From cathayan at gmail.com  Tue Jul  1 02:47:14 2008
From: cathayan at gmail.com (cathayan)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:47:14 +0800
Subject: Unable to launch XFCE Settings Manager
In-Reply-To: <baabaab10806301045w562cf135u5f2b11edf5a7c810@mail.gmail.com>
References: <baabaab10806280856r108534d6of27523583a02bbe5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080630104453.42a83398@ohm.scrye.com>
	<baabaab10806301045w562cf135u5f2b11edf5a7c810@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3ac5e1e80806301747n5ca3e9b3t235d8dfc642f0cf7@mail.gmail.com>

http://biantaishabi.com/blog/ ???????????????

--
cathayan at gmail.com
http://blog.cathayan.org

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Setya Djajadinata <jsetya at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > So I logged in to Fedora
>> > without X11 and installed XFCE from command line. All worked well, I
>> > could log in using XFCE window manager. But then I'm unable to launch
>> > its Settings Manager. I mean when I invoke it through the menu
>> > nothing shows up. Launching it through XFCE terminal doesn't work
>> > either (using xfce-setting-show command).
>>
>> How did you install it?
>>
>> Try doing a 'yum groupinstall XFCE' and see if it pulls in additional
>> packages you didn't install?
>>
>>
> This is what I did to install :
>
> 1. Boot with Fedora Rescue CD in.
> 2. Change setting in /etc/inittab to boot without X11.
> 3. Reboot without Fedora Rescue CD.
> 4. Fedora starts without X11.
> 5. Log in as root.
> 5. Invoke 'yum groupinstall XFCE' to install XFCE.
> 6. Repeat step 1 & 2, only this time set to boot with X11.
> 6. Reboot.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Setya
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> http://www.xfce.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080701/831f0a29/attachment.html

From ongardie at gmail.com  Wed Jul  2 23:35:26 2008
From: ongardie at gmail.com (ongardie@gmail.com)
Date: Wed,  2 Jul 2008 21:35:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: ANN: xfce4-datetime-plugin version 0.6.0 released
Message-ID: <20080702213526.897D9F29E0@mocha.foo-projects.org>

Announcing xfce4-datetime-plugin v0.6.0:

This is almost entirely a bug fix release. Thanks to Steve Tyler,
especially, for reporting over 15 bugs and submitting many patches.

One notable user interface change is that the panel button is now a
GtkToggleButton, so it will light up when you hover the mouse over it
and appear pushed in when you click on it.

There's a tooltips implementation in the works that unfortunately isn't
ready yet for this release - see Bug #4141 for details. I think this
will  be the primary goal for next time.

Please report any bugs you find or feature requests you have in bugzilla.

-Diego Ongaro

Download this release:
  http://goodies.xfce.org/releases/xfce4-datetime-plugin/xfce4-datetime-plugin-0.6.0.tar.bz2

Changelog:
  http://goodies.xfce.org/releases/xfce4-datetime-plugin/ChangeLog

Project website:
  http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/panel-plugins/xfce4-datetime-plugin/

From pollux at xfce.org  Thu Jul  3 13:37:04 2008
From: pollux at xfce.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois?= Wauthy)
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:37:04 +0200
Subject: Shut down of mocha.xfce.org on the 4th and 11th of August
Message-ID: <1215085024.7565.7.camel@indiana.infonet.fundp.ac.be>

Hi all,

Due to UPS changes and related work in the university datacenter, the
main Xfce server (mocha.xfce.org) will be shut down during the whole day
on August 4th and 11th. 

As a reminder, Mocha is mainly running Xfce-related websites (Xfce,
Goodies, Thunar, ...) and the Subversion repositories.

-- 
Jean-Fran?ois Wauthy <pollux at xfce.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080703/7b7acc5a/attachment.bin

From itsme_410 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  8 23:40:41 2008
From: itsme_410 at yahoo.com (Globe Trotter)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: how to make emacs (rather than mousepad) the default editor in xfce
Message-ID: <915935.67059.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi,

I would like to make emacs my default editor (rather than mousepad). How do I go about doing this?

Many thanks,
Trotter


      

From pablo at redtux.org  Tue Jul  8 23:38:00 2008
From: pablo at redtux.org (Pablo Hoertner)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:38:00 +0200
Subject: how to make emacs (rather than mousepad) the default editor in
	xfce
In-Reply-To: <915935.67059.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <915935.67059.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20080708213800.GF15827@redtux.org>

hi!

there are at least two ways to change the default editor under XFCE.


1. the X11 way:

open thunar (the file manager) -> right click on a text-file ->
properties -> Open with -> choose your prefered app (e.g. emacs)


2. the *NIX way:

edit the following file: /etc/xdg/xubuntu/applications/defaults.list

also, consider having a look at /usr/share/mime/ - if you don't want
to change settings system-wide you may put your config at
~/.local/share/mime/ resp. /.local/share/applications/defaults.list

i only have experience with debian and ubuntu, but i guess that the
path should be the same everywhere (although i wouldn't bet on it).


HTH!

HAND,
pablo

-- 
Pablo Hoertner
http://redtux.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080708/ac5aef63/attachment.bin

From hex1a4 at gmail.com  Wed Jul  9 00:37:22 2008
From: hex1a4 at gmail.com (Hex1a4)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:37:22 -0400
Subject: how to make emacs (rather than mousepad) the default editor in
	xfce
In-Reply-To: <915935.67059.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <915935.67059.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20080708183722.26f7f636@wendy>

In the time of Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
thus spoke Globe Trotter <itsme_410 at yahoo.com>:

> Hi,
> 
> I would like to make emacs my default editor (rather than mousepad).
> How do I go about doing this?
> 
> Many thanks,
> Trotter
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> http://www.xfce.org
r-click a file you want to edit, open the 'Open With Other Application'
dialog, with the 'Use as default...' checked select the editor you want.

-- 
hex1a4.net || mirror.hex1a4.net || xubuntu.linux.hex1a4.net

From mariosr98 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 10 02:10:53 2008
From: mariosr98 at yahoo.com (mario salcedo)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: power manager
Message-ID: <341604.49166.qm@web34808.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi. How can I manager the power in xfce4? I'm looking for anything seem  to gnome-power-preferences but I don't see anything.
Thanks



      

From sofar at foo-projects.org  Thu Jul 10 11:20:01 2008
From: sofar at foo-projects.org (sofar@foo-projects.org)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:20:01 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Xfce ML FAQ
Message-ID: <20080710092001.1B310F29F5@doppio.foo-projects.org>

Hi!

Welcome to the Xfce users mailing list FAQ. This e-mail will provide you
with some valuable clues and hints on getting your questions about Xfce
answered, either by hints on where to find the documentation or support
or direct answers to the most common questions. This FAQ message is sent
periodically to the Xfce users mailinglist and to new users.

You will also find some more general tips and pointers about this
mailinglist and the Xfce project, such as related projects and groups.
Feel free to suggest additional content to this FAQ, by sending it to
the maintainer of this FAQ (listed at the bottom).


Index:

o General mailinglist information
o Which lists are there? (and what are they for?)
o Which Xfce user/project groups exist?
o So what if I need help?
o I've read the websites and I still need help!
o No disclaimers please
o Quoting style?
o What about you guys?
o Most commonly asked questions
o Xfce ML FAQ - maintainer



o General mailinglist information

The Xfce users mailinglist is hosted at our joint project servers
(foo-projects.org) and uses "mailman" to interface users, subscriptions
and stuff like that. You will need to be subscribed to post to the
mailinglists. Here are some useful links to interface with the mailinglists:

View all lists:         http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
Online Archive:         http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce


o Which lists are there? (and what are they for?)

There are "developer" and "user" lists. The general (this) user mailing
list for Xfce is "xfce at xfce.org". This is the typical list to discuss
problems that might not be bugs, questions for help, exchanging tips and
tricks and general news that might interest any Xfce user.

If you wish to discuss development issues and bugs, please refer to the
development mailing list "xfce4-dev at xfce.org". There is an obsolete list
called "xfce-dev" as well but since all of the development is done on
xfce version 4 this list is not used.

Specific lists also exist for translations (xfce-i18n at xfce.org),
announcements from the Xfce team (xfce-announce at xfce.org), commits and
autogenerated messages (xfce4-commits at xfce.org, xfce-bugs at xfce.org).

Other related projects also sometimes have mailinglists, some of them
are not hosted on foo-projects.org:

xfc:          xfc-dev at xfce.org
thunar:       thunar-dev at xfce.org
xfce goodies: goodies-dev at xfce.org


o Which Xfce user/project groups exist?

+ The Xfce team - This is the main Xfce development group that develops
the Xfce Desktop Environment. This group provides the core items of the
Xfce desktop such as session manager, window manager, panel, Xfce
libraries and such. This team also takes care of some Xfce applications
such as Xfmedia, Orage, Xffm, thunar etc. -> http://xfce.org/

+ The Xfce i18n team - a enthusiastic group of translators from all
over the world is working actively on updating and adding new translations
to the Xfce components. -> http://i18n.xfce.org/

+ The Xfce Goodies group - Any 3rd-party Xfce application is considered
an automatic member of the goodies team. The team shares a website at
http://goodies.xfce.org/ and hosts a public SVN repository.  Everyone is
welcome to contribute his Xfce application here!

+ Individual Xfce projects - Many Xfce developers and enthusiasts have
contributed or developed Xfce applications themselves. Some are too
large (xfc -> http://xfc.xfce.org/, pyxfce -> http://pyxfce.xfce.org/)
to be a goody and have their own website. You can find all of them on
the Xfce Directory (once it's finished!). -> http://directory.xfce.org/


o So what if I need help?

Getting help might be easier then you think. There's no phone number you
can call for Xfce support but we do have a large group of people that
are willing to help you in other ways. Here's a short list of them:

Official documentation: http://www.xfce.org/documentation/
User Forum:             http://forum.xfce.org/
IRC channel:            irc://irc.freenode.net/#xfce
Wiki:                   http://wiki.xfce.org/
Bugreports:             http://bugzilla.xfce.org/
List archives:          http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce

Other FAQ's exist and may prove useful to you:

http://www.spuriousinterrupt.org/projects/xfce4/index.php#faq


o I've read the websites and I still need help!

