GNU XFce 3.2.0 Desktop Now Available

merc writes "XFce (GNU's lightweight desktop environment based on GTK+) 3.2.0 was just released. Having never used XFce before I was wondering if anyone has used it -- and if anyone would recommend switching from KDE? Snapshots and RPMs are available from the XFce website."

Comments

CDE

[tweek]

If you've used CDE before then you'll die for this. I have it running on the linux dev boxes in our lab and training room because most of the people at the office who have even seen a *nix, have used CDE and since it's what runs on our HPUX,AIX and sparcs, it's a nice way to keep em comfy so I don't have to explain another WM to them ;)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece

Re:CDE

[Erich]

Ugh... I used CDE. I used it all summer, and then eliminated it and ran blackbox and (after a long time forcing it to compile under Solaris), gnome. I would certainly die from a DE that was like CDE, not for a DE that was like CDE. Besides being ugly, it's not very useful, it's ugly, it's a pain to configure (believe me, I spent a good week writing dt action files), it's ugly, and the bar is really stupid. Did I mention that CDE is ugly?

Decent

[Uruk]

I've used it back in the 2.0 tree and a bit in the 3.0 tree, and it's generally pretty nice.

It is very similar to CDE with enough things done differently to throw you off a little bit when you first start, but not enough things to make the transition from CDE to Xfce bad or annoying or anything like that.

I'm not so sure that it lives up to its billing as light weight but then again my machine isn't the beefiest in the world, and there are plenty of things that are slower than it. For example, next to, say, enlightenment, it is very light weight but it's not necessarily all that light compared to maybe afterstep or fvwm2 or some of the more graphically simple window managers. (Which are only graphically more simple in comparison to enlightenment)

It's all around definately worth using though, especially for corporate users who are very much used to the standard stock CDE that comes with so many commericial UNIXen - and it's based off of GTK+ which is a plus as far as I'm concerned.

It's not the end all be all, but it's fairly stable, decent looking, not overly memory hungry, looks familiar (and looks good, if you like the look of CDE) - I wouldn't say that it introduces anything radically new into the idea of window managers, but it's definately worth a look and maybe worth using depending on what you want out of a windowmanager.

There are so many people who want so many different things out of window managers that it's hard to say "This is the best" because they seem to have different domains in my mind. For example, I really like enlightenment/gnome combo, but when I'm coding or doing something where I really don't want to be "visually distracted" then I really don't dig enlightenment. Sure it's arguable that you can set up any window manager to look however you want it to, but I really don't spend all that much time hacking into the deepest darkest corners of window managers - and in that respect, I think xfce is good because it works quite nicely right out of the rpm so to speak.

Just my $0.02.

XFCE is fairly cool

[JohnZed]

I use it on and off when I want that "professional" CDE feel. It is very much like the CDE, but also pretty quick and light. You also get the benefit of GTK themes, if you're into that sort of thing. The default configuration and icons, however, reveal how old-school the primary developer is. It's interesting to see someone who still considers xclock and xcalc to be among their most important applications. . . The default icons are mostly very simple 8-bit .xpms, but you can replace them trivially (the panel is very easy to configure). Its xftree file manager doesn't come up automatically in the default config, but it's really pretty good as well, considering that it's not meant to be the same sort of thing as a gmc or kfm. If you think that KDE and GNOME's taskbars are too "windows-like", the XFCE panel might be more your thing. I use 3.1.2 and the stability and speed are very good. --JRZ

Re:XFCE is fairly cool

[Uruk]

It's not necessarily "old school" to use xclock and xcalc a lot on your desktop; they're very functional tools that get the job done. Well, ok, it's old school if you happen to be a linux user who spends a lot of time on the bleeding edge of software development (I do sometimes, but I'm not a kamikaze bleeding edger like some people :)

I think the "old school" aspect is less related to the fact that the applications are old, and more related to the fact that the toolkit that they use, be that motif/athena or whatever has an older look and feel to it. I think as more and more time goes by, more and more people get used to the look and feel of KDE or Gnome, which looks better and generally more slick because the looks have been more of a focus point in their development as users don't necessarily have all of the memory/CPU limitations that they did in the past.

That could be total shit, but it's just my opinion. For the record, I use xcalc a whole lot because the math hasn't changed :) and it loads very quickly. Also, if you learn a few tools with standard toolkit options and so on, then you'll be comfortable wherever you go.

Re:XFCE is fairly cool

[Mr. Slippery]

Is there, perchance, a RPN version of xcalc available? (even better, is it already hiding somewhere on my RH 5.2 i386 box)

It's alrady there, hiding inside of xcalc. You want xcalc -rpn. When in doubt, Read The Fine Manual. B-) B-)

-rpn This option indicates that Reverse Polish Notation should be used. In this mode the calculator will look and behave like an HP-10C. Without this flag, it will emulate a TI-30.

xfce fills a definite need for Linux

[poopie]

If you work with people who are unix operators as opposed to unix hackers, they may be much more comfortable with a look and feel that they already are comfortable with.

