KDE -> Xfce
apa.chioara at gmail.com
Tue Nov 15 16:20:19 CET 2005
> that is not a fair comparison - sawfish is even ``heavier`` than xfwm4
> and perlpanel is the opposite of xfce's panel (lighter - although it
> needs perl which can be considered `bloaty` on itself - dragging along
> gui libraries). You're comparing apples and pears here.
I tried Openbox, which is lighter too, but it isn't as configurable as
xfwm. It needs some more apps to do what xfwm does, and it ends up
being slow again :)
I used Fbpanel, which is quite similar to the Xfce panel, but it's not
as flexible.Perlpanel has more functionality, like Xfce-panel, that's
why I was comparing them.
> This does not necessarily need to be put on paper - Benny has accused
> Xfce more often of lacking a well-defined goal (and indeed he is right
> about that), but that does not mean that Xfce is disfunctional. On the
> contrary - Xfce is extremely functional - perhaps because it is not
> obstructed by design and goals.
Ah, ok. As a Xfce user, and (quite) and admirer, I can't help but
wonder where it is going (as in: what will happen next? ). For
example, another FOSS project I like is Inkscape, which has quite a
plan... OTOH, I can see why nobody would want their work on Xfce
becoming a drag just for the sake of a strict plan.
> BTW If you want xfce to be lighter - then you should consider NOT
> installing all xfce components for a change - you'd be surprised what
> you can do with just the panel and the wm.
I agree that some of the apps are I use are not that useful, and I'll
get rid of them (weather plugin, CPU plugin, ...), but the taskbar and
volume plugin are here for keeps :P
Hopefully the devs agree with me :)
More information about the Xfce