Asking on a mailing list for help is hard: Everyone will read your
question and will criticise you if you submit a question in the wrong
way. Here's some hints to maximize the chances that you get what you
want as quickly as possible:

+ Do some research first
+ Ask the right people
+ When asking in IRC, ask for pointers to help, not the explanation
+ When asking in mailinglists, format your mail properly
+ Use english
+ Be specific and detailed (but not too much)
+ Re-post the solution so others can learn

If you follow these rules everyone will be happy to help you! But don't
be afraid to ask though, this mailinglists is exactly for asking questions!

There's a good in-depth document that explains the etiquette that most
senior ML members follow. You should read this if you become a frequent
ML poster as it explains _why_ we write this way in a really good way:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Take 15 minutes to read this document, it will help you later and you
will understand much better how to get your question answered.


o No disclaimers please

If you are posting from an email account where a legal disclaimer is
automatically appended to your outgoing messages, please disable it.
If you cannot, please use a different email account, or register for a
free webmail account (GMail, Yahoo, etc.).  Note that such a disclaimer
means very little when you post an email to a public mailing list with
public archives.  Extraneous disclaimer text in email can make your
message harder to read, and tends to add a lot of useless content when
messages are replied to repeatedly.  Remember that you're posting to
a community of hundreds of people, and it's impolite to use up their
time unnecessarily.


o Quoting style?

It's very hard to understand a thread of messages if they become replies
to replies and everyone mixes quoting styles. That's why there is
something called "quoting style", that describes how you should quote
the previous posters contents when you reply to a mailinglist message.

We prefer that you use "Top quoting". That means that you should put
your reply _below_ (Put the quote on top/above your reply) the original
poster's message. That way the contents are in chronological order and
you can read the entire message thread without figuring out where the
reply belongs.

Here's a good FAQ on how to quote:

http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html

Basically:

+ quote at the top
+ prune text from the quote that is irrelevant
+ remove footers and headers (condense)
+ put the reply directly next to (in between) the original text


o What about you guys?

Well we're just a bunch of geeks (we need girls) who like Xfce... Most
of us work on Xfce outside of our normal daily occupation such as real
work or real study (except some lucky people who do both). If you're
interested in getting to know the Xfce team a bit closer (and are okay
with a little abuse, being teased or ignored etc) you're welcome to join
us on our IRC channel (#xfce on the freenode IRC network) or read our
blogs. This might not always be about Xfce but that's life. ->
http://blog.xfce.org/


o Most commonly asked questions

There are a few questions that get asked much more often then any other.
We hope we can provide you with the information here to find out for
yourself how to find more information about them.

+ How can I start up applications (to a specific desktop | when I lauch
Xfce)?

Use the session-manager. If you still have problems with some
applications not behaving or remembering their desktop number then you
might consider using "devilspie". You can add links to applications in
~/Desktop/Autostart, but the session-manager also remembers which
applications you had running when you last logged out (and saved your
session!), and will start them again (so don't close your applications
before logging out!)

+ Can I replace Xfce program X with my favorite program Y?

Yes, you can. Xfce is developed with the idea of modularity in mind in
all components. This means that you can replace xfwm4 with another
window manager, replace xfdesktop with rox or idesk, or even nautilus.
Most of the times you can just kill the xfce component and start the
application you want to run instead, and use the session manager to
save your session when you exit.

+ How can I shutdown my computer in Xfce?

Read
http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfce4-session#xfsm-shutdown

+ Can I install multiple Xfce versions concurrently?

You can actually, but it's a nightmare if you install one of them in a
system-default location. The best thing to do is to install every Xfce
version in a non-system location like /opt/xfce/$(XFCE_VERSION) and
adjust your LD_LIBRARY_PATH and PATH to point to the preferred version
at run time.

+ My desktop or desktop menu has disappeared!?

It appears that xfdesktop is no longer in control of the desktop. Often
xfdesktop has died, or some other program took over the desktop. Make
sure that xfdesktop is still running first. Nautilus takes over the
desktop by default too. Please start nautilus with the --no-desktop
flag, or use gconf-editor and unset the flag that tells nautilus to
handle the desktop (/apps/nautilus/preferences/show_desktop). Start
xfdesktop again and you should be OK again.

+ How do I edit the system application menu?

The menu is partially autogenerated by xfdesktop. If you want to just
delete or add one or two applications, add the proper .desktop file
(usually in /usr/share/applications). With the xfce4-menueditor, you can
completely customize the menu.

+ What other (hidden) settings exist?

A lot. Take a look into the manual for hidden settings for each
component.
http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfwm4#hidden_options
http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfce4-panel#panel-kiosk

+ Where can I get Xfce packages for XXX?

The up-to-date list of other packages is found on our website and includes
links to debian, suse, freebsd etc. packages for Xfce. Please visit:

http://www.xfce.org/download/

o Xfce ML FAQ - maintainer

The current FAQ maintainer is: sofar at foo-projects.org


From ashishyadav78 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 10 13:27:49 2008
From: ashishyadav78 at gmail.com (ashish yadav)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:27:49 -0400
Subject: c code to change current user password using PAM API
Message-ID: <134b8c5b0807100427v2886562bre8951a23c68cd392@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
 I want to write c code to change current user password.
The code first check for current password & then set new password.
The code must use PAM API just like passwd utility.
Also code must work without user intervention ie only by argument current
password & new password are given.
So, can any one know that already this work is done  or  i can use  passwd
utility in my c code using system command.
Also may be user may not root which is using this application.

Thanks.
Ashish Yadav
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080710/f76b9ac5/attachment.html

From damailings at mcbf.net  Thu Jul 10 17:00:18 2008
From: damailings at mcbf.net (David Mohr)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:00:18 -0600
Subject: ANN: xfburn 0.3.1 released
Message-ID: <472d4b250807100800n45f13ad0w3572721170645c34@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

it is our pleasure to announce a new release of xfburn. We present you
with a smaller, polishing update; no major new features have been
introduced. Here's a a list of changes:

- Use a separate thread to add files to the data composition
- The adding process can get stopped by closing the progress window
- Command line options to start some common GUI tasks
- FIFO buffering
- Preserve file attributes
- Blank disc from within the burning dialog if a full but erasable disc is
  in the drive
- Actually set the burn speed (see NEWS)

You can grab it from http://www.xfce.org/~pollux/xfburn/xfburn-0.3.1.tar.gz .

We would like to thank everyone for all the positive feedback we
received on the 0.3 release. This version is a tribute to that,
instead of giving xfburn more features, it aims at making the current
features more complete and more easily usable.

Sincerely,
David, Mario and Jean-Fran?ois

From jcw at highperformance.net  Fri Jul 11 05:14:37 2008
From: jcw at highperformance.net (jcw@highperformance.net)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:14:37 -0700
Subject: Request Clickable Task Switcher
Message-ID: <4876D01D.5090108@highperformance.net>

I would like to request a clickable task switcher.  It would be nice to 
select the task with the mouse when the list of programs running is very 
long.

Regards,
Jason

From botsie at xfce.org  Fri Jul 11 07:46:19 2008
From: botsie at xfce.org (Biju Chacko)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:16:19 +0530
Subject: Request Clickable Task Switcher
In-Reply-To: <4876D01D.5090108@highperformance.net>
References: <4876D01D.5090108@highperformance.net>
Message-ID: <4876F3AB.70606@xfce.org>

jcw at highperformance.net wrote:
> I would like to request a clickable task switcher.  It would be nice to 
> select the task with the mouse when the list of programs running is very 
> long.
>   
Do you mean something like the tasklist panel plugin?

-- b

From corsac at debian.org  Fri Jul 11 08:40:34 2008
From: corsac at debian.org (Yves-Alexis Perez)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:40:34 +0200
Subject: Request Clickable Task Switcher
In-Reply-To: <4876F3AB.70606@xfce.org>
References: <4876D01D.5090108@highperformance.net> <4876F3AB.70606@xfce.org>
Message-ID: <1215758434.4226.2.camel@hidalgo>

On ven, 2008-07-11 at 11:16 +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
> Do you mean something like the tasklist panel plugin?

I guess this can be seen as a workaround, but I think he's speaking of
the alt-tab behavior. OSX can use the mouse in there, which may be
useful, yeah.
-- 
Yves-Alexis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080711/f377da26/attachment.bin

From peter at xfce.org  Fri Jul 11 08:43:32 2008
From: peter at xfce.org (Peter de Ridder)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:43:32 +0200
Subject: Request Clickable Task Switcher
In-Reply-To: <1215758434.4226.2.camel@hidalgo>
References: <4876D01D.5090108@highperformance.net> <4876F3AB.70606@xfce.org>
	<1215758434.4226.2.camel@hidalgo>
Message-ID: <d7c3a3890807102343j278e5406hbeb00c96184001d7@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:14 AM, <jcw at highperformance.net> wrote:
> I would like to request a clickable task switcher.  It would be nice to
> select the task with the mouse when the list of programs running is very
> long.

You can switch with the mouse. xfdesktop has a window list menu, this is a
list of all windows on all workspaces. Default you can open this it with
clicking your middle mouse button on the desktop.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at debian.org>
wrote:

> On ven, 2008-07-11 at 11:16 +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
> > Do you mean something like the tasklist panel plugin?
>
> I guess this can be seen as a workaround, but I think he's speaking of
> the alt-tab behavior. OSX can use the mouse in there, which may be
> useful, yeah.


If i'm not mistaken, it is possible to create a keyboard shortcut.

Regards,
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080711/ce59e454/attachment.html

From mariosr98 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 12 02:25:31 2008
From: mariosr98 at yahoo.com (mario salcedo)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: kioskrc don't work in xfce 4.4.2
Message-ID: <4131.36279.qm@web34804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi. I have a problem. I configure a user template whith a panel and Desktop customizable, then I copy to /etc/skel. All user have the same configuration. My problem is when I create the file /etc/xdg/xfce4/kiosk/kioskrc and I add

[xfce4-panel]
CustomizePanel=ws001

All users lost the configuration of panel, only ws001 have the panel good configurating.

Somebody know which is my problem. I have xfce 4.4.2. Before I used xfce 4.3.90.2 and I don't have problems  whith that, all ok.

thanks



      

From alexander.toresson at gmail.com  Sat Jul 12 09:12:31 2008
From: alexander.toresson at gmail.com (Alexander Toresson)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:12:31 +0200
Subject: kioskrc don't work in xfce 4.4.2
In-Reply-To: <4131.36279.qm@web34804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <4131.36279.qm@web34804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b33ba6660807120012j7f93ada9h34cc5be3ac924e7b@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 2:25 AM, mario salcedo <mariosr98 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi. I have a problem. I configure a user template whith a panel and Desktop customizable, then I copy to /etc/skel. All user have the same configuration. My problem is when I create the file /etc/xdg/xfce4/kiosk/kioskrc and I add
>
> [xfce4-panel]
> CustomizePanel=ws001
>
> All users lost the configuration of panel, only ws001 have the panel good configurating.
>
> Somebody know which is my problem. I have xfce 4.4.2. Before I used xfce 4.3.90.2 and I don't have problems  whith that, all ok.
>
> thanks
>

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? What do you really want to do?