(how many of us had to hand-hold users through a DOS -> Win 3.0 migration? , then Win 3.1 -> Win 95 migration? Or wp5.1 DOS/lotus 123 -> any-windows-office-suite)

Is this flashback relavent? Yes, CDE/motif was designed to be visually competetive with Windows 3.1 and much to UNIX and CDE's testament, it has lived on far longer than Windows 3.1.

I don't personally use CDE, but I expect it to be available on all (non-linux) boxes. Maybe CDE sucks, but at least I know exactly how it sucks and I can count on it to continue to suck in exactly the same ways on each major UNIX. It's a STANDARD.

anyway, It's fast, GNOME-aware, and familiar. If you work in a big Solaris shop, your users will probably require less retraining with XFCE than kde or GNOME (even though they're much cooler)

I hope the distros realize this, and include XFCE as a default WM for "LEGACY" unix operators.

Choice is a great thing!

I do think XFCE needs a beter name, though. Maybe GNU CDE or GDE?

Re:xfce fills a definite need for Linux

[Scott Madin]

Name: GnuDE.

I think we'd quickly see usage numbers for it skyrocket, leaving GNOME and KDE in the dust.

Just Installed it!

[nevets]

Hey, after reading this article I downloaded it (had to use a mirror because /. was slowing it down ;-) I compiled it and I now have it running. It is a lot like CDE, unfortunately that part I don't care for. But I actually like this better. It is quick. And now I'm going to go look at how to configure it. I've been using just fvwm2 with gnome panel running. Now I have gnome panel running with this. I don't care for enlightenment since it seems to slow my machine down. I used Afterstep for a while, but nothing seemed to beat fvwm in speed. Which is what I need.

So, I like this. If you like the fast window manager, and don't really care about the extras, I recommend this. (you must realize my experience with this is about 2 minutes)

Anyway it is GPL so it may work nicely with other gnome apps. And maybe KDE as well, since the two seem to be kissing and making up.

Steven Rostedt

Re:slashdotted

[nevets]

yes,

goto http://tsikora.tiac.net/xfce/

Steven Rostedt

Another mirror.

[nevets]

Also you can goto http://www.baysurf.net/linux/xfce/ but it seems slower.

Steven Rostedt

Three points

[Travoltus]

1) What's up with the rather prejudicial software plugs? Nothing against XFCE or anything (as you'll see), but I noticed a strong bias in the past towards mikmod and x11amp/xmms when there are/were other good software in the GPL arena that do the same things (xmp and gqmpeg being the top two respective examples, IMO).

2) XFCE rocks. I like its simplicity and yet complexity of design. It does what I want it to do, and it has CDE's small footprint. It is not supposed to have the features of GNOME and KDE if it is a CDE alternative, but mind you, there are utilities in Linux you can compile and install, which XFCE will call on if you want. I would not recommend switching from KDE to XFCE if you like a ton of functionality. KDE simply has more features.

3) I do believe that people who use CDE can use this. My mother actually settled on XFCE when I tried to sell her on the idea of Linux on her machine, instead of KDE/kwm, windowmaker, E/GNOME, etc. And if my mudda likes it, you bettah like it! :) (Sadly she finally asked me to put Windows 98 on...sigh)

Re:Three points

[compwiz]

Sometimes I do wonder about what kind of motivation goes into some of these articles. Just because it's associated with GNU it has to go into Slashdot? What about another great, lightweight window manager, Blackbox? Does noone who reads Slashdot use anything except GNU/Linux? I would personally take Blackbox alpha over anything made with GTK any day.
Just my $0.02.

Re:Screenshots?

[JohnG]

Look under the "Snapshots" section of the website. (When it is not Slashdotted of course). They only have one picture from what I say but it is there.
It annoys me when screenshots go under the "snapshots" heading, I usually expect to find code there, but oh well.

Of all the things to clone...

[Scola]

Of the things one could clone why the CDE? The CDE is ugly. The CDE is slow (although xfce is faster). The CDE is some of the ugliest source I've ever seen. The CDE is a poor, counterintuitive user interface even when compared to something like fvwm. A lot of other user interfaces (windows, MacOS) are pretty decent, but lack flexibility. The CDE also is not flexible, but has extra flaws in addition. Why the hell would someone want to clone the CDE of all things? At least the KDE and GNOME people tried to take the good points of every GUI and combine them. The CDE does the exact opposite, it takes the worst points of every GUI and combines them. I've never understood why people use CDE, and I can't understand why anyone would want to make a clone of it. I mean with xfce they solved the speed problem, but since it's not heavily tied to motif, like CDE is, and since the CDE libraries aren't available, you don't even get access to CDE apps, you just clone what is perhaps the worst UI still actively maintained.

Re:Of all the things to clone...

[Zigg]

Why not clone it? Admittedly, my first experience with UNIX workstations were with HP-UX (first running VUE, then CDE), but I found CDE to be nice, clean, and very usable.

I think it's a great idea to continue to create new working environments. As soon as the /. effect dies down I'm grabbing a copy.

For those who haven't used it...

[roystgnr]

You may be wondering, "How good is CDE really? Is this expensive, old, committee-designed Unix 'standard' really that much better than the Gnome & KDE environments I use daily? Should I shell out cash for one of the Linux CDE sellers?"

