you discussing about the definition of the term "Desktop", give my XFCE if you want me happy.

Oh, by the way: I am sorry to let you down in this particular issue, but I am NOT calling you a troll. Please find someone else for that ;-)

--
Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!

Re:Not a desktop by volkris · 2003-09-25 19:47 · Score: 1

Do you really want to sit here and argue semantics?

I'd say that since it manages windows and provides a virtual desktop, it most certainly is a desktop.

I don't see why dragging things from one app to another should be considered a necessary part of something called a desktop. I suppose you might call that a desktop suite because it's a desktop bundled with additional functionality.

Nice try, but... by Qbertino · 2003-09-25 19:49 · Score: 2, Funny

..the Fonts look a little mangled, no?

SCNR

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:Gentoo Doesn't have it yet... Damn by bn557 · 2003-09-25 19:54 · Score: 2, Informative

I've used 3 before using xfce4/cvs and xfree 4.(2/3? can't remember) and the hardest part was getting the /etc/X11/XF86Config file right to make everything happy. Once I got that working, I had a complaint that overlays/opengl don't behave due to my graphics card (damn you matrox) but everything else was happy.

s0be

--
Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable

Slashdotted? by Thnurg · 2003-09-25 20:08 · Score: 1

From the Website:-
> and everything goes faster.

Not when it's slashdotted it don't.

--
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.

Re:Not a desktop by Florian · 2003-09-25 20:13 · Score: 4, Informative

This comment must have been written by someone (and modded up by
someone else) who doesn't know much about XFCE. XFCE is not just a
window manager, but a fully integrated, mouse-configurable desktop
including wm, panel (with panel applets), taskbar, pager and graphical
file manager (including Samba browsing support), extensive drag'n'drop
capabilities including for printing, central configuration menus
including sound and mouse setup. It's based on Gtk 2.x and
freedesktop.org standards (and thus with a high degree especially of
Gnome and KDE interoperability).

Think of XFCE as a desktop environment without the redundant middleware
layers (DCOP/KParts/arts etc. in KDE, Corba/Bonobo/esd/Gconf etc.i in
Gnome) that make both KDE and Gnome bloated and slow, and which are
hardly used by third party applications outside main Gnome and KDE
distributions at all.

So it amazes me that the previous commentator thinks XFCE is "not a
desktop". On the contrary, XFCE is a desktop done architecturally right,
similar to, for example, the desktops of AmigaOS, RiscOS, Macintosh
Classic and BeOS. While both the XFCE panel (with its legacy to the user
interface of the CDE panel) and new file manager could still need some
usability improvement, the architectural foundation is excellent.

XFCE is also the proof that a X11- and GNU/Linux-/BSD-based desktop
computer can be as fast and efficient as one would normally expect from
a Unix-like system. In other words, it's as fast as a basic window
manager setup with Window Maker/icewm/fvwm2 while providing a fully
integrated desktop that doesn't require users to run the shell or edit
configuration files.

(A prominent XFCE user and supporter is, btw., Alan Cox.)

--
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70

WindowLab by nickos · 2003-09-25 20:19 · Score: 1

Totally agree. Who wants to slow their machine down with the window manager? Also, it tends to be the smaller window managers that are trying out new ideas. My current favourite is WindowLab, it's small and the author has managed to combine a number of influences and totally original features really well IMHO.

Re:Not a desktop by fr0dicus · 2003-09-25 20:39 · Score: 1

(A prominent XFCE user and supporter is, btw., Alan Cox.)

I couldn't have argued against Xfce's useability better. Thanks for making my point for me.

Re:Not a desktop by Jammet · 2003-09-25 20:56 · Score: 1

The difference between a graphicall shell or window manager as opposed to an actual desktop environment are it's capabilities to provide You with the necessary sources and standards to write up your own applications that meets them, and integrates seamlessy with them.

XCFE *has* all of that, and you can write your applications for it just as well as you could for Gnome or KDE.

This is a fully featured Desktop Environment, and I've been using it since it's earlier 4b betas, and think very highly of it. In the betas the file manager xffm is - while being very capable - somewhat slow on my computer, but ROX Filer together with XFCE desktop are a valuable combination.

I suggest you try it, if you are looking for something that is clean, and does not depend on all too many libraries.