// Alexander

From mariosr98 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 12 21:30:13 2008
From: mariosr98 at yahoo.com (mario salcedo)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: kioskrc don't work in xfce 4.4.2
Message-ID: <781655.36461.qm@web34807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi. When I used xfce 4.3.90.2 I configured a user template whit a panel customized. After I copy all in the /etc/skel, and all users new have the same panel. After I create the file kioskrc for avoid these users  change the configuration  of the panel.  This ok,  all users have the same panel and they can not  change the panel only the user ws001. The panel is in the part lowest of the screen.

Now I use xfce 4.4.2. I do the same. My problem is that when I create the file kioskrc, the panel of the users disappear, only appear the same icon that appear when anyone install xfce for fisrt time and in the same place. The panel customized is lost, only the user ws001 have the panel customized. If I delete kioskrc and reboot, all users have the same panel but they can change it. This is my problem. I want the users have the same panel but that  they can not change it. In xfce 4.3.90.2 kioskrc is ok, but in xfce 4.4.2  kioskrc don?t work.

Help me please.  If  there are  other  way  for that tell me please.

Thank?s



----- Original Message ----
From: Alexander Toresson <alexander.toresson at gmail.com>
To: XFCE general discussion list <xfce at xfce.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:12:31 AM
Subject: Re: kioskrc don't work in xfce 4.4.2

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 2:25 AM, mario salcedo <mariosr98 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi. I have a problem. I configure a user template whith a panel and Desktop customizable, then I copy to /etc/skel. All user have the same configuration. My problem is when I create the file /etc/xdg/xfce4/kiosk/kioskrc and I add
>
> [xfce4-panel]
> CustomizePanel=ws001
>
> All users lost the configuration of panel, only ws001 have the panel good configurating.
>
> Somebody know which is my problem. I have xfce 4.4.2. Before I used xfce 4.3.90.2 and I don't have problems  whith that, all ok.
>
> thanks
>

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? What do you really want to do?

// Alexander
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce at xfce.org
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org



      

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 07:39:46 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:39:46 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
Message-ID: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>

Hi.

I just wonder why xfwm4 is different of Metacity.

I have found that both takes mostly the same amount of RAM, and does seems
to be really faster.
They both have mostly the same theme functionalities but are not compatible
due to language conventions.
xfwm4 doesnt have any minimizing animation or any other.

I am using openbox now, because it is much faster than xfwm4, more easy to
configure with obconf, and have a great number of themes which integrates
well, and also it haves some minimum animation when minimizing apps.


Cheers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/b8844a5b/attachment.html

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 08:00:18 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 03:00:18 -0300
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
Message-ID: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi. I cant find the real goals of xfce.
I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just a few Mb
less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to easily browse on my
lan by example.

Also it seems like many of the applications takes more memory that what it
should.
Panel applets takes around 10 Mb, the menu button takes 14 and the clipman
10.
But a simple application with a systray icon can take less than that.
As an example, Engage is much more lightweight and user-friendly.

At the end it is the samething to have xfce or gnome. I wish to have a
better mix between both, like the xfce panel, xfce-menu(with a couple of
features more), orage, a desktop like the nautilus one, and thunar using
gnome-vfs to browse the LAN.
Also there is some common features missing like suspend/hibernate support on
the logout window, right click menu on the main-menu or in the appfinder.
There isnt any drag and drop from appfinder to menu-editor, and this editor
doesnt edit the system menu like alacarte buggilly does.
The default size of the xfce control panel is so big that doesnt feet on a
800x600 screen computer.
And the appfinder is a great tool, with it, one can work without a panel and
just the launchers of engage. But appfinder doesnt allows you to do any more
than launching and shortcuts to xfdesktop. And the default selected category
(the "all") is the most laggy, so it adds 1 second or 2 to the start of it.

xfce can not be called lightweight anymore, i really want to see the goals
and on what improvements is working the xfce team.

Cheers.
Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/fa78238e/attachment.html

From jasper at xfce.org  Sun Jul 13 08:39:51 2008
From: jasper at xfce.org (Jasper Huijsmans)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:39:51 +0200
Subject: kioskrc don't work in xfce 4.4.2
In-Reply-To: <781655.36461.qm@web34807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <781655.36461.qm@web34807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9168d7f0807122339u420be62fi9661cab4778a5b4a@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/12 mario salcedo <mariosr98 at yahoo.com>:
> Hi. When I used xfce 4.3.90.2 I configured a user template whit a panel customized. After I copy all in the /etc/skel, and all users new have the same panel. After I create the file kioskrc for avoid these users  change the configuration  of the panel.  This ok,  all users have the same panel and they can not  change the panel only the user ws001. The panel is in the part lowest of the screen.
>
> Now I use xfce 4.4.2. I do the same. My problem is that when I create the file kioskrc, the panel of the users disappear, only appear the same icon that appear when anyone install xfce for fisrt time and in the same place. The panel customized is lost, only the user ws001 have the panel customized. If I delete kioskrc and reboot, all users have the same panel but they can change it. This is my problem. I want the users have the same panel but that  they can not change it. In xfce 4.3.90.2 kioskrc is ok, but in xfce 4.4.2  kioskrc don?t work.
>
> Help me please.  If  there are  other  way  for that tell me please.
>
> Thank?s
>

You can just copy the template to the default panel configuration
(e.g. /etc/xdg/xfce4/panel/), instead of /etc/skel.

In Xfce 4.4.2 the kiosk mode uses the default panel configuration,
because otherwise the user could still manually alter the panel
configuration.

-- 
 Jasper

From fourdan at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 13:22:51 2008
From: fourdan at gmail.com (Olivier Fourdan)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:22:51 +0100
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wonder why xfwm4 is different of Metacity.
>
> I have found that both takes mostly the same amount of RAM, and does seems
> to be really faster.

Well, speed of a window manager is definitely the hardest thing to
measure, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusions (please
don't tell me about torture-wm which is one of the most stupid
benchmark I have ever seen).

I believe xfwm4 is faster than metacity because of the way it's coded
and how redraws are done. That may not show depending on the hardware
you use though.

> They both have mostly the same theme functionalities but are not compatible
> due to language conventions.

Well, I really don't understand what you mean here...

> xfwm4 doesnt have any minimizing animation or any other.

Well, it's a waste of time and resources, I think, especially if you
are refering to the ugly box  animation, reminds me of window 3. YMMV
though and you're perfectly entitled to you opinion ;)

> I am using openbox now, because it is much faster than xfwm4, more easy to
> configure with obconf, and have a great number of themes which integrates
> well, and also it haves some minimum animation when minimizing apps.

I do not know about openbox (i am not interested in the numerous
blackbox derivatives anyway), but xfwm4 ships with 96 themes by
default, not counting the themes from www.xfce-look.org. But is that
really a point? I don't think so, I am somehow dubious about the goals
of your post here anyway.

As for configurability, I think there is no comparison between
metacity and xfwm4 in this regard.

So, you prefer metacity over xfwm4 and you are using openbox, fine.
It's your choice and free software is all about choice, so what is
point of your post on this list, really?

Cheers,
Olivier.

From fourdan at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 13:36:38 2008
From: fourdan at gmail.com (Olivier Fourdan)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:36:38 +0100
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. I cant find the real goals of xfce.

Neither can I find the goals of your posts here.

> I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just a few Mb
> less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to easily browse on my
> lan by example.

Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...

> Also it seems like many of the applications takes more memory that what it
> should.
> Panel applets takes around 10 Mb, the menu button takes 14 and the clipman
> 10.

And how much of this is shared memory? Do you actually know how to
measure memory on a modern OS?

> But a simple application with a systray icon can take less than that.
> As an example, Engage is much more lightweight and user-friendly.

Sure, but most of the memory used is shared between gtk+ applications,
so your argument is valid as long as you run not gtk+ application,
otherwise the memory is used anyway,

> At the end it is the samething to have xfce or gnome. I wish to have a
> better mix between both, like the xfce panel, xfce-menu(with a couple of
> features more), orage, a desktop like the nautilus one, and thunar using
> gnome-vfs to browse the LAN.

Cool, we always need contributors, awaiting your patches :)

> Also there is some common features missing like suspend/hibernate support on
> the logout window, right click menu on the main-menu or in the appfinder.
> There isnt any drag and drop from appfinder to menu-editor, and this editor
> doesnt edit the system menu like alacarte buggilly does.

Right, the usability of the panel can be improved, that's why we work
on new versions (with our little resources). But how often do you
modify your config, honestly? I do it once, and then stick to my
setup, I seldomly change the panel configuration, so even if it would
be a good usability feature, it's not necessarily the most important
one.

I totally agree with the suspend/hibernate feature. The good thing is
that there is a patch that is available and used by most fine
distributions. If you ask me, I would integrate that patch right away,
but that decisions belongs to Benny.

> The default size of the xfce control panel is so big that doesnt feet on a
> 800x600 screen computer.

My foot doesn't fit a 800x600 screen either :)  Seriously though,  we
have to make sensible defaults, but the good thing is that it's
entirely configurable so you can adapt the size of the panel so it
fits in the screen.

> And the appfinder is a great tool, with it, one can work without a panel and
> just the launchers of engage. But appfinder doesnt allows you to do any more
> than launching and shortcuts to xfdesktop. And the default selected category
> (the "all") is the most laggy, so it adds 1 second or 2 to the start of it.

> xfce can not be called lightweight anymore, i really want to see the goals
> and on what improvements is working the xfce team.

Same question as before, I respect your ideas, opinions and thoughts,
but I am not sure I understand the goal of your post here. Maybe you
should subscribe to the xfce-dev list if you want to have a better
understanding of what will change in the next coming version...

Cheers,
Olivier.