No, it isn't, and no you shouldn't, unless you want a panel that is more limited and harder to configure, a widget set which is nasty to use and 10 times nastier to program in, a limited utility set (which is admittedly on par with Gnome's selection I've seen, but not up to KDE's), a hideous looking window manager, and a nearly useless file manager. The text editor is OK for people used to Notepad, I guess.

I could see where some people might prefer some of the stylistic decisions behind CDE's interface, (hence XFce, in large part), but nobody could possibly honestly mistake it for "genius" or even "worth the effort that got wasted to make it a Unix standard".

Re:Bah! I'm tired of hearing it's like CDE

[Guy Harris]

(Granted, older versions of CDE are not as great, but have you checked out CDE 2.1?)

Which vendors, if any, ship CDE 2.1 as their standard desktop, rather than CDE 1.x?

Re:The desktop for Linux

[Guy Harris]

The best window manager/desktop is the one that you prefer.

...which presumably means "the best desktop for you is the one you prefer".

Maybe in the near future they'll be viable but for now, XFce is the best there is.

...for you. For others, of course, that is not necessarily the case, as per "the best desktop is the one you prefer".

(Or, to put it another way, be careful not to confuse personal taste with universal truth - a rule advocates of any choice should take to heart.)

Speak for yourself, license matters

[extrasolar]

I want source and I am done paying for software that comes without source code and a free license.

Its that whole freedom issue that too manny people ignore.

Look at KDE and GNOME... they are better because they are free. I would never use CDE even if it was the most pleasant looking desktop ever.

***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!

GNU's lightweight desktop?

[Arandir]

I didn't find anything on the front page identifying it as being a part of the GNU project. I didn't even find a FSF or GNU link.

So why is this a part of GNU? Did XFce join GNU, or did GNU add them to their lists? Do the authors of XFce even know that they're GNU?

If it really is a part of GNU, then why? After all, GNU has Windowmaker and Gnome, with the possibility of an "official" Gnome WM real soon. Why another WM or DE?

Re:GNU's lightweight desktop?

[Jonas �berg]

To the best of my knowledge, XFce is not part of the GNU project. I don't find any mention of it in the GNU records and that usually indicates that either someone has forgotten to add them, or they're simply not part of the GNU project.

been using it for several months.

[Anonymous Coward]

after all the bloated eye-candy of many other WMs, and the horrid, expensive, restrictive Qt licence issues (yes, they affect me) I decided to try XFCE.

I will not go back! Even though I liked the Corel Demo at Comdex (they use a modified version of KDE) I would still prefer to stay detached from all things Qt. My preference. The way Qt/KDE has fully embraced OO technology is refreshing, though.

As a personal thing, I support and use free software. As a Unix programmer, I prefer partitioned things over blobs. Massive, intertwined things like KDE and Gnome are pretty disappointing for me. I was always hoping someone would just release an object repository infrastructure for Linux -- but no, they want to take over the desktop. Sigh. The OO backend should be completely decoupled from the GUI.

XFCE has been a very satisfying experience for me. I like CDE a lot, and even though this doesn't do a lot of CDE things, it still looks great to me.

And the menus are TRIVIAL to update/configure! I installed all my favorite apps and utilities under them in minutes; it's just so simple.

One thing I'd like to see on the XFCE site (at some point) is an area for people's favorite menu setups.

EVERYTHING is faster under XFCE! It rocks.

Re:SCHOOL COMP LABS REPLACED CDE W/ KDE

[Tom Christiansen]

Replacing CDE with KDE is like replacing one disgusting bucket of painful user-obsequiousness with another even flashier one. You aren't getting very far, very fast.

You've also got the most amusing perspective on "old". Things that are tried and tested, things that have withstood the tests of time, offer a streamlined stability you don't see in these fancy-pants distractions all full of glitter.

When you say "up" from twm, I think you're making some very amusing little assumptions. Nearly everything I've ever seen that isn't a twm derivative (and I include fvwm there), is just a waste of your time and attention. I don't know anyone who isn't a Winix kid (somebody raised on Windows and not happy until he hamstrings Unix into looking and feeling just like the hell he knows) who doesn't strongly prefer twm and friends. (And I even use it in uwm mode. :-) We all have a visceral dislike for CDE. Yes, you can get enlightenment to behave sanely, but it's a lot of hassle, and always huge.

But hey, maybe you're not distractable and like all that clutter. That's a gift many of us do not share with you. I can't even turn images on in a web browser, because if they move, they eat my brain and I can no more get anything done than if a chattering magpie were perched upon my shoulder. We each have our own gifts and our own challenges.

Put back what you take

[DragonHawk]

It definetely doesn't have nearly half the features of either GNOME or KDE...

You are confusing the window manager with the entire GUI environment. XFce is a window manager. While it does include a couple of extra "environmentish" tools like a launcher panel, its main purpose in life is to decorate and manage windows.

In contrast, GNOME and KDE are full GUI environments. They are not single programs. They are a collection of programs and shared libraries which use a common protocol for IPC. Both need a window manager. KDE provides one in the package; GNOME distro's generally ship with Enlightenment.

