<s>GTK+ 3</s> tabs in Thunar
de.techno at gmail.com
Tue Oct 18 08:09:59 CEST 2011
On 10/18/11 04:42, Matt x wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 05:18 AM, Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:25:32 +0530
>> "dE ."<de.techno at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The main bottleneck is Developer support then, to maintain a large
>>> codebase; as I've stated before, it's time for xfce to become
>> Ok, first of all, let me add something here. While the reasons to not
>> implement tabs and split views include maintainability, it has also
>> been a design decision from the start. Thunar is supposed to be simple.
>> There will always be people who need 20+ windows and do heavy file
>> management. But I assume the productiveness of the majority of users
>> does not depend on tabs or split view.
> I, for one, have almost never used tabs. When I have, I find them
> cumbersome. Even if I used tabs or a split view a lot, I could work
> just fine without them. As someone said earlier, web browsing and
> file management are different.
>> By the way, I object to "it's time for Xfce to become mainstream".
>> First of all, that's not a choice we make but something that either
>> does or does not happen. Also, this is not about making profit or
>> anything. Some people do see all this as a kind of competition, but
>> it isn't really. I suggest we stick to developing and maintaining a
>> compact desktop environment, and continue to make what we already have
>> - Jannis
> Thanks, Jannis. I hadn't been able to put into words what was
> bothering me about this conversation. We're not in competition
> (despite what some think), and we're not trying to make money. I'll
> add that bandwagon arguments "we should do it because everyone else
> does it" I consider moot.
> On 10/17/2011 12:32 PM, dE . wrote:
>> Even on Gentoo, emerging Xfce with mininal useflag requires merging of
>> 54 packages while merging of lxde requires 35 with less than half the
>> download size.
>> By this we can easily see the amount of source involved.
> You're of course speaking of the meta package, which includes a number
> of unneccessary things. So Gentoo's LXDE meta package includes fewer
> sub-packages than its XFCE meta package. That doesn't have much to do
> with the memory, etc. use when you install only what you need. And
> I've found when installing LXDE like that before, I have to borrow
> things from XFCE or elsewhere to get all the tools I want/need.
Gentoo can be a very minimal distro, it pulls in minimal packages and
has control over the compile time options. Xfce had the minimal USE on
which is meant to cut down on dependencies and compiled code.
> On 10/17/2011 12:48 PM, dE . wrote:
>> By mainstream I mean simple but usable.
> Ah, then our definitions are different. When I see "mainstream", I
> think good features (maybe more than needed), pretty, but bigger
> (space, CPU, RAM) than completely necessary. Like KDE and GNOME.
> That said, I did use GNOME until 3.0 replaced 2.0 in my distro's
> repos. My machine could handle it just fine.
I meant simplicity is the only goal -- not the efficiency.
>> Also another thing (which's not that much important) is missing -- a
>> freedesktop menu editor. I've been missing it from day 1, although
>> now I can
>> make .desktop entries, but a lot of people are searching for it.
> It's called medit/gedit/kate/leafpad/nano/pico/joe/vi(m)/emacs... :P
> Actually, doesn't alacarte work for that if you start from the default
> XFCE menu? I haven't tried it, I just edit the xml files directly
> (which is much nicer in some cases, imo) now.
Yes, I know alacarte, what I meant was we should have xfce only solution
which depends on xfce libraries.
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
More information about the Xfce4-dev