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 20:00:56 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:00:56 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I just wonder why xfwm4 is different of Metacity.
> >
> > I have found that both takes mostly the same amount of RAM, and does
> seems
> > to be really faster.
>
> Well, speed of a window manager is definitely the hardest thing to
> measure, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusions (please
> don't tell me about torture-wm which is one of the most stupid
> benchmark I have ever seen).
>
> I believe xfwm4 is faster than metacity because of the way it's coded
> and how redraws are done. That may not show depending on the hardware
> you use though.
>

I dont know about torture-wm, but i agree that is difficult to messure. By
my side, i "messure" the speed with the feeling that i can get from it.
Months ago i was using ubuntu with compiz with mostly all efects shoted
down, and with quick minimizing/maximizing/moving effects.
The i disabled compiz i found in gnome an option with effects but without
compiz, that was pritty enought to me. I guess that that was handled by
metacity.
Now i moved to a debian distro with xfce by default, i happy with the
ammount of resources taken, this distro with the same theme have 90 Mb for
XFCE and 120 Mb for gnome, which is not MUCH more than xfce, but i beliebe
that xfce programers are better in resources management, than the gnome
ones. I great example is thunar.
But often some applications of xfce seems to be just a duplicate from the
ones already developed for gnome, and i dont like to see duplicated efforts
in linux just because there are lots of beautiful projects that are not even
started.
Now i am on xfce, i see that when minimizing windows i have no effect, so it
requires more focus from the user, to know what button corresponds to what
window. Of course that is not a big issue, but if openbox haves it, i guess
that is not a big resources hole.
Also i have an nvidia GF7025 card, and when moving windows around with xfwm4
or resizing, i can see the slow refresh of the content, which is an
indicator to me of being slow.
So instead of developing a entire new WM as all the people does, what is the
reason for what the xfce developers didnt choose to use metacity and
optimice it.



>
> > They both have mostly the same theme functionalities but are not
> compatible
> > due to language conventions.
>
> Well, I really don't understand what you mean here...


Recently i was trying to use a cool gnome theme in xfce, so i started a new
one, and i am not an artist, but i made it to work by just renaming the
files. But gtk theme are more complicated to me and i abandoned it.
Also having 999 themming scheme, one for each program in the linux word, is
duplicated efforts for the artists, and differences are not too big.

> xfwm4 doesnt have any minimizing animation or any other.
>
> Well, it's a waste of time and resources, I think, especially if you
> are refering to the ugly box  animation, reminds me of window 3. YMMV
> though and you're perfectly entitled to you opinion ;)
>

It allows me to focus in my tasks instead of finding what button correspond
to the window that i have minimiced.


> > I am using openbox now, because it is much faster than xfwm4, more easy
> to
> > configure with obconf, and have a great number of themes which integrates
> > well, and also it haves some minimum animation when minimizing apps.
>
> I do not know about openbox (i am not interested in the numerous
> blackbox derivatives anyway), but xfwm4 ships with 96 themes by
> default, not counting the themes from www.xfce-look.org. But is that
> really a point? I don't think so, I am somehow dubious about the goals
> of your post here anyway.
>

I did have downloaded some themes from that page, but i found that some
themes increases the memory consumption, so i goed back to my distro
default, also it seems like my distro have remove 90 default theme, because
it only comes with a few. :(
Also some themes requires to get an xfwm4 theme, an icon theme, a gtk2
theme, etc.etc. and founding them, installing them, and with a litle of
magic it will work nicely with xfce, because most icon themes and gtk themes
are made for gnome applications.
Maybe a theme tracker for xfce will be a nice new application.

So, you prefer metacity over xfwm4 and you are using openbox, fine.


I DIDN'T say that.
If i would i wouldn't send this mail.
But i do believe that openbox-WM is better than xfwm4 when i dont require
themes with images in the title bar for the buttons.


It's your choice and free software is all about choice, so what is
> point of your post on this list, really?
>

My point is clear.
I havent found any page about why xfwm4 is different of others and who
better to ask than the xfwm4 developers?
I preffer xfce over gnome, but often i find that i need gnome applications
and i cant find any goals of xfce showing me that thoose applications will
be some day developed.
So if a DE have no defined goals, will it grow or evolve?

I didnt write this mail as an offensive. But i think that i dont really have
to clear that. Hope you understand that.

Cheers.
Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/d0411eb6/attachment.html

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Sun Jul 13 20:34:53 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0300
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi. I cant find the real goals of xfce.
>
> Neither can I find the goals of your posts here.
>

Man, i am not blaming xfce, not even to you.


>
> > I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just a few Mb
> > less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to easily browse on
> my
> > lan by example.
>
> Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...
>

I can use nautilus, but then whats the point of thunar being so good?
i cant use dolphin or konqueror, why would i choose a like weight DE and
open heavy KDE apps.
I want to use thunar, but i need it to have features to browse the lan, just
because of that i need to have nautilus.


>
> > Also it seems like many of the applications takes more memory that what
> it
> > should.
> > Panel applets takes around 10 Mb, the menu button takes 14 and the
> clipman
> > 10.
>
> And how much of this is shared memory? Do you actually know how to
> measure memory on a modern OS?
>

I dont, maybe thats why i write "Seems".
I have used the xfce process manager tool to measure it. That value is
wrong?
How should i measure memory on a modern OS?


>
> > But a simple application with a systray icon can take less than that.
> > As an example, Engage is much more lightweight and user-friendly.
>
> Sure, but most of the memory used is shared between gtk+ applications,
> so your argument is valid as long as you run not gtk+ application,
> otherwise the memory is used anyway,
>

But GTK doesnt takes 9 Mb of 10, as far as i know.


>
> > At the end it is the samething to have xfce or gnome. I wish to have a
> > better mix between both, like the xfce panel, xfce-menu(with a couple of
> > features more), orage, a desktop like the nautilus one, and thunar using
> > gnome-vfs to browse the LAN.
>
> Cool, we always need contributors, awaiting your patches :)
>

Of course, another developer more to duplicate efforts.
I am an electronics student, im sorry if a preffer to develop an
Electronic-IDE and VSM, which seems like no one in the linux world what to
do, except for the crappy projects like gEDA.
Also i  was expecting to get an url with the plans for thunar and seeing
there the lan support, not a joke.


> > Also there is some common features missing like suspend/hibernate support
> on
> > the logout window, right click menu on the main-menu or in the appfinder.
> > There isnt any drag and drop from appfinder to menu-editor, and this
> editor
> > doesnt edit the system menu like alacarte buggilly does.
>
> Right, the usability of the panel can be improved, that's why we work
> on new versions (with our little resources). But how often do you
> modify your config, honestly? I do it once, and then stick to my
> setup, I seldomly change the panel configuration, so even if it would
> be a good usability feature, it's not necessarily the most important
> one.
>
> I totally agree with the suspend/hibernate feature. The good thing is
> that there is a patch that is available and used by most fine
> distributions. If you ask me, I would integrate that patch right away,
> but that decisions belongs to Benny.
>

I know this patch, but if after that, i upgrade, the patch will be removed,
so again, there is no reason to no incorporate it in xfce? or the plans
exists and there is no url to see it.


>
> > The default size of the xfce control panel is so big that doesnt feet on
> a
> > 800x600 screen computer.
>
> My foot doesn't fit a 800x600 screen either :)


Nice, you are smart.


> Seriously though,  we
> have to make sensible defaults, but the good thing is that it's
> entirely configurable so you can adapt the size of the panel so it
> fits in the screen.
>

So that can be configured?, can you tell please where? That "default bug"
exists since like 5 years when i first tryed xfce and was never fixed. Seems
like all the developers always have used big monitors. That is the ugly
conditions of third world contries like my. We always need lightweight. Also
lightweight is a good thing for the energy crisis of all countries.
Wouldnt it be better the control panel to be like the appfinder but only for
configurators. What can i say, i like the appfinder. Also i like gnome-go,
but it is sadly developed in mono.
Also the appfinder seems very similar to the new main-menu approach of some
distros, like the suse one, of kde if i am not wrong.



>
> > And the appfinder is a great tool, with it, one can work without a panel
> and
> > just the launchers of engage. But appfinder doesnt allows you to do any
> more
> > than launching and shortcuts to xfdesktop. And the default selected
> category
> > (the "all") is the most laggy, so it adds 1 second or 2 to the start of
> it.
>
> > xfce can not be called lightweight anymore, i really want to see the
> goals
> > and on what improvements is working the xfce team.
>
> Same question as before, I respect your ideas, opinions and thoughts,
> but I am not sure I understand the goal of your post here.

Sorry but seems like not.


> Maybe you
> should subscribe to the xfce-dev list if you want to have a better
> understanding of what will change in the next coming version...
>

Thats right, but often developers are bussy developing, and some users are
able to answer some kind of questions.
If there isnt yet any url to get a list of goals for each xfce-app that will
be a very good thing to have.

I was going to post it in the forum, but there isnt too much activity there.


> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> _______________________________________________
>
Cheers.
Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/53e7777a/attachment-0001.html

From jannis at xfce.org  Sun Jul 13 20:40:09 2008
From: jannis at xfce.org (Jannis Pohlmann)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:40:09 +0200
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>

Am Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:00:56 -0300
schrieb "Diego Jacobi" <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:

> 2008/7/13 Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Diego Jacobi
> > <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I just wonder why xfwm4 is different of Metacity.
> > >
> > > I have found that both takes mostly the same amount of RAM, and
> > > does
> > seems
> > > to be really faster.
> >
> > Well, speed of a window manager is definitely the hardest thing to
> > measure, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusions (please
> > don't tell me about torture-wm which is one of the most stupid
> > benchmark I have ever seen).
> >
> > I believe xfwm4 is faster than metacity because of the way it's
> > coded and how redraws are done. That may not show depending on the
> > hardware you use though.
> >
> 
> I dont know about torture-wm, but i agree that is difficult to
> messure. By my side, i "messure" the speed with the feeling that i
> can get from it. Months ago i was using ubuntu with compiz with
> mostly all efects shoted down, and with quick
> minimizing/maximizing/moving effects. The i disabled compiz i found
> in gnome an option with effects but without compiz, that was pritty
> enought to me. I guess that that was handled by metacity.
> Now i moved to a debian distro with xfce by default, i happy with the
> ammount of resources taken, this distro with the same theme have 90
> Mb for XFCE and 120 Mb for gnome, which is not MUCH more than xfce,
> but i beliebe that xfce programers are better in resources
> management, than the gnome ones. I great example is thunar.
> But often some applications of xfce seems to be just a duplicate from
> the ones already developed for gnome, and i dont like to see
> duplicated efforts in linux just because there are lots of beautiful
> projects that are not even started.
> Now i am on xfce, i see that when minimizing windows i have no
> effect, so it requires more focus from the user, to know what button
> corresponds to what window. Of course that is not a big issue, but if
> openbox haves it, i guess that is not a big resources hole.
> Also i have an nvidia GF7025 card, and when moving windows around
> with xfwm4 or resizing, i can see the slow refresh of the content,
> which is an indicator to me of being slow.
> So instead of developing a entire new WM as all the people does, what
> is the reason for what the xfce developers didnt choose to use
> metacity and optimice it.