You could use XFce with GNOME or KDE if you wanted. Indeed, the GNOME people may want to "adopt" XFce as their window manager, as it seems to be pretty light-weight, and uses the same GTK toolkit the rest of GNOME does, while Enlightenment doesn't seem to quite "fit" with the rest of the GNOME stuff.

Australian mirror of XFCE web site up

[jason andrade]

You can find a mirror of XFCE which is accessible
only in Australia/NZ (the cost of international
bandwidth - sigh).

XFCE's web site having been slashdotted is currently turned off..

http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/xfce/

-jason

Re: DEFINITELY

[osguzzler]

I know this is off-subject, but Slashdot readers, will you please, please all learn to spell "definitely" correctly; repeat after me: D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y. Thank you. Now I can sleep more easily.

Re:GNOME, KDE / All Linux Window managers

[poopie]

>I wonder why the GUIs in linux look ugly when compared to win98 GUI

X-windows doesn't have anti-aliasing, so fonts may not appear to have such rounded edges. You probably would benefit from installing a Truetype xfs server (newer distros come with them) and a variety of truetype fonts (and the intlfonts package as well). That makes a surprising difference.

Other than that, the "beauty" of any GUI is pretty subjective. Some people here really like CDE. How many windows users would be praising Windows 3.0 or Windows 3.1 user interface? They're out there... believe it or not.

Unix doesn't requrie a gui. This takes a while to sink in. unix doesn't need a gui to be installed/run/manage/administer. That's a major strenght (and conversely a major weakness of Windows)

Unix and x-windows has developed over time much the vay that opensource projects work. I personally think that gnome and kde are pretty fantastic. I think they both look and function a lot better than windows98.

I could also show you some pretty lame-looking window managers for unix, but then I could show you situations where a lame-looking window manager works exceptionally well for certain people.

example: twm - ever seen a sysadmin with hundreds of minimized xterms in gnome? it works and looks pretty functional in twm.

Also, since there's no single company that is forcing users to follow a single user interface path. There are other user interfaces for windows. Look for litestep...

developers for windows are basically strongarmed into developing these "consistent" GUIs. I read somewhere about what developers have to agree to with Micros~1 in order to be "windows 2000 certified". that takes away a lot of the programmer's freedom to explore new toolkits. Imagine if everyone had been forced to use motif -- we'd never have gotten all the great gtk and qt toolkits and apps.

I'll be the first to admit that x-windows has it's limitations and design flaws and that there are some pretty far-out, non-intuitive themes for some window managers. But you can choose what works best for you.

... and if you don't like linux, you're free to keep using windows. I'm more interested in getting all of the developers to switch to linux first. When we've finished coding all of the fantastic apps that you value more than OS stability, free code, and cross-platform-ness, we'll be ready for you with everything you want already built into linux. Keep checking back with us.

Developers want to develop for linux and now they can make money doing it. It's just a matter of time before end users and upper management realizes that their important apps are as good or better under linux, and that linux gives them more choices.

Re:SCHOOL COMP LABS REPLACED CDE W/ KDE

[Tom Christiansen]

That was sort of a harsh judgement of KDE, have you even used it?

Certainly. I've also used Gnome and CDE. They are all highly Winix-biased (intuitive and familiar to Windows people, confusing and unintuitive to Unix people) and worse still, wholly undocumented.

I prefer to use something whose documentation I can consult, and which doesn't assume prior Windows knowledge. I don't think that's too much to ask.

All my systems are configured with one of fvwm, twm, or tvtwm. I can set up Enlightenment, but until it's documented, it's not worth the time for me to learn how to configure it into a non-intruisive and user-friendly set-up.

And it too has the taint of Winix. I was very frustated at not being able to get a window ring going, and when Raster said words to the effect of "Just use ALT-TAB like always you dummy", I had to say "What t do you mean `ALT-TAB like always'?". Turns out that it's some Windows thing. How could I know that? I've never used Windows. This Winix stuff doesn't help me at all, although I'm sure it's friendly to those who like Windows. And also like Windows, there's no documentation. I myself finally put together a manpage for E, which Mandrake checked in.

I hate Winix. I really, really do.

What a Unix User wants in a GUI world

[Tom Christiansen]

In the KDE article, I posted some notions about how to go about building something that's Unix-friendly instead of Winix-pandering. Rather than reposting the whole thing here, you can just follow the link.

Re:What a Unix User wants in a GUI world

[Tom Christiansen]

Hmmm...you've got some good points in that post (as I would expect you, being, as you are, you, to have :)*

Was there a footnote there that I missed?

certain segment of the population who one feels would have been much happier if GUIs had never been invented

Perhaps those people exist, but I'm certainly not amongst them. I'm a big fan of screen real estate and innovative use of the same.

Then again, I really do wish that the idea of caveman-style point-and-grunt wordless happycons with no textual alternative or perspective had never been invented. It's like extolling hieroglyphics and ideograms over text. How do I search a happycon? How do I sort/alphabetize them? Ever tried to look up a word in a Chinese dictionary? Not fun at all, and I think you can see why. Being forced to learn a new set of random squiggly hieroglyphics for each program is hardly what I call would call progress. It's anti-progress, but I guess that should come as little surprise in this post-literate society.

