xfmusic4 alpha release

Erik Harrison erikharrison at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 02:59:36 CEST 2004

I look at the lightweight/bloat issue this way - as a user.

XFce is highly modular - it is the Unix of modern desktop
environments. Every tool does one thing and does it well. Tools can be
mixed and matched with each other and other environments. When a tool
needs extensible functionality, it is performed though a simple plugin
design. When I hear lightweight my major concern is memory usage and
processor usage. This is usually a result of a well thought out and
small design.

Here is what I hate about Gnome- gconf and gnome-vfs. Just use
dotfiles for goodness sake. The problem with Gconf is that it's a huge
framework that works best if everything uses it - so everything does,
even when it is innappropriate. VFS has excessively rich semantics
which have been used to implement things bizarrely. I want to use the
Gnome panel - why should I have to use Nautilus to configure it? I
have to because the applications menu is configured through the
applications:// URI though gnome-vfs. ARG!

As long as tools are kept distinct, and as long as the framework
itself is not bloated, then I have no problem with adding apps.
Harddrive space is cheap and plentiful, and I can just not install the
bleeding thing if it bugs me. It's the inability to, say, uninstall
Nautilus if I want to use the panel that irks me about Gnome.


On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:17:01 -0400 (EDT), Brian J. Tarricone
<bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> Biju Chacko wrote:
> > I don't mind it in CVS, but I don't think it should go into the xfce4
> > distro. I think a new xfce4-applications project is needed, containing
> > this, xfcalendar and xfce4-goodies and whatever else comes along.
> perhaps a new CVS toplevel, e.g., xfce4-apps/xfmusic4?  i have no
> problem with leaving it out of xfce4 proper.  it's hard to say what
> constitutes an essential app in a "desktop environment" (however you
> want to define it), but in the spirits of being lightweight, a music
> player probably doesn't fit.
> > IMHO, adding this to xfce4 would stretch the meaning of "lightweight
> > desktop" just a bit too far.
> hmm, right, i just said that too ^_~.
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Wade Nelson wrote:
> > Personally, I'd like to see xfmusic4 (looks nice btw) as well as
> > xfcalendar, xfce4-appfinder, xfce4-mixer, xfce4-toys, and perhaps
> > *-themes/*-icons go into xfce-goodies rather than core. (I'm not quite
> > sure how to handle theme & icon sets).  IMHO these aren't necessary core
> > components, and perhaps more of a burden than blessing for someone who
> > wants a true lightweight xfce4 desktop but is newish to linux in general.
> *nods*  yeah, i see the point.  i tend to feel like "lightweight desktop
> environment" means that you have all the apps and goodies that the more
> heavy environs do, just the individual apps are lightweight when
> compared to their heavyweight counterparts.  but you make a good point -
> being lightweight also means being sparse on applications and frills.
> > Xfce4-applications sounds like a good idea, but I would hope the
> > xfce4-<morestuff> doesn't get taken too far. With xfce4-applications,
> > xfce4-games, xfce4-multimedia, etc etc, xfce could end up about as
> > lightweight as Gnome. (Keeping in mind that these are optional, keeping
> > in mind there's little control over distro devs on issues like these,
> meh, xfce4-games, xfce4-multimedia... you're right, it sounds _exactly_
> like gnome or KDE.  and i'd bet that installing "xfce4" on most distros
> would, by default, give you all the "optional extras" as well.
> > and also keeping in mind that more options can mean more confusion for
> > some users.)
> i'm not so sure that's such an issue here.  in fact, the opposite - by
> branding a music player, game set, etc. as "part of xfce", you're
> essentially forcing a choice, or at least making one choice seem to make
> more sense - "why should i use the gnome or kde music player when
> xfce has its own?"  but i'm just playing devil's advocate here.
> essentially i agree that less is better if the "lightweight" reputation
> is to be maintained.  if it makes more sense to change xfmusic4's name
> to something that doesn't so obviously identify itself with xfce4, i'm
> ok with that.  unfortunately, it will at least have an association, as
> uncoupling it from libxfce4util and libxfcegui4 becomes harder by the
> minute...
>         -brian
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://lunar-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list