First of all: I have a Thinkpad with a crappy graphics card and still I
don't notice any performance issues or whatsoever with xfwm. No idea
what's wrong with your setup.

The answer to your last question is easy though: When xfwm was first
released (that must have been 1997 according to wikipedia), metacity
didn't even exist. Comparing metacity to xfwm is a joke. Metacity isn't
half as configurable as xfwm. I don't know which version of Xfce you
are running, but you have to be pretty ignorant not to take notice of
that.
 
> >
> > > They both have mostly the same theme functionalities but are not
> > compatible
> > > due to language conventions.
> >
> > Well, I really don't understand what you mean here...
> 
> 
> Recently i was trying to use a cool gnome theme in xfce, so i started
> a new one, and i am not an artist, but i made it to work by just
> renaming the files. But gtk theme are more complicated to me and i
> abandoned it. Also having 999 themming scheme, one for each program
> in the linux word, is duplicated efforts for the artists, and
> differences are not too big.

Having a similar window manager theme system is only a very small part
of the whole functionality. And by the way: Xfce and GNOME both use
GTK+ and thus, the whole user interface theming is part of GTK+
already. No duplicate efforts here.

> > > I am using openbox now, because it is much faster than xfwm4,
> > > more easy
> > to
> > > configure with obconf, and have a great number of themes which
> > > integrates well, and also it haves some minimum animation when
> > > minimizing apps.
> >
> > I do not know about openbox (i am not interested in the numerous
> > blackbox derivatives anyway), but xfwm4 ships with 96 themes by
> > default, not counting the themes from www.xfce-look.org. But is that
> > really a point? I don't think so, I am somehow dubious about the
> > goals of your post here anyway.
> >
> 
> I did have downloaded some themes from that page, but i found that
> some themes increases the memory consumption, so i goed back to my
> distro default, also it seems like my distro have remove 90 default
> theme, because it only comes with a few. :(
> Also some themes requires to get an xfwm4 theme, an icon theme, a gtk2
> theme, etc.etc. and founding them, installing them, and with a litle
> of magic it will work nicely with xfce, because most icon themes and
> gtk themes are made for gnome applications.
> Maybe a theme tracker for xfce will be a nice new application.

There are websites like xfce-look.org, there are settings dialogs
listing all the themes installed. What else do you need?!

> So, you prefer metacity over xfwm4 and you are using openbox, fine.
> 
> 
> I DIDN'T say that.
> If i would i wouldn't send this mail.
> But i do believe that openbox-WM is better than xfwm4 when i dont
> require themes with images in the title bar for the buttons.
> 
> 
> It's your choice and free software is all about choice, so what is
> > point of your post on this list, really?
> >
> 
> My point is clear.
> I havent found any page about why xfwm4 is different of others and who
> better to ask than the xfwm4 developers?

Just ... use it, play with the config options and you'll see how it is
different. Either you like it or you don't. You have the choice between
many alternatives. If you have problems to figure out the differences:
try them.

If you really wanted to know what separates xfwm you could have just
asked. Questioning the purpose of Xfce is senseless unless we as
hobby developers do it. 

  - Jannis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/43270321/signature.bin

From jannis at xfce.org  Sun Jul 13 20:50:41 2008
From: jannis at xfce.org (Jannis Pohlmann)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:50:41 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>

Am Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0300
schrieb "Diego Jacobi" <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:

> > > I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just
> > > a few Mb less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to
> > > easily browse on
> > my
> > > lan by example.
> >
> > Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...
> >
> 
> I can use nautilus, but then whats the point of thunar being so good?
> i cant use dolphin or konqueror, why would i choose a like weight DE
> and open heavy KDE apps.
> I want to use thunar, but i need it to have features to browse the
> lan, just because of that i need to have nautilus.

Please, go whine somewhere else. Network filesystems are on the TODO
list but you have to respect that Xfce is a hobby project. It's not
sponsored by companies and we're not getting payed to work on it. So
sometimes new features take time.
 
> > > At the end it is the samething to have xfce or gnome. I wish to
> > > have a better mix between both, like the xfce panel,
> > > xfce-menu(with a couple of features more), orage, a desktop like
> > > the nautilus one, and thunar using gnome-vfs to browse the LAN.
> >
> > Cool, we always need contributors, awaiting your patches :)
> >
> 
> Of course, another developer more to duplicate efforts.
> I am an electronics student, im sorry if a preffer to develop an
> Electronic-IDE and VSM, which seems like no one in the linux world
> what to do, except for the crappy projects like gEDA.
> Also i  was expecting to get an url with the plans for thunar and
> seeing there the lan support, not a joke.

Here's what we can expect from users like you: respect. That includes a
less demanding tone in your mails as well. We're not talking business
here, we're talking about voluntary software development. If you
*expect* things from us then you are wrong here.
 
> > Seriously though,  we
> > have to make sensible defaults, but the good thing is that it's
> > entirely configurable so you can adapt the size of the panel so it
> > fits in the screen.
> >
> 
> So that can be configured?, can you tell please where? That "default
> bug" exists since like 5 years when i first tryed xfce and was never
> fixed. Seems like all the developers always have used big monitors.

I've been using 1024x768 ever since. Never noticed that bug you're
talking about.

  - Jannis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/cc1fe49d/signature.bin

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 00:14:27 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:14:27 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>

Jannis: Thanks for the partial answer.
I dont really like how you answer, and you are not forced to answer.
I dont think that going into verbal agression ("ignorant") is a good way to
answer.

I was looking for more details about xfwm4 and metacity, you just say that
xfwm4 is more configurable. Well, finally you give 1 detail.

If you really wanted to know what separates xfwm you could have just
> asked. Questioning the purpose of Xfce is senseless unless we as
> hobby developers do it.
>

That was what i did.
But for some reason you get insulted by comparing metacity with xfwm. Not
being the developer of any of both, i cant know about any differences.
I was looking for details and information, best possible answered with some
link to the xfce page. Which as i say didnt found any.
I didnt question the purpose of xfce, i question the goals, which are not
answered anywhere. I want to know if the developers still want a lightweight
desktop and are focused to that or just want an alternative to gnome. But i
think that for the bad answer that i have got, there is some kind of bad
felling against gnome. That is sad, but dont blame me for that.

Forget all about it. And dont answer if you dont want to.

Cheers.
Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/d9880e32/attachment.html

From fourdan at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 00:22:10 2008
From: fourdan at gmail.com (Olivier Fourdan)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:22:10 +0100
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> I didnt question the purpose of xfce, i question the goals, which are not
> answered anywhere. I want to know if the developers still want a lightweight
> desktop and are focused to that or just want an alternative to gnome. But i
> think that for the bad answer that i have got, there is some kind of bad
> felling against gnome. That is sad, but dont blame me for that.

Oh no, we really have no bad feelings about gnome (afaik). Thing is,
we share gtk+ with gnome and gtk+ has grown quite a lot recently, so
the amount of (shared) memory used by every process may also have
grown. But that's the price to pay to benefit from all the facilities
provided by gtk+. There is no such thing as "light" actually, it's
always a balance between functionalities, memory and speed.

Cheers,
Olivier.

From fourdan at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 00:25:29 2008
From: fourdan at gmail.com (Olivier Fourdan)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:25:29 +0100
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60f2b0dc0807131525x14b3a4du1bb0edc604c9017f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Also i have an nvidia GF7025 card, and when moving windows around with xfwm4
> or resizing, i can see the slow refresh of the content, which is an
> indicator to me of being slow.

Disable compositing in xorg, does that make any difference?

> So instead of developing a entire new WM as all the people does, what is the
> reason for what the xfce developers didnt choose to use metacity and
> optimice it.

The main reasons is probably because I do not like metacity code...

Cheers,
Olivier.

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 01:05:11 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:05:11 -0300
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Jannis Pohlmann <jannis at xfce.org>:

> Am Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0300
> schrieb "Diego Jacobi" <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:
>
> > > > I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just
> > > > a few Mb less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to
> > > > easily browse on
> > > my
> > > > lan by example.
> > >
> > > Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...
> > >
> >
> > I can use nautilus, but then whats the point of thunar being so good?
> > i cant use dolphin or konqueror, why would i choose a like weight DE
> > and open heavy KDE apps.
> > I want to use thunar, but i need it to have features to browse the
> > lan, just because of that i need to have nautilus.
>
> Please, go whine somewhere else. Network filesystems are on the TODO
> list but you have to respect that Xfce is a hobby project. It's not
> sponsored by companies and we're not getting payed to work on it. So
> sometimes new features take time.
>

You are so wrong about my questions. Please dont answer it if you will do it
like that.
How do you expect to have monetary contribution if you answer like that.
I only found an xfce wishlist which is user contributed and doesnt have any
TODO list or future plans, or how many people is maintainer of X project.
That is what i asking for, the rest of the mail is a deviated conversation.
Also the title of the mail is a short summary of what i need. The goals of
the project, which would be the same as the TODO list. So, you talk about it
but dont point to it.
It isnt here<http://www.xfce.org/search/?cx=008920933163277390313%3Arifucd7pcta&q=todo+list&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11#1166>
.

Here's what we can expect from users like you: respect. That includes a
> less demanding tone in your mails as well. We're not talking business
> here, we're talking about voluntary software development. If you
> *expect* things from us then you are wrong here.
>

You are not forced to answer.
If someone knows the URL just have to copy/paste it if he/she wants and
press send. Thats all. The rest is just user-whishes which all the world
have their own, are not demands. On what twisted world will i demand to add
some feature? Thats a totally wrong interpretation.
But some features may be planned and/or being worked, but there isnt any web
page saying that, again.