--
Leopard cub

Re:Ok, here t'is by grolschie · 2003-09-25 21:07 · Score: 1

Here ya go. It seems that moderators have no sense of humor. This one was modded a troll.

Re:Not a desktop by Moraelin · 2003-09-25 21:09 · Score: 1

Au contraire. I don't know about you, but I _don't_ need 90% of the bloat in KDE. And I definitely don't need a window manager which uses more RAM than the whole MS Windows OS does. (I'm talking about KDE again.)

No, I don't want an integrated HTML browser, I already have a perfectly good standalone one. No, I don't want yet another set of widgets. No, I definitely don't need yet another sound daemon in memory, there were already enough of those around. Etc.

Now XFce was not my favourite WM, either, but it was a pretty close second. It does its job, it does it well, and it does it without hogging up half the memory in the computer. That's perfectly good for me.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

It's called "international support" by RdsArts · 2003-09-25 21:19 · Score: 1

Wow. A international font does look like a "mangled" English font. And also resemble the text in that language.

Imagine that.

This also just in: GNOME and KDE support internation fonts as well. Damn these broken fonts, damn them all!

But English looks just as good as any GTK+2 based desktop does these days.

Re:Not a desktop by RdsArts · 2003-09-25 21:27 · Score: 1

Call me a troll,

How's the trolling, troll?

but there is nothing efficient about not being able to drag and drop images between applications,

... you haven't used a GTK+2 app lately, have you? Hi, that's part of GTK+2, not the "desktops." Ever app I've tried has the same amount of "drag and drop abilities" in XFCE and GNOME.

about spending hours to get a printer to work,

... So... Wait... a problem with Cups is somehow related to XFCE not being a desktop. Or maybe I missed the large dragdown for printers in GNOME 2.4.

about endless menu editing.

The root menu on the desktop will be accepting KDE and GNOME menu items by default in the next version, and even then, the current menu is only for the desktop. Otherwise you just right-click and add a app to the panel.

What was your point, again?

Re:Not a desktop by Incredible+Elmo · 2003-09-25 21:46 · Score: 1

Then try ROX (GTK2 as well), I have it running somewhere on a P166MMX with 64M RAM. It works very well on such a slow computer and is fully drag'n'drop enabled. You can (apparently) easily develop for it using python or C. It simply rox :)

Re:Not a desktop by samjam · 2003-09-25 21:51 · Score: 1

Not only is GNOME's stinkin use of Corba so SLOW but it IGNORES $DISPLAY on subsequent logins to the same box; so I might have 2 active remote desktops but new GNOME apps load on the ORIGINAL desktop.

I can't belove GNU are so-supporting something as slow and bloated as GNOME.

A P400 with 64MB of RAM is 5x slower with GNOME that the P100 with 32MB Ram and Win95 it was supposed to be replacing!!!

I had to give the P400 ~180MB before I got any decent use out of it.

I'm glad to see XFCE, I will be ditching the redhat gnome desktop and using this instead.

Really, GNU GNOME chaps, can't you see what you have created is worse bloatware than windows? So that MORE POWERFUL hardware is needed?

Think again!

Sam

--
blog.sam.liddicott.com

I've fallen in love by teks0r · 2003-09-25 21:57 · Score: 1

I've been a pretty happy Gnome user for the last year or so. I must say though, Xfce is very snappy and well polished. It looks good, it works good, and I love it. I'll always have a special place in my heart for Gnome, but this WM is one awesome piece of software. Btw, my system has 512 MB RAM and an Athlon XP 1800+, so it's not like Gnome doesn't run fine.

"XFce" by Hard_Code · 2003-09-26 00:50 · Score: 3, Funny

"XFce", great. See, it's attention to pronouncable and memorable names such as "Ex-Eff-Cee-Eee" that endears open source projects to tens of users worldwide ;)

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Re:"XFce" by janbjurstrom · 2003-09-26 11:42 · Score: 1

Heh. Yea, sure's a bitch having to bloody --help on how to *say* it. Supposedly it's pronounced "X Face".

--
668.5

Funny you should mention this... by brsmith4 · 2003-09-26 01:43 · Score: 1

I had just downloaded the last RC release the day before this story came out. Dammit. Well, that RC release is excellent. For as fast and as light as it is, it is the best looking as well. I'm still working on getting some menus working, but that should be trivial. I just upgraded my kernel from 2.4.20-20.9 to 2.6.0test5 right after I install xfce4. Even though it was fast to begin with, the preempt support and better scheduling just rocked my world in combo with this desktop. I must say damn, linux has come a long way.

