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

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

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:slashdotted

[nevets]

yes,

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

Steven Rostedt

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".

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.

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.