And yes, I know that a happycon is supposed to be language neutral. Guess what? It often isn't, and even if it should be language-neutral, it's virtually never culturaly neutral. Tell me, how do you do message catalogues for happycons? See the problem? You could do it for text. It's not just for the disabled, unless of course you consider those whose first language isn't English to be disabled. :-)

That's actually rather important, since that is one area in which Windows literally kicks X's ass in a very literal way, making Unix geeks look like a bunch of unenlightened shitheads. It's embarrassing.

Well, you're assuming that X==Unix. I'd say that Unix itself is highly friendly toward the, oh what's the way I'm supposed to say this now?, "differently enabled", I imagine. Think Braille, message catalogues, etc.

Re:SCHOOL COMP LABS REPLACED CDE W/ KDE

[Tom Christiansen]

I can imagine you taking glee in the confusion of new students as they first try to use those Sparc machines running twm.

And what confusion would that be? If they want Windows, they know where to find it. If they want MTV, they know where to find that. And if they want epilepsy-triggering fugues on a theme by Wired Magazine, doubtless they know where to find that as well, 'though for my sanity, it's something I strenuously avoid. Why would I want to inflect such misery on the unwary? What did they do to deserve the pain?

More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

As for docs, here is a quote from the KWM docs:

"
Alt-Tab and Alt-Shift-Tab

Traverse the windows of the current desktop
"

So there.

Oh, really?

% man -k kwm
kwm: nothing appropriate
Exit 1
% man -k kde
kde: nothing appropriate
% man -k gnome
gnome: nothing appropriate
% man -k enlightenment
enlightenment: nothing appropriate
% man -k eterm
Eterm (1) - an Enlightened terminal emulator for the X Window System
% man -k twm
tvtwm (1x) - Tom's Virtual Tab Window Manager for the X Window System
twm (1x) - Tab Window Manager for the X Window System
% man -k fvwm
FvwmAudio (1) - the FVWM Audio module
FvwmAudio (1fvwm) - the FVWM Audio module
FvwmAuto (1) - the FVWM auto-raise module
FvwmAuto (1fvwm) - the FVWM auto-raise module
FvwmBacker (1) - the FVWM background changer module
FvwmBacker (1fvwm) - the FVWM background changer module
FvwmBanner (1) - the FVWM Banner
FvwmBanner (1fvwm) - the FVWM Banner
FvwmButtons (1) - the FVWM buttonbox module
FvwmCascade (1) - layer FVWM windows
FvwmClean (1fvwm) - the FVWM desktop clutter reduction module
FvwmCommand (1) - FVWM command external interface
FvwmConfig (1) - the FVWM Configuration Aid (Braindead)
FvwmConsole (1) - the FVWM command input interface
FvwmConsoleC.pl (1) - Command editor for FVWM command input interface
FvwmCpp (1) - the FVWM Cpp pre-processor
FvwmDebug (1) - the FVWM module debugger
FvwmDebug (1fvwm) - the FVWM module debugger
FvwmForm (1) - input form module for Fvwm
FvwmGoodStuff (1) - the FVWM button panel module
FvwmIconBox (1) - the FVWM iconbox module
FvwmIconBox (1fvwm) - the FVWM iconbox module
FvwmIconMan (1) - an Fvwm Icon Manager
FvwmIdent (1) - the FVWM identify-window module
FvwmIdent (1fvwm) - the FVWM identify-window module
FvwmM4 (1) - the FVWM M4 pre-processor
FvwmPager (1) - the FVWM Pager module
FvwmPager (1fvwm) - the FVWM Pager module
FvwmSave (1) - the FVWM desktop-layout saving module
FvwmSave (1fvwm) - the FVWM desktop-layout saving module
FvwmSaveDesk (1) - another FVWM desktop-layout saving module
FvwmSaveDesk (1fvwm) - another FVWM desktop-layout saving module
FvwmScript (1) - module to build graphic user interface
FvwmScroll (1) - the FVWM scroll-bar module
FvwmScroll (1fvwm) - the FVWM scroll-bar module
FvwmTalk (1) - the FVWM command line interface
FvwmTaskBar (1) - the FVWM taskbar module
FvwmTile (1) - tile FVWM windows
FvwmWharf (1) - the AfterStep application "dock" module ported to Fvwm. FvwmWinList (1) - the FVWM window list module
FvwmWinList (1fvwm) - the FVWM window list module
GoodStuff (1fvwm) - the FVWM button panel module
fvwm (1x) - F(?) Virtual Window Manager for X11
fvwm2 (1) - F(?) Virtual Window Manager (version 2.xx) for X11

So there to you, too. Perhaps you might about read more about the Unix vs Winix issue.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

If there's a manpage for kwm, it must be installed if kwm is installed. I don't care that it's SGML-generated; that's what I did for Enlightenment, and sent the patch back in so it's part of the standard distribution and installation. And there really needs to be at least a remedial manpage, although it certainly need not be a fully-fledged tutorial, for which other and quite possibly better venues exist. See POSIX for more details on this simple and minimal requirement. Anything else is ridiculous and leads right back to the Winix quagmire.

