Where are the goals of XFCE.
fourdan at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 13:36:38 CEST 2008
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. I cant find the real goals of xfce.
Neither can I find the goals of your posts here.
> I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just a few Mb
> less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to easily browse on my
> lan by example.
Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...
> Also it seems like many of the applications takes more memory that what it
> Panel applets takes around 10 Mb, the menu button takes 14 and the clipman
And how much of this is shared memory? Do you actually know how to
measure memory on a modern OS?
> But a simple application with a systray icon can take less than that.
> As an example, Engage is much more lightweight and user-friendly.
Sure, but most of the memory used is shared between gtk+ applications,
so your argument is valid as long as you run not gtk+ application,
otherwise the memory is used anyway,
> At the end it is the samething to have xfce or gnome. I wish to have a
> better mix between both, like the xfce panel, xfce-menu(with a couple of
> features more), orage, a desktop like the nautilus one, and thunar using
> gnome-vfs to browse the LAN.
Cool, we always need contributors, awaiting your patches :)
> Also there is some common features missing like suspend/hibernate support on
> the logout window, right click menu on the main-menu or in the appfinder.
> There isnt any drag and drop from appfinder to menu-editor, and this editor
> doesnt edit the system menu like alacarte buggilly does.
Right, the usability of the panel can be improved, that's why we work
on new versions (with our little resources). But how often do you
modify your config, honestly? I do it once, and then stick to my
setup, I seldomly change the panel configuration, so even if it would
be a good usability feature, it's not necessarily the most important
I totally agree with the suspend/hibernate feature. The good thing is
that there is a patch that is available and used by most fine
distributions. If you ask me, I would integrate that patch right away,
but that decisions belongs to Benny.
> The default size of the xfce control panel is so big that doesnt feet on a
> 800x600 screen computer.
My foot doesn't fit a 800x600 screen either :) Seriously though, we
have to make sensible defaults, but the good thing is that it's
entirely configurable so you can adapt the size of the panel so it
fits in the screen.
> And the appfinder is a great tool, with it, one can work without a panel and
> just the launchers of engage. But appfinder doesnt allows you to do any more
> than launching and shortcuts to xfdesktop. And the default selected category
> (the "all") is the most laggy, so it adds 1 second or 2 to the start of it.
> xfce can not be called lightweight anymore, i really want to see the goals
> and on what improvements is working the xfce team.
Same question as before, I respect your ideas, opinions and thoughts,
but I am not sure I understand the goal of your post here. Maybe you
should subscribe to the xfce-dev list if you want to have a better
understanding of what will change in the next coming version...
More information about the Xfce