>
> > > Seriously though,  we
> > > have to make sensible defaults, but the good thing is that it's
> > > entirely configurable so you can adapt the size of the panel so it
> > > fits in the screen.
> > >
> >
> > So that can be configured?, can you tell please where? That "default
> > bug" exists since like 5 years when i first tryed xfce and was never
> > fixed. Seems like all the developers always have used big monitors.
>
> I've been using 1024x768 ever since. Never noticed that bug you're
> talking about.
>

Thats why obviously, i have say 800x600, dont you noted that, also 640x480
is very common in some old computers. The panel takes all the width in
1024x768.
When you try a livecd distro and your video card isnt properlly
autoconfigured, you will get an 800x600 screen with terrible big windows,
that gives a bad first impression.
I am attaching the screenshoot, hope you dont mind. Also notice that there
is a tiny bug in the translations (i think). "Etiqueta de boton" is not a
translation that should be there.
This settings window have this size since every time i have tested xfce in
the past.

So in conclusion for this mail, there isnt any public TODO or goals page in
the xfce webpage or wiki.

Thanks for your time, i hope for a continuously evolving xfce, and hope to
fit better to the lightweight
fame<http://www.google.com/search?q=lightweight+desktop>
Also i am sure that you know about a new xfce fork <http://lxde.org/>, and
if that isnt duplicated efforts, then i dont know what the deffinition of
duplicated efforts is. :P But if thoose programmers have got the same answer
that i have got, then i understand why the fork.

Cheers.
Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/66209523/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: xfce-control-panel.png
Type: image/png
Size: 137772 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/66209523/xfce-control-panel-0001.png

From benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de  Mon Jul 14 01:44:49 2008
From: benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de (Benedikt Meurer)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:44:49 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>

Diego Jacobi wrote:
> Also i am sure that you know about a new xfce fork <http://lxde.org/>,
> and if that isnt duplicated efforts, then i dont know what the
> deffinition of duplicated efforts is. :P But if thoose programmers have
> got the same answer that i have got, then i understand why the fork.

I wasn't aware of lxde up til now. Looking at their website tho, it
looks like some kind of Xfce without usability. Don't get me wrong, but
the Gnome HIG is a really good document (probably one of the best
documents available on the Gnome servers), so people could at least take
a few minutes to get the basics of usability to ensure consistent
look&feel between GTK apps.

Anyway, that's not the point... looking at the page, they're also using
the GTK+ stack, so they will suffer from the same memory/performance
problems.

All this "lightweight desktop" stuff is pretty stupid anyways. In case
you didn't notice, it's 2008, and you will have a hard time buying a new
machine with less than 512MiB of RAM. Performance isn't an issue either
with todays CPU processing power. Instead, it'd be nice if people would
start to improve the user experience by - for example - reducing the
latency of the desktop (i.e. make clever use of XCB instead of Xlib to
avoid blocking on round trips to the Xserver) or making the Gnome people
actually accept Glib patches to reduce unnecessary overhead in the
object and signal handling. Wrt. latency there's also a lot of stuff
that could be improved in the kernel.

> Cheers.
> Diego

Benedikt

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 02:03:45 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:03:45 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <60f2b0dc0807131525x14b3a4du1bb0edc604c9017f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131525x14b3a4du1bb0edc604c9017f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131703s57d62967l85254a400cea32c3@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > Also i have an nvidia GF7025 card, and when moving windows around with
> xfwm4
> > or resizing, i can see the slow refresh of the content, which is an
> > indicator to me of being slow.
>
> Disable compositing in xorg, does that make any difference?
>

Thanks Olivier.
I have disabled compositing and the slow redrawing is much better. But i can
only compare with openbox, which is not fare. Both draws better.


>
> > So instead of developing a entire new WM as all the people does, what is
> the
> > reason for what the xfce developers didnt choose to use metacity and
> > optimice it.
>
> The main reasons is probably because I do not like metacity code...
>

Well, nice to ear that.
I have not seen any of both code, but agree that sometimes is impossible to
work with code from others.
Can i ask what about the code you dont like?
Is the implementation, something about the sintax or the project goals?

That is what i want to know. I would like to see an experienced developer to
say metacity is going in the wrong way by X causes.

Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/f93198a4/attachment.html

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 02:08:04 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:08:04 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I didnt question the purpose of xfce, i question the goals, which are not
> > answered anywhere. I want to know if the developers still want a
> lightweight
> > desktop and are focused to that or just want an alternative to gnome. But
> i
> > think that for the bad answer that i have got, there is some kind of bad
> > felling against gnome. That is sad, but dont blame me for that.
>
> Oh no, we really have no bad feelings about gnome (afaik). Thing is,
> we share gtk+ with gnome and gtk+ has grown quite a lot recently, so
> the amount of (shared) memory used by every process may also have
> grown. But that's the price to pay to benefit from all the facilities
> provided by gtk+. There is no such thing as "light" actually, it's
> always a balance between functionalities, memory and speed.
>

Nice to ear also.
Then you agree that xfce is not looking for the lightestweight and pretty
DE, its looking for its own implementation of "best balance between
features, memory and speed".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/35b1cd34/attachment.html

From ambrose.li at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 02:19:42 2008
From: ambrose.li at gmail.com (Ambrose Li)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:19:42 -0400
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
Message-ID: <af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>:
> All this "lightweight desktop" stuff is pretty stupid anyways. In case
> you didn't notice, it's 2008, and you will have a hard time buying a new
> machine with less than 512MiB of RAM. Performance isn't an issue either
> with todays CPU processing power. Instead, it'd be nice if people would
> start to improve the user experience by - for example - reducing the
> latency of the desktop (i.e. make clever use of XCB instead of Xlib to
> avoid blocking on round trips to the Xserver) or making the Gnome people
> actually accept Glib patches to reduce unnecessary overhead in the
> object and signal handling. Wrt. latency there's also a lot of stuff
> that could be improved in the kernel.

I hope I'm not intruding into the discussion, but talking lightweight is
still not stupid. We have some old computers from where I work (this
is a non-profit and it's very hard to get new computers even with all
the talk about replacing the old equipment) that we will no longer
upgrade because it is already too slow to run the old software, let
alone the new. Lightweight certainly still is useful and will still be
useful in the next few years.

-- 
cheers,
-ambrose

The 'net used to be run by smart people; now many sites are run by
idiots. So SAD... (Sites that do spam filtering on mails sent to the
abuse contact need to be cut off the net...)

From jannis at xfce.org  Mon Jul 14 02:33:22 2008
From: jannis at xfce.org (Jannis Pohlmann)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:33:22 +0200
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>

Am Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:08:04 -0300
schrieb "Diego Jacobi" <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:

> 2008/7/13 Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Diego Jacobi
> > <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I didnt question the purpose of xfce, i question the goals, which
> > > are not answered anywhere. I want to know if the developers still
> > > want a
> > lightweight
> > > desktop and are focused to that or just want an alternative to
> > > gnome. But
> > i
> > > think that for the bad answer that i have got, there is some kind
> > > of bad felling against gnome. That is sad, but dont blame me for
> > > that.
> >
> > Oh no, we really have no bad feelings about gnome (afaik). Thing is,
> > we share gtk+ with gnome and gtk+ has grown quite a lot recently, so
> > the amount of (shared) memory used by every process may also have
> > grown. But that's the price to pay to benefit from all the
> > facilities provided by gtk+. There is no such thing as "light"
> > actually, it's always a balance between functionalities, memory and
> > speed.
> >
> 
> Nice to ear also.
> Then you agree that xfce is not looking for the lightestweight and
> pretty DE, its looking for its own implementation of "best balance
> between features, memory and speed".

Of course we are - you can see that everywhere. Just take five minutes
to compare fluxbox and Xfce and you'll notice that fluxbox is much more
lightweight than Xfce. Do you really need other people to tell you that?

Sorry for not replying to your other mails as well, but here is one
more thing you can easily see by yourself. We talked about the
configurability and you appreciated that I finally mentioned that I
consider xfwm more configurable than metacity, right? Just look at this:

Metacity configuration:
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/gnome220redhat9-5-1.png

Xfwm configuration:
http://www.simplehelp.net/images/kateos/kateos7.jpg
http://www.xfce.org/images/about/tour/xfce44-preferences-keyboard.png
http://www.xfce.org/images/about/tour/xfce44-xfwm4-tweaks.png

These are the dialogs you get to see if you try both window managers.
Notice the difference? 

If you feel insulted by me because of comparing xfwm and metacity then
you're wrong. It's not that. It's questioning things in the wrong way.
The basic message of your initial mails was to be interpreted as: "I
thought this was a lightweight desktop - now I prefer openbox - what's
your point in developing Xfce anyway?!"

And if that's what arrives at the other end then you've definitely hit
the wrong tone, don't you think?

  - Jannis

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080714/8b5b4c0a/signature.bin

From jannis at xfce.org  Mon Jul 14 02:44:43 2008
From: jannis at xfce.org (Jannis Pohlmann)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:44:43 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080714024443.49e732e6@84.200.240.9>

Am Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:05:11 -0300
schrieb "Diego Jacobi" <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:

> 2008/7/13 Jannis Pohlmann <jannis at xfce.org>:
> 
> > Am Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0300
> > schrieb "Diego Jacobi" <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > > > I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is
> > > > > just a few Mb less than gnome and in some cases i need of
> > > > > nautilus to easily browse on
> > > > my
> > > > > lan by example.
> > > >
> > > > Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can use nautilus, but then whats the point of thunar being so
> > > good? i cant use dolphin or konqueror, why would i choose a like
> > > weight DE and open heavy KDE apps.
> > > I want to use thunar, but i need it to have features to browse the
> > > lan, just because of that i need to have nautilus.
> >
> > Please, go whine somewhere else. Network filesystems are on the TODO
> > list but you have to respect that Xfce is a hobby project. It's not
> > sponsored by companies and we're not getting payed to work on it. So
> > sometimes new features take time.
> >
> 
> You are so wrong about my questions. Please dont answer it if you
> will do it like that.
> How do you expect to have monetary contribution if you answer like
> that. 

I never said I do.

> I only found an xfce wishlist which is user contributed and
> doesnt have any TODO list or future plans, or how many people is
> maintainer of X project. That is what i asking for, the rest of the
> mail is a deviated conversation. Also the title of the mail is a
> short summary of what i need. The goals of the project, which would
> be the same as the TODO list. So, you talk about it but dont point to
> it. 

Because you didn't ask for it. Asking goes like this:

  "Hey guys, can anyone please tell me whether someone is working
   on network filesystem support for Thunar or at least planning to
   implement a feature like this?"

What you did is:

  "I want to use thunar, but i need it to have features to browse the
   lan, just because of that i need to have nautilus.
   ...
   Also i  was expecting to get an url with the plans for thunar and
   seeing there the lan support, not a joke."

Now tell me where you're "asking" for something and how one can not
interpret these words as "demanding". 