Re:Not a desktop by Cro+Magnon · 2003-09-26 01:55 · Score: 1

Not a desktop? Maybe not, but it was sure a lifesaver on my old K6-450 with 64M RAM! KDE3 was almost unusable on that box. Even on my P4, Xfce is much faster than KDE/Gnome.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

How about Cygwin support? by axxackall · 2003-09-26 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I use GNOME on Linux and I am happy with that. But on Cygwin there is no GNOME and KDE is not good for Cygwin either. That's why I have to use FVWM or WM, and I am not happy with either of them. That's why I am always open for some better alternative windows/destop manager that I can use on Cygwin.

So, is it available for Cygwin yet? In other words - is it buildable and workable?

--

Less is more !

Re:Small footprint needed by DirkGently · 2003-09-26 02:08 · Score: 1

Sure you can. Seen Fluxbox before? The real trick is getting the pig known as X itself down in size.

--

I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.

Amazing by teslatug · 2003-09-26 02:15 · Score: 1

It's amazing what a big difference a new set of colors, and a good color theme makes. I always found Xfce ugly, and just slightly better than CDE. I might have to give it a shot now. The only thing I wish all WM or DE would do is have a decent program, script that searches for a list of well known X apps and arranges them in the menu, with their appropriate icons. KDE has something similar in app finder, but the program almost never finds all the Gnome apps that I like.

All DE have everything one needs now, they just don't have enough configuration done from the get go so you don't have to mess with it and get in your way of actually doing work. I can handle the bloat, but the only reason I stick with KDE is that I have to do the least amount of configuration for it.

Re:Amazing by teslatug · 2003-09-26 16:48 · Score: 1

"Excellent point but only slightly off. What if I or many others don't like the apps you like?"

If you don't like them, you don't have to include them on your menu; you'd still have the option of doing it manually. I just don't want to hunt down all the apps and their icons, write down their paths, etc. Like I said, KAppFinder has the right idea, it just doesn't work like advertized. Alternatively, WM/DE's would use the same format for arranging menus (using XML).

"FCE" sounds more like an NES emulator by yerricde · 2003-09-26 02:54 · Score: 1

And what happens if you run FCE Ultra for Linux under XFce?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

XFCE is great by penguin7of9 · 2003-09-26 03:12 · Score: 2, Informative

I use it everywhere. It works, it does just the things one wants a desktop environment to do, out of the box, and it's light and fast, as advertised. It's basically Macintosh simplicity come to Linux, without the sluggishness and memory usage of Macintosh system software. XFCE3 looked a bit too much like CDE, but XFCE4 looks nicer in addition to working well.

because it doesn't use Java by penguin7of9 · 2003-09-26 03:24 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why saying much about XFce's use of Java should get even more mention.

Let's be clear: XFCE doesn't use Java. If it did, it would neither be small, light, fast, or free.

"bing that PII back to life" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 04:01 · Score: 1, Informative

I am running Gnome 2.2 on a pentium 2. Works great. All you need to do is add a bit of memory.

they're right! by ShadowRage · 2003-09-26 04:31 · Score: 1

" XFce 4 is leaps and bounds ahead of the legacy XFce 3.8.18 release"

also leaps and bounds ahead file size wise as well.. yikes.

Re:they're right! by BladeMelbourne · 2003-09-26 11:49 · Score: 1

XFce 4 without the ~3 devel files:
19 RPM files - 11.89 MB
Download time on a 52 kbps connection is about 40 minutes

XFce 3
4 RPM files - 6.82 MB
Download time on a 52 kbps connection is about 21 minutes.

Several of the XFce 4 packages are optional. If you didn't download the XFce 4 themes/icons, it would be the same size as XFce 3. It's achieved a lot for the same code size (minus the themes and icons) - completely re-written from the ground up.

debian port? by discogravy · 2003-09-26 04:42 · Score: 1

where's the debian .deb of this already. I tried it out on a RH9 system and loved it but the latest version for debian is 3.something. Installing it from source is a mission since everything is in a seperate package and needs to be done in a specific order. (There's an auto-downloading/installing script but I was not able to get it to work on my woody box.)

--
FreeBSD for the impatient.

it looks way too much like... by mantera · 2003-09-26 04:54 · Score: 1

those of you who were into shell extensions for windows 9x might remember a shell, i think it was called geoshell, it's still around though now it looks different; well, in the summer of 2000, that's exactly how geoshell looked.

Re:Life in my pII ?! by grwufwuf · 2003-09-26 06:19 · Score: 1

Ignoring the fact that this is obvious flaimbait, I'm going to offer this advice to any reader who hadn't considered it before:
Next time get an AMD or a refurb. Half[.ebay].com had some Duron 900MHz boxes for $80 bucks with 128MB RAM and a 20Gig hard drive, or refurb'ed PIII 500MHz's for about the same, amazon resellers have cheap refurb system also. Guess shopping around a little more next time looking for an upgrade? Better luck next time (me too; I found them after shelling out $150 for a similar box, such is life ;-)

Geeze I get PII's and K6-II's for free when I set up other people's new PIII's and P4's. Show some kindness to 'end-users' out there when they spend their riches and see what comes your way as a result (or charge for your time plugging in a keyboard and mouse et al and buy a P4 after a while, whatever; you may still be asked "do you know where I can get rid of this old PC? I don't want to just throw it away...") Bring a boot disk and reformat their old hard drive with them watching you do it (Might want to aks them 2 or 3 times if they have everything they want to save off of it first :). You'd have a super computing cluster of old but functional systems in no time (or polish up the ones you don't use and donate them somewhere that needs them; Give away a penguin, get good Karma!).

window manager vs desktop environment by ChristTrekker · 2003-09-26 08:10 · Score: 1

Where does one draw the distinction between these two? I'm fairly new to Linux on the desktop yet, and haven't tried customizing the whole experience very much yet. I've used KDE, Blackbox, and IceWM in their default configurations or with bare minimal tweaking. I know KDE and Gnome are DE's, while Blackbox and IceWM are WM's. Is XFce another DE? Some posts here suggest WindowMaker is a DE, but I thought it was a WM?

In some cases I like ultimate responsiveness, but Blackbox is almost too minimal. In some cases I'd like the additional features of a DE, but KDE is noticeably slow on my hardware. I'd like to try something lighter while knowing I'm not going to give up what I would by going back to a simple WM. I might give XFce a try, but at some point I might want to try to mix and match.

--

Constitutionally Correct

very cool by oohp · 2003-09-26 09:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm using fluxbox, but I tried out XFCE and I really like it. It's very cool in terms of speed and very good looking too. My girlfriend loves it too, so I configured her user with XFCE running the Aqua theme. Maybe I could make Linux suck less for her, thanx to this nice DE.

alpha channel png support? by thanasakis · 2003-09-26 10:29 · Score: 1

Does anyone know whether this release supports alpha transparency in the png's correctly? I have tried the Xfce bundled with mandrake 9.1 (ok, I know it's old) and it doesn't. That's why I returned to Windowmanager which seems to display all png's perfectly.

Re:alpha channel png support? by thanasakis · 2003-09-26 10:32 · Score: 1

yeah not Windomanager, WinowMaker, should really use the preview button...

My problems with XFce... by evilviper · 2003-09-26 14:49 · Score: 1

I know I'm late to the party, but here it is for anyone that might stil be hanging around this story...

My single biggest problem with XFce was that it screwed-up my long-running desktop royally.

On OpenBSD, I thought X was fscked, becuase everything would freeze-up after running for a few days straight. On other platforms, I was able to get better insight into the mystery. On FreeBSD/Linux, X would just restart all-of-a-sudden after just a short time of use. Appartently, XFce was crashing (xfwm to be specific).

After that mystery was solved, I switched to Openbox, and X has NEVER crashed on me again.

I thought about using the XFce panel under Openbox, but Openbox has a nice little interface on it's own (one that I like MUCH better than XFce's now) and most of XFce's strenght comes from xfwm. Without it, things don't iconify to the desktop, you don't have the menus when you click on the desktop, you don't have the same simple wm, and XFce's ability to configure everything from it's gui is gone.

Also, I've sworn-off any WM that has any dependencies. I used-to have to switch to a console quite often, because a ld patch was changed/removed, or a lib was uninstalled, reinstalled, or upgraded, killing XFce. I would much, much rather have a system that will come up in everything but catastrophic events.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

171 of 261 comments (clear)