The point on the keybinding is that only a Windows user would guess it. It rewards previous Windows experience rather than previous Unix experience. Hence Winix.

That said, window ring bindings are hardly standard, so I don't imagine there was a particulary obvious choice. Maybe the FRONT key, although that should probably just be raise, or raise-lower toggle.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

I don't like the doc format kwm installs" != "kwm is undocumented". If you gonna gripe, gripe in ways that can be reasonably understood.

What you aren't understanding is that to a Unix person, if the documentation is GUI-accessible only, it doesn't count. There are very good reasons for this, and I'm not going to take the time to go into them right now, but that's just the way it is. And it's in violation of the standard not to do it.

Winix is evil in the Jargon File sense:

Evil: adj. Both evil and rude, but with the additional connotation that the rudeness was due to malice rather than incompetence. Thus, for example: Microsoft's Windows NT is evil because it's a competent implementation of a bad design; it's rude because it's gratuitously incompatible with UNIX in places where compatibility would have been as easy and effective to do; but it's evil and rude because the incompatibilities are apparently there not to fix design bugs in UNIX but rather to lock hapless customers and developers into the Microsoft way. Hackish evil and rude is close to the mainstream sense of `evil'.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

Gee Linux is not posix compliant, why should a Desktop Environment be?

That's a very, very poor excuse. Perhaps you are trying to retroactively justify the abominable state of Linux documentation. Why do I say that? Just because every Linux operating system I've ever looked at has had the most abyssmal and embarrassing manpage setup known to Unix.

I'll save up my essay on why this is a very very very bad thing for later. You might trick the Windows people into becomes Winix folks, but Unix people can only regard this shoddy disinterest and utter hodgepodgeness in abject horror.

I love it when the Linux apologists come out in droves to defend their sloppiness. I wish they'd spend 1/10 that much energy in cleaning up the mess they've made.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

Linux != Unix, its merely Unixlike

Do we really have to listen to this idiocy anymore? It's pure sophistry; or, if you prefer, and artful lie. It serves no useful purpose to propagate the deceipt.

As for a properly installed and completely integrated online man system, there is absolutely no reason not to do it. It precludes nothing.

I can give you a list of incoherent inanities in this regard in any Linux operating system you can name that will make you blanche. Please stop dodging the issue of carelessness and lack of craftsmanship. Just fix it. It's easy.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

Think of it this way: it makes no more sense to provide documentation for a GUI solely through that GUI than would it make sense to provide documentation on how to use a Braille reader only using Braille-encoded "print". In fact, it makes considerably less sense. The Winix kids have forgotten a lot of the power of Unix. Or maybe they just never learned it. Irrespective of the cause, all of us are diminished.

This will all be in an essay one of these days, and increasingly soon. I'm not sure what my essay will be called...

• The Dumbing Down of Unix
• Unix in the Post-Literate Age
• Did Cavemen Have Windows?
• (Winix = Unix) =~ s/Literacy//
• The Grey Wall of the Priesthood Reincarnates in the Digital Age
• Happycons Versus the Written Word: Who Wins, Who Loses
• On Care and Craftsmanship in Operating Systems, or why Linux operating systems fall far short of any other Unix operating system, and how this must inevitably change.

All have their tastinesses. Meanwhile, you should read my Redhat buglist. Or the Stevenson or Scoville essays.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

theres only one Linux OS

When you start from a false premise -- as you are doing -- any conclusion you pretend to reach is meaningless. You can repeat your lie till the cows come home, and it still remains a self-serving deception that does more harm than good.

But since you choose to automumble the mad mantras we've all heard before, it's clear you can't think for yourself, so I have no more time for such trolling. Whack the Mole is not a very satisfying game.

Re:More Unix-versus-Winix expectations, standards

[Tom Christiansen]

You are simply not making any sense.

No, you are simply not understanding me. Or Unix.

In time, I'll trouble myself to elaborate these themes into something even Windows people might chance to understand. Maybe then we'll have less Winix and more Unix. One can only hope.

Re:SCHOOL COMP LABS REPLACED CDE W/ KDE

[be-fan]

What do you mean there is no documentation to Windows? I program DirectX and OpenGL and Win32 everyday and I can tell you, that there is tons of documentation. No details on how functions work, (but of course you shouldn't need those details, its called maitaining a good API.) but every function you could possibly need has a very good explaination. Every possible option in the structure is documented. DirectDraw alone has 700 pages of documentation. DirectX in its entirity has about 1500 pages of docs, and the rest of Win32 has another few (2-7) thousand more.
Example the docs for GetDeviceCaps.
GetDeviceCaps
The GetDeviceCaps function retrieves device-specific information about a specified device.

int GetDeviceCaps(
HDC hdc, // handle to the device context
int nIndex // index of capability to query
);