It occurs to me that it might be a good idea for you to read documents
like http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html or our
mailinglist FAQ which is sent to this list every few weeks.

Have a good night/day,

  - Jannis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080714/2692ea05/signature-0001.bin

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 02:48:58 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:48:58 -0300
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
	<af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131748x8e772f2qe8fe392077e2df22@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/13 Ambrose Li <ambrose.li at gmail.com>:

> 2008/7/13 Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>:
> > All this "lightweight desktop" stuff is pretty stupid anyways. In case
> > you didn't notice, it's 2008, and you will have a hard time buying a new
> > machine with less than 512MiB of RAM. Performance isn't an issue either
> > with todays CPU processing power. Instead, it'd be nice if people would
> > start to improve the user experience by - for example - reducing the
> > latency of the desktop (i.e. make clever use of XCB instead of Xlib to
> > avoid blocking on round trips to the Xserver) or making the Gnome people
> > actually accept Glib patches to reduce unnecessary overhead in the
> > object and signal handling. Wrt. latency there's also a lot of stuff
> > that could be improved in the kernel.
>
> I hope I'm not intruding into the discussion, but talking lightweight is
> still not stupid. We have some old computers from where I work (this
> is a non-profit and it's very hard to get new computers even with all
> the talk about replacing the old equipment) that we will no longer
> upgrade because it is already too slow to run the old software, let
> alone the new. Lightweight certainly still is useful and will still be
> useful in the next few years.
>

I agree. Lightweight is important. The fact that computer hardware evolve in
the first world (USA,europe,Japan,etc.) isnt a reason to start wasting
resources.
In my country, the government, schools and universities have always very old
computers mainly with windows 98, ME or XP, and when they magically apply
resources to update, then buy 2 years old hardware because it is cheaper and
runs XP. And i think that they wont use linux if they have to buy ultimate
hardware. That was the nice thing about xfce, that is was "the complete
lightweight desktop" and the best option to move those administrative
computers to linux.
Also in my studies very little students have new hardware. Most still having
MMX and some celerons of less than 500 Mhz. They have no money to buy new
hardware and they have to use windows because all popular distributions
comes with gnome or some with xfce. And those distros for really low-end
machines comes with sucking desktops like icewm.

Also lightweight is better for the energy crisis which all countries are
having.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/045fc883/attachment.html

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 03:57:38 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:57:38 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
> > Nice to ear also.
> > Then you agree that xfce is not looking for the lightestweight and
> > pretty DE, its looking for its own implementation of "best balance
> > between features, memory and speed".
>
> Of course we are - you can see that everywhere. Just take five minutes
> to compare fluxbox and Xfce and you'll notice that fluxbox is much more
> lightweight than Xfce. Do you really need other people to tell you that?
>

klar, but fluxbox is not a complete DE, and is not really pretty and
standard compliant. So wont be fear.


> Sorry for not replying to your other mails as well, but here is one
> more thing you can easily see by yourself. We talked about the
> configurability and you appreciated that I finally mentioned that I
> consider xfwm more configurable than metacity, right? Just look at this:
>
> Metacity configuration:
>
> http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/gnome220redhat9-5-1.png
>
> Xfwm configuration:
> http://www.simplehelp.net/images/kateos/kateos7.jpg
> http://www.xfce.org/images/about/tour/xfce44-preferences-keyboard.png
> http://www.xfce.org/images/about/tour/xfce44-xfwm4-tweaks.png
>
> These are the dialogs you get to see if you try both window managers.
> Notice the difference?
>

Thanks for taking that job.
But gnome usually hides some properties in gconf and sometimes more hidden
in config files. I cant know if those are the only features.
But being xfwm4 better than metacity, why doesnt the distros use xfwm4 with
gnome to provide better features, or why doesnt gnome use xfwm4 by default
and stop to spend precious time with metacity?
Or more important is it possible to have a gnome desktop with xfwm4 and some
other xfce apps. working nicely together? I mean, the best of xfce and the
best of gnome.
There should be a good reason why both projects are separated and why
distributions always prefer to use metacity in gnome.


> If you feel insulted by me because of comparing xfwm and metacity then
> you're wrong. It's not that. It's questioning things in the wrong way.
> The basic message of your initial mails was to be interpreted as: "I
> thought this was a lightweight desktop - now I prefer openbox - what's
> your point in developing Xfce anyway?!"
>

"I'am using openbox now"

Because i want a very lightweight WM and a simple minimizing animation,
which xfwm4 seems to not fit in. xfce is better than gnome respecting to
programming philosophy, but is not lightweight to me.
But i was comparing xfwm4 with metacity because the last is the WM of a
heavy desktop and the first the WM of a light desktop and but are very
similar. So why doesnt the heavy desktop use the lighter alternative if it
is equal or better?



>
> And if that's what arrives at the other end then you've definitely hit
> the wrong tone, don't you think?
>

Of course, but this is a reason to leverage the tone?
Not answering would be a better answer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/9d001bf1/attachment.html

From damailings at mcbf.net  Mon Jul 14 04:02:54 2008
From: damailings at mcbf.net (David Mohr)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:02:54 -0600
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nice to ear also.
>> > Then you agree that xfce is not looking for the lightestweight and
>> > pretty DE, its looking for its own implementation of "best balance
>> > between features, memory and speed".
>>
>> Of course we are - you can see that everywhere. Just take five minutes
>> to compare fluxbox and Xfce and you'll notice that fluxbox is much more
>> lightweight than Xfce. Do you really need other people to tell you that?
>
> klar, but fluxbox is not a complete DE, and is not really pretty and
> standard compliant. So wont be fear.
>
>>
>> Sorry for not replying to your other mails as well, but here is one
>> more thing you can easily see by yourself. We talked about the
>> configurability and you appreciated that I finally mentioned that I
>> consider xfwm more configurable than metacity, right? Just look at this:
>>
>> Metacity configuration:
>>
>> http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/gnome220redhat9-5-1.png
>>
>> Xfwm configuration:
>> http://www.simplehelp.net/images/kateos/kateos7.jpg
>> http://www.xfce.org/images/about/tour/xfce44-preferences-keyboard.png
>> http://www.xfce.org/images/about/tour/xfce44-xfwm4-tweaks.png
>>
>> These are the dialogs you get to see if you try both window managers.
>> Notice the difference?
>
> Thanks for taking that job.
> But gnome usually hides some properties in gconf and sometimes more hidden
> in config files. I cant know if those are the only features.
> But being xfwm4 better than metacity, why doesnt the distros use xfwm4 with
> gnome to provide better features, or why doesnt gnome use xfwm4 by default
> and stop to spend precious time with metacity?
> Or more important is it possible to have a gnome desktop with xfwm4 and some
> other xfce apps. working nicely together? I mean, the best of xfce and the
> best of gnome.
> There should be a good reason why both projects are separated and why
> distributions always prefer to use metacity in gnome.

Probably because of better integration, and probably because metacity
is using "gnome design philosophy".

>> If you feel insulted by me because of comparing xfwm and metacity then
>> you're wrong. It's not that. It's questioning things in the wrong way.
>> The basic message of your initial mails was to be interpreted as: "I
>> thought this was a lightweight desktop - now I prefer openbox - what's
>> your point in developing Xfce anyway?!"
>
> "I'am using openbox now"

So why don't you keep using it? I don't see any issues with that,
except that maybe in the settings manager the WM configuration doesn't
show up... I myself used to use xfce with sawfish, and it worked just
fine (as would using another WM work in gnome).

> Because i want a very lightweight WM and a simple minimizing animation,
> which xfwm4 seems to not fit in. xfce is better than gnome respecting to
> programming philosophy, but is not lightweight to me.
> But i was comparing xfwm4 with metacity because the last is the WM of a
> heavy desktop and the first the WM of a light desktop and but are very
> similar. So why doesnt the heavy desktop use the lighter alternative if it
> is equal or better?

Hm, so given the arguments in this email, why are you asking this
question to the xfce group, and not to the gnome people? They are free
to choose whatever WM they want, and they have switched in the past
(at some point sawfish was their default WM).


>> And if that's what arrives at the other end then you've definitely hit
>> the wrong tone, don't you think?
>
> Of course, but this is a reason to leverage the tone?
> Not answering would be a better answer.

By the same note, people can respond to you "better not to ask, than
to ask in the wrong tone". Keep in mind that most people develop these
programs in their spare time, for fun and nothing else.

~David

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 04:33:35 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:33:35 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130422n1072d532na29ca2befde0cff4@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807131933w235bfe4clff572d19771de0f9@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Probably because of better integration, and probably because metacity
> is using "gnome design philosophy".
>

Right.


>
> >> If you feel insulted by me because of comparing xfwm and metacity then
> >> you're wrong. It's not that. It's questioning things in the wrong way.
> >> The basic message of your initial mails was to be interpreted as: "I
> >> thought this was a lightweight desktop - now I prefer openbox - what's
> >> your point in developing Xfce anyway?!"
> >
> > "I'am using openbox now"
>
> So why don't you keep using it? I don't see any issues with that,
> except that maybe in the settings manager the WM configuration doesn't
> show up... I myself used to use xfce with sawfish, and it worked just
> fine (as would using another WM work in gnome).
>

Maybe, but i like xfce and i want it to evolve in the features a like,
obviusly as everybody, and i dont know what are the goals to evolve and if
they include working with xfwm4.
Maybe if i like a cool gnome theme or some simple but useful animations i
can use metacity with xfce. And because they both seems to take the same
resources, would it be wrong (in the sense of lightweight) to do that? use
metacity with xfce? I couldnt know without technical details.
OpenBox is nice but isnt written with gtk, so isnt as much pretty, and adds
more libs to the shared memory, if i am not wrong.


> > Because i want a very lightweight WM and a simple minimizing animation,
> > which xfwm4 seems to not fit in. xfce is better than gnome respecting to
> > programming philosophy, but is not lightweight to me.
> > But i was comparing xfwm4 with metacity because the last is the WM of a
> > heavy desktop and the first the WM of a light desktop and but are very
> > similar. So why doesnt the heavy desktop use the lighter alternative if
> it
> > is equal or better?
>
> Hm, so given the arguments in this email, why are you asking this
> question to the xfce group, and not to the gnome people? They are free
> to choose whatever WM they want, and they have switched in the past
> (at some point sawfish was their default WM).
>

Because i didnt know that xfwm4 is better than metacity, for me at the
moment of writing they are both equal, with xfwm4 having less resources for
animations, but maybe the problems that i am having can be bugs.



