Where are the goals of XFCE.

David Voge davidvoge at googlemail.com
Wed Jul 16 14:15:11 CEST 2008

> This whole thread is a great example of proud parents having the
> neighbors tell them their kid is ugly!  I don't think the original
> poster was bitching and was taken way to seriously. I also think the
> core point was legitimate. Efficiency is important. We in America
> (and Europe) assume that the rest of the world has what we have but I
> can tell you that this isn't the case. I spend 3 months a year in
> foreign countries and my daughters 6 year old beige box PC is more
> powerful than just about anything I've come in contact with.
> Efficiency is important in another matter. I consult for one of the
> largest corporations in the world and I chose XFCE 4.2 for all media
> duplication servers and aircraft maintenance boxes. We have over 100
> machines in 25 countries world wide. I chose XFCE because CentOS with
> XFCE used 64 MB of ram. The machines are 3.0 Ghz P4s with 1 GB of
> ram. They're not 486s struggling to open a window. Gnome and KDE used
> 150 MB more ram leaving our application with 150 MB less ram to work
> with and we need every MB we can get.
> When we upgraded all machines to CentOS 5 we upgraded the XFCE to
> 4.4. We welcomed the changes because now we get less flack from the
> field. With 4.2 people were trying to get into Gnome because they
> couldn't deal with not having desk icons! Weird I know. Anyway we've
> lost some of our advantage because it seems that 4.4 is more resource
> heavy but because we have an investment in dev time and training
> we're staying with XFCE for now. I guess the moral of the story was
> we chose XFCE because it gave us the most complete desktop with the
> smallest footprint. I still believe there's a market for such a thing.
> I think that the original posters main beef was that there was no page
> telling the philosophy or goals of XFCE. I think in the years I've
> been using XFCE that those goals have changed. When it started out it
> was supposed to be a really lightweight desktop that you would use in
> low memory situations. Now XFCE is posing itself as more of an
> alternative to the two big boys and since 4.4 has come out the
> percentage of user share has gone up. Maybe this will leave a void
> where XFCE once was and someone else will fill it. You have to admit
> that being able to say you're one of the big three desktops is better
> than saying you develop for the one that people use when they can't
> use the other two. :-)
> As far as the comment about power consumption, my Core2 Duo uses 8x
> the power of a Pentium 75.  I couldn't find specs on the 486. :-) I'm
> sure overall computers are more efficient power wise but CPUs use
> substantially more powere when operating than they used to.
> Grant

My workstation runs gentoo-linux amd64 with 4GiB of RAM and
AMD Athlon64 x2 4600+ and Xfce compiled via SVN checkouts.

Most of things i run are in terminals because of this i used a long
time WMII as WM or a getty. For now i use Xfce, because i got an 24"
FullHD screen and wanna have a nice desktop.

GNOME and KDE for me take a lot of things i dont need, with that
the compiling time. Xfce is compiles faster and often SVN
checkouts are ok.

If i use GTK+ or QT under Xfce is goes fine and fast.

The same on my slower notebook, ( gentoo x86, xfce-svn, 1,73ghz, 1.5GB
RAM ).

iam from topic? :D


More information about the Xfce mailing list