Parameters
hdc
Handle to the device context.
nIndex
Specifies the item to return. This parameter can be one of the following values. Index Meaning
DRIVERVERSION The device driver version.
TECHNOLOGY Device technology. It can be any one of the following values.
DT_PLOTTER Vector plotter
DT_RASDISPLAY Raster display
DT_RASPRINTER Raster printer
DT_RASCAMERA Raster camera
DT_CHARSTREAM Character stream
DT_METAFILE Metafile
DT_DISPFILE Display file
If the hdc parameter identifies the device context of an enhanced metafile, the device technology is that of the referenced device as given to the CreateEnhMetaFile function. To determine whether it is an enhanced metafile device context, use the GetObjectType function.
HORZSIZE Width, in millimeters, of the physical screen.
VERTSIZE Height, in millimeters, of the physical screen.
HORZRES Width, in pixels, of the screen.
VERTRES Height, in raster lines, of the screen.
LOGPIXELSX Number of pixels per logical inch along the screen width. In a system with multiple display monitors, this value is the same for all monitors.
LOGPIXELSY Number of pixels per logical inch along the screen height. In a system with multiple display monitors, this value is the same for all monitors.
BITSPIXEL Number of adjacent color bits for each pixel.
PLANES Number of color planes.
NUMBRUSHES Number of device-specific brushes.
NUMPENS Number of device-specific pens.
NUMFONTS Number of device-specific fonts.
NUMCOLORS Number of entries in the device's color table, if the device has a color depth of no more than 8 bits per pixel. For devices with greater color depths, -1 is returned.
ASPECTX Relative width of a device pixel used for line drawing.
ASPECTY Relative height of a device pixel used for line drawing.
ASPECTXY Diagonal width of the device pixel used for line drawing.
PDEVICESIZE Reserved.
CLIPCAPS Flag that indicates the clipping capabilities of the device. If the device can clip to a rectangle, it is 1. Otherwise, it is 0.
SIZEPALETTE Number of entries in the system palette. This index is valid only if the device driver sets the RC_PALETTE bit in the RASTERCAPS index and is available only if the driver is compatible with 16-bit Windows.
NUMRESERVED Number of reserved entries in the system palette. This index is valid only if the device driver sets the RC_PALETTE bit in the RASTERCAPS index and is available only if the driver is compatible with 16-bit Windows.
COLORRES Actual color resolution of the device, in bits per pixel. This index is valid only if the device driver sets the RC_PALETTE bit in the RASTERCAPS index and is available only if the driver is compatible with 16-bit Windows.
PHYSICALWIDTH For printing devices: the width of the physical page, in device units. For example, a printer set to print at 600 dpi on 8.5"x11" paper has a physical width value of 5100 device units. Note that the physical page is almost always greater than the printable area of the page, and never smaller.
PHYSICALHEIGHT For printing devices: the height of the physical page, in device units. For example, a printer set to print at 600 dpi on 8.5"x11" paper has a physical height value of 6600 device units. Note that the physical page is almost always greater than the printable area of the page, and never smaller.
PHYSICALOFFSETX For printing devices: the distance from the left edge of the physical page to the left edge of the printable area, in device units. For example, a printer set to print at 600 dpi on 8.5"x11" paper, that cannot print on the leftmost 0.25" of paper, has a horizontal physical offset of 150 device units.
PHYSICALOFFSETY For printing devices: the distance from the top edge of the physical page to the top edge of the printable area, in device units. For example, a printer set to print at 600 dpi on 8.5"x11" paper, that cannot print on the topmost 0.5" of paper, has a vertical physical offset of 300 device units.
VREFRESH Windows NT: For display devices: the current vertical refresh rate of the device, in cycles per second (Hz).
A vertical refresh rate value of 0 or 1 represents the display hardware's default refresh rate. This default rate is typically set by switches on a display card or computer motherboard, or by a configuration program that does not use Win32 display functions such as ChangeDisplaySettings.

DESKTOPHORZRES Windows NT: Width, in pixels, of the virtual desktop. This value may be larger than HORZRES if the device supports a virtual desktop or multiple displays.
DESKTOPVERTRES Windows NT: Height, in pixels, of the virtual desktop. This value may be larger than VERTRES if the device supports a virtual desktop or multiple displays.
SCALINGFACTORX Scaling factor for the x-axis of the printer.
SCALINGFACTORY Scaling factor for the y-axis of the printer.
BLTALIGNMENT Windows NT: Preferred horizontal drawing alignment, expressed as a multiple of pixels. For best drawing performance, windows should be horizontally aligned to a multiple of this value. A value of zero indicates that the device is accelerated, and any alignment may be used.
SHADEBLENDCAPS Windows 98, Windows NT 5.0 and later: Value that indicates the shading and blending capabilities of the device.
SB_CONST_ALPHA Handles the SourceConstantAlpha member of the BLENDFUNCTION structure, which is referenced by the blendFunction parameter of the AlphaBlend function.
SB_GRAD_RECT Capable of doing GradientFill rectangles.
SB_GRAD_TRI Capable of doing GradientFill triangles.
SB_NONE Device does not support any of these capabilities.
SB_PIXEL_ALPHA Capable of handling per-pixel alpha in AlphaBlend.
SB_PREMULT_ALPHA Capable of handling premultiplied alpha in AlphaBlend.
RASTERCAPS Value that indicates the raster capabilities of the device, as shown in the following table:
RC_BANDING Requires banding support.
RC_BITBLT Capable of transferring bitmaps.
RC_BITMAP64 Capable of supporting bitmaps larger than 64K.
RC_DI_BITMAP Capable of supporting the SetDIBits and GetDIBits functions.
RC_DIBTODEV Capable of supporting the SetDIBitsToDevice function.
RC_FLOODFILL Capable of performing flood fills.
RC_GDI20_OUTPUT Capable of supporting features of 16-bit Windows 2.0.
RC_PALETTE Specifies a palette-based device.
RC_SCALING Capable of scaling.
RC_STRETCHBLT Capable of performing the StretchBlt function.
RC_STRETCHDIB Capable of performing the StretchDIBits function.
CURVECAPS Value that indicates the curve capabilities of the device, as shown in the following table:
CC_NONE Device does not support curves.
CC_CHORD Device can draw chord arcs.
CC_CIRCLES Device can draw circles.
CC_ELLIPSES Device can draw ellipses.
CC_INTERIORS Device can draw interiors.
CC_PIE Device can draw pie wedges.
CC_ROUNDRECT Device can draw rounded rectangles.
CC_STYLED Device can draw styled borders.
CC_WIDE Device can draw wide borders.
CC_WIDESTYLED Device can draw borders that are wide and styled.
LINECAPS Value that indicates the line capabilities of the device, as shown in the following table:
LC_NONE Device does not support lines.
LC_INTERIORS Device can draw interiors.
LC_MARKER Device can draw a marker.
LC_POLYLINE Device can draw a polyline.
LC_POLYMARKER Device can draw multiple markers.
LC_STYLED Device can draw styled lines.
LC_WIDE Device can draw wide lines.
LC_WIDESTYLED Device can draw lines that are wide and styled.
POLYGONALCAPS Value that indicates the polygon capabilities of the device, as shown in the following table:
PC_NONE Device does not support polygons.
PC_INTERIORS Device can draw interiors.
PC_POLYGON Device can draw alternate-fill polygons.
PC_RECTANGLE Device can draw rectangles.
PC_SCANLINE Device can draw a single scanline.
PC_STYLED Device can draw styled borders.
PC_WIDE Device can draw wide borders.
PC_WIDESTYLED Device can draw borders that are wide and styled.
PC_WINDPOLYGON Device can draw winding-fill polygons.
TEXTCAPS Value that indicates the text capabilities of the device, as shown in the following table:
TC_OP_CHARACTER Device is capable of character output precision.
TC_OP_STROKE Device is capable of stroke output precision.
TC_CP_STROKE Device is capable of stroke clip precision.
TC_CR_90 Device is capable of 90-degree character rotation.
TC_CR_ANY Device is capable of any character rotation.
TC_SF_X_YINDEP Device can scale independently in the x- and y-directions.
TC_SA_DOUBLE Device is capable of doubled character for scaling.
TC_SA_INTEGER Device uses integer multiples only for character scaling.
TC_SA_CONTIN Device uses any multiples for exact character scaling.
TC_EA_DOUBLE Device can draw double-weight characters.
TC_IA_ABLE Device can italicize.
TC_UA_ABLE Device can underline.
TC_SO_ABLE Device can draw strikeouts.
TC_RA_ABLE Device can draw raster fonts.
TC_VA_ABLE Device can draw vector fonts.
TC_RESERVED Reserved; must be zero.
TC_SCROLLBLT Device cannot scroll using a bit-block transfer. Note that this meaning may be the opposite of what you expect.


Return Values
The return value specifies the value of the desired item.

Remarks
GetDeviceCaps provides the following six indices in place of printer escapes.

Index Printer Escape Replaced
PHYSICALWIDTH GETPHYSPAGESIZE
PHYSICALHEIGHT GETPHYSPAGESIZE
PHYSICALOFFSETX GETPRINTINGOFFSET
PHYSICALOFFSETY GETPHYSICALOFFSET
SCALINGFACTORX GETSCALINGFACTOR
SCALINGFACTORY GETSCALINGFACTOR


Windows CE: Windows CE does not support the following values for the nIndex parameter:

VREFRESH

DESKTOPHORZRES

DESKTOPVERTRES

BLTALIGNMENT

Windows CE version 1.0 does not support the following values for the nIndex parameter:

PHYSICALWIDTH

PHYSICALHEIGHT

PHYSICALOFFSETX

PHYSICALOFFSETY

QuickInfo
Windows NT: Requires version 3.1 or later.
Windows: Requires Windows 95 or later.
Windows CE: Requires version 1.0 or later.
Header: Declared in wingdi.h.
Import Library: Use gdi32.lib.

See Also
Device Contexts Overview, Device Context Functions, CreateEnhMetaFile, CreateIC, DeviceCapabilities, GetDIBits, GetObjectType, SetDIBits, SetDIBitsToDevice, StretchBlt, StretchDIBits

What more do you want?

Re:Could use a better name

[scrytch]

> How would average Joe pronounce XFce?

Lemme go out on a limb here:

ecks-eff-see-ee