> >> And if that's what arrives at the other end then you've definitely hit
> >> the wrong tone, don't you think?
> >
> > Of course, but this is a reason to leverage the tone?
> > Not answering would be a better answer.
>
> By the same note, people can respond to you "better not to ask, than
> to ask in the wrong tone". Keep in mind that most people develop these
> programs in their spare time, for fun and nothing else.
>

Yep but at my side and at that moment, i have asked right. So why shouldnt i
ask a right question?
Badly or aggressively answering a wrong question is different.
You can easily see that my english is not perfect, not even correct, so dont
you have in mind that i can possible be saying something incorrectly but
with good intentions?
After all, how many people spend time in subscribe to a list to blame it for
fun? That would be insane. And for me is the less possible side of
interpretation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080713/13a77ae9/attachment-0001.html

From damailings at mcbf.net  Mon Jul 14 05:06:04 2008
From: damailings at mcbf.net (David Mohr)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:06:04 -0600
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131933w235bfe4clff572d19771de0f9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131100red9357ey48918b4f43fffbc5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131933w235bfe4clff572d19771de0f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <472d4b250807132006h5ecccde4ld2ef290c2e7abdc3@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Probably because of better integration, and probably because metacity
>> is using "gnome design philosophy".
>
> Right.
>
>>
>> >> If you feel insulted by me because of comparing xfwm and metacity then
>> >> you're wrong. It's not that. It's questioning things in the wrong way.
>> >> The basic message of your initial mails was to be interpreted as: "I
>> >> thought this was a lightweight desktop - now I prefer openbox - what's
>> >> your point in developing Xfce anyway?!"
>> >
>> > "I'am using openbox now"
>>
>> So why don't you keep using it? I don't see any issues with that,
>> except that maybe in the settings manager the WM configuration doesn't
>> show up... I myself used to use xfce with sawfish, and it worked just
>> fine (as would using another WM work in gnome).
>
> Maybe, but i like xfce and i want it to evolve in the features a like,
> obviusly as everybody, and i dont know what are the goals to evolve and if
> they include working with xfwm4.

You see, the issue with "evolving xfce" is not a lack of ideas. It's a
lack of man-power. I obviously don't speak for all of the xfce
developers, but my guess would be that noone would mind adding a
feature to xfwm4, like your hiding animations, if it is reasonably
coded and optional.
But unless you know how to code, discussion emails like yours
unfortunately don't get xfce much ahead.

> Maybe if i like a cool gnome theme or some simple but useful animations i
> can use metacity with xfce. And because they both seems to take the same
> resources, would it be wrong (in the sense of lightweight) to do that? use
> metacity with xfce? I couldnt know without technical details.
> OpenBox is nice but isnt written with gtk, so isnt as much pretty, and adds
> more libs to the shared memory, if i am not wrong.

If metacity with xfce works for you, you should use it, period. And
you can decide yourself, by whatever means you have, to decide if that
is lightweight enough for you or not.
And yes, you are probably right that openbox might add a bit more of
memory usage because it is using other libraries. Nonetheless it might
be more lightweight (I honestly have no clue). Again, just use what
works for you.

If I understand you correctly, then you would like the xfce project as
a whole to move ahead, and that's why you're interested in the
features of the stock components, like xfwm4. That's a nice intention,
but as I wrote above, xfce needs advocacy maybe, and mainly people
that can contribute code, not discussions about features or being
lightweight or not :-).

>>
>> > Because i want a very lightweight WM and a simple minimizing animation,
>> > which xfwm4 seems to not fit in. xfce is better than gnome respecting to
>> > programming philosophy, but is not lightweight to me.
>> > But i was comparing xfwm4 with metacity because the last is the WM of a
>> > heavy desktop and the first the WM of a light desktop and but are very
>> > similar. So why doesnt the heavy desktop use the lighter alternative if
>> > it
>> > is equal or better?
>>
>> Hm, so given the arguments in this email, why are you asking this
>> question to the xfce group, and not to the gnome people? They are free
>> to choose whatever WM they want, and they have switched in the past
>> (at some point sawfish was their default WM).
>
> Because i didnt know that xfwm4 is better than metacity, for me at the
> moment of writing they are both equal, with xfwm4 having less resources for
> animations, but maybe the problems that i am having can be bugs.

Yes, you could file the issues you are having with xfwm4 as bugs /
feature requests. That would help that they don't get forgotten. But
xfce has a lot of work that needs to be done, and you should not
expect someone to work on it soon.

>>
>> >> And if that's what arrives at the other end then you've definitely hit
>> >> the wrong tone, don't you think?
>> >
>> > Of course, but this is a reason to leverage the tone?
>> > Not answering would be a better answer.
>>
>> By the same note, people can respond to you "better not to ask, than
>> to ask in the wrong tone". Keep in mind that most people develop these
>> programs in their spare time, for fun and nothing else.
>
> Yep but at my side and at that moment, i have asked right. So why shouldnt i
> ask a right question?
> Badly or aggressively answering a wrong question is different.
> You can easily see that my english is not perfect, not even correct, so dont
> you have in mind that i can possible be saying something incorrectly but
> with good intentions?
> After all, how many people spend time in subscribe to a list to blame it for
> fun? That would be insane. And for me is the less possible side of
> interpretation.

Hehe, blaming can be fun :-). If your English is not that good, then
be more careful about what you say. Most people on this list are not
native speakers. Looking at the amount of text that you have written,
I think it's very reasonable to say that you could have spent more
time thinking about how you are translating your thoughts into
English, while maybe writing a bit less if you are pressed for time.

~David

From jacobidiego at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 05:28:49 2008
From: jacobidiego at gmail.com (Diego Jacobi)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:28:49 -0300
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <472d4b250807132006h5ecccde4ld2ef290c2e7abdc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131933w235bfe4clff572d19771de0f9@mail.gmail.com>
	<472d4b250807132006h5ecccde4ld2ef290c2e7abdc3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5de034af0807132028k3c36c254h317066991e4a3ab4@mail.gmail.com>

>
> If I understand you correctly, then you would like the xfce project as
> a whole to move ahead, and that's why you're interested in the
> features of the stock components, like xfwm4. That's a nice intention,
> but as I wrote above, xfce needs advocacy maybe, and mainly people
> that can contribute code, not discussions about features or being
> lightweight or not :-).
>

:)
The big problem here is that no one wil contribute in a project where there
are no goals or todo list. There isnt any written philosophy of design in a
webpage.
And that would lead to somebody write an unaceptable app. or patch.
If someone wants to add the minimizing effect, he will not know if another
developer is already working on it, or if it will be acepted on the main
stream. The same for thunar. Somebody have mentioned that networked
filesystem is in the todo list of thunar, but i can not find that list or
who and how is doing that, or see any aproach.
Like the suspend/hibernate ubuntu's patch which is not in the main stream, i
dont know why.
Also distros, normally want to know when the new version will be out, or how
much longer have to wait. I was trying to find any goals page to find line
saying that this patch would be aplied in the main stream withut success.
Writing on what are working would be very nice or where a developer is
needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080714/f5df81db/attachment.html

From xfce at rlworkman.net  Mon Jul 14 06:34:15 2008
From: xfce at rlworkman.net (Robby Workman)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:34:15 -0500
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807132028k3c36c254h317066991e4a3ab4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>	<20080713204009.6f4e992c@84.200.240.9>	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>	<5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>	<472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>	<5de034af0807131933w235bfe4clff572d19771de0f9@mail.gmail.com>	<472d4b250807132006h5ecccde4ld2ef290c2e7abdc3@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807132028k3c36c254h317066991e4a3ab4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <487AD747.8030006@rlworkman.net>

Diego Jacobi wrote:
>     If I understand you correctly, then you would like the xfce project as
>     a whole to move ahead, and that's why you're interested in the
>     features of the stock components, like xfwm4. That's a nice intention,
>     but as I wrote above, xfce needs advocacy maybe, and mainly people
>     that can contribute code, not discussions about features or being
>     lightweight or not :-).
> 
> 
> :)
> The big problem here is that no one wil contribute in a project where 
> there are no goals or todo list. There isnt any written philosophy of 
> design in a webpage.
> And that would lead to somebody write an unaceptable app. or patch.
> If someone wants to add the minimizing effect, he will not know if 
> another developer is already working on it, or if it will be acepted on 
> the main stream. 


Unfortunately, I've not contributed any code to Xfce, but I have done
*many* patches for another project.  That project also didn't have
any of the things that you're saying Xfce needs, but I saw some things
that (in my opinion) needed to be implemented/fixed/whatever, and
rather than making a bunch of noise on their mailing list, I started
coding.  The first couple of patches didn't go in, but after some
discussion with the developers about what was wrong with them, I fixed
them and applied the same rationale to future ones.  I've had probably
twenty or so since then, some small and some large, and I'd like to
think that the project is better off today than it was when I started.
What I'm trying to say is this:
Everybody wants to talk, but very few people actually *do* something.
If you want to make a difference in things, you *have* to be one of
the latter group of people.

As one who is actively involved in development of a distribution, I 
can say without reservation that patches that attempt to implement
ideas, even if they're not very good overall, are often better than
*only* ideas - sometimes that little bit of effort shown by a user is 
enough to get my "give a damn" in gear and handle the implementation
myself if need be.  I won't claim that the same thing applies to the 
Xfce developers, but I'd guess that it's at least partially true.

-RW

From markus.hoenicka at mhoenicka.de  Mon Jul 14 09:41:51 2008
From: markus.hoenicka at mhoenicka.de (Markus Hoenicka)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:41:51 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080714094151.dqvqsgzzwcokcc88@webmail.df.eu>

Quoting Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:

>> > I know about it of the fast and low resources DE. but it is just a few Mb
>> > less than gnome and in some cases i need of nautilus to easily browse on
>> my
>> > lan by example.
>>
>> Fine, you can use Nautilus, dolphin, konqueror, whateverfm...
>>
>
> I can use nautilus, but then whats the point of thunar being so good?
> i cant use dolphin or konqueror, why would i choose a like weight DE and
> open heavy KDE apps.
> I want to use thunar, but i need it to have features to browse the lan, just
> because of that i need to have nautilus.
>

I've followed this thread half-bemused, half-wondering. The bottom  
line seems to be that you want to have a desktop as lightweight as  
XFCE, but with all bells and whistles and candy sticks of a bloated  
desktop please. This ain't gonna work. More features mