[Fwd: Re: panel issues]

[Auke Kok]

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
> 
> Auke Kok wrote:
>>  > ...One more thing - the first time I've started xfce without Thunar
>>  > installed, then I've installed it, but the warning window keeps popping up
>>  > with:
>>  >
>>  >   Unable to contact the Xfce Trash service.
>>  >   Make sure you have a file manager installed that supports
>>  >   the Xfce Trash service, such as Thunar.
>>  >
>>  > The removing of .config didn't help.
>>
>> this begs for having the thunar trash service automatically start in the 
>> 'autostarted applications' just like the tips display. Any reason why we're 
>> still mucking with .xinitrc's and the obvious horrors of the startxfce4 scripts? 
>> It seems like xfce4-session should replace all of these methods.
>>
>> I'd love to have my screensaver listed, and xfdesktop, and the panel etc....
>>
>> 4.6 material for thought, if I may say so.
> 
> No, all this stuff is started from the session manager (except for the
> screensaver).  The problem is that, if one of these applications quits
> or dies for some reason, and the user quits Xfce and saves the session,
> then they don't get restarted.
> 
> This is what's happening when we get all these repeated emails about the
> desktop disappearing and not coming back: xfdesktop dies (or is weirdly
> killed when Nautilus is started), and then the user thinks that
> restarting will help (which, in theory, it should), but then they make
> the critical mistake of saving the session without xfdesktop in it.

Allthough I'm not disputing that stuff can just die, I am touching on the issue 
that some programs are special and the user has no way of (1) finding out which 
ones they are (not to mention where to start them) and (2) disabling them in 
case he decides that he doesn't need them.

In a perfect world, you can start and stop `xfdesktop` and `thunar --daemon` 
from a user-configurable frontend. The user could possibly even have 
xfce4-session trap SIGCHLD and `restart if needed` to "always keep service running".

That would provide a central point for all services and allow the user to 
configure them easily. For all applications and services. Perhaps even panel 
plugins?!

Much better than a one-time shot from a script IMO. Screensaver most definately 
no doubt belongs right there.

I would go as far as that it pops up on first logon and displays which 
applications are autostarted, so the user knows what the freck is running on a 
bare desktop, and where to configure it. Maybe that's a tad wee too much windoze 
xp-ish tho :)

the session manager should obviously save/restore other programs, but really 
(personally) I hate that, and wish that every program I have just show up in 
'autostarted applications' instead. I don't want to depend on the luck my system 
has in restoring the previous state, and it doesn't even remember everything anyway.

> So yeah, I'd agree (for these applications) that they should be in the
> autostarted applications list instead, with "OnlyShowIn=XFCE;" set so
> they don't disturb GNOME or KDE.  Unfortunately, I don't think the
> autostart spec lets you specify a start order, so if the trash service
> starts after xfdesktop, the problem doesn't go away.
> 
> Alternatively, we could have a special "desktop component chooser" for
> things like "Panel", "Window Manager", "Desktop Manager", etc. that
> could be cross-desktop and list installed components from Xfce, GNOME,
> KDE, etc.  The session manager could be responsible for starting these,
> but in this case it would be able to make sure that everything that's
> supposed to be running is actually running, and it doesn't depend on
> your logout state.

ugh, yet another method for starting programs at logon. YAMFSPAL!

> Of course, this would require the support and cooperation from the other
> DE communities as well (i.e., freedesktop.org) to standardise that sort
> of thing so the desktop components could register themselves (probably
> just dumping a .desktop file in a predefined location).  On the other
> hand, this is probably an advanced feature that most average users
> wouldn't care to use (and it would probably just confuse them to see it
> in a settings manager), so maybe it's just overkill.
> 
> Do we know how GNOME and KDE start their desktop components?

*g* okay I spilled my foo. certainly it seems like a huge deficit in the desktop 
standards, so pushing for interaction on this topic to fd.o seems adequate. I'll 
second that :)

Auke