Xfce 4.4BETA1 - core packages

[Aaron]

im with jannis, thunar should be the default... even though xffm is
for power users, i think it might just need an overhaul to be usable
again?

@sofar: i did think, but wouldnt putting unnessisary applications like
a file manager in extra keep to the 'lightweight' thing? (both
terminals are packaged under -extra if im not mistaken)

On 3/25/06, Jannis Pohlmann <info at sten-net.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:57:12 +0000
> sofar <sofar at foo-projects.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:45:00 -0800, Oblio <apa.chioara at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Sorry to intervene in the dev discussions.
> > >
> > > After all this frantic activity, have the core Xfce package been
> > > decided? Or are they the same, and Xarchiver, Xfburn Xfmedia are
> > > extras? (I'd go with them as extras). Packagers might want to know.
> >
> > this is afaics a tough question which might need some more thought
> >
> > - xfburn (as JF said) is not stable yet and will stay -extra
> > - being dependent on xine I think xfmedia will stay -extra too
> > (brian?)
> > - xarchiver is definately -extra since no physical work has been done
> > to integrate it in Xfce. This will need more time
> >
> > I'm not sure what the position on thunar is now that it's rapidly
> > approaching beta (all hail Benny). Having both xffm and thunar in the
> > core packages poses a problem that is hard to solve. I'm sure this
> > e-mail will already stir things up - so lets think it over a bit ;^)
>
> I don't want to heat up the discussion, but my personal opinion could
> be summed up as follows.
>
> Xfce should have a file manager in the core. I consider this essential
> for a desktop environment. Personally, I'd prefer to have Thunar as the
> default file manager. There are several reasons for this. From a
> certain point of view, Xffm is to Thunar, what Linux is to Windows - a
> bit geeky, not as easy to use for beginners ... well, we all know that
> Windows is kinda wrong, but, err, I think you get it. Thunar was/is
> written with things like usability and ease of use in mind and you
> don't get around this when using it. Xffm is different, it just doesn't
> feel like being something for the average user.
>
> A second thing is: Why did we start to write a file manager if we
> already have one? The answer should be clear: We wanted to offer
> something better to the users than we already did. So it would be
> stupid not to make Thunar the default file manager.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind is that Thunar integrates fin with
> stuff like exo-open and offers a lot of features like associating
> MIME types with applications.
>
> Just my few cents,
> Jannis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
>
>
>


--
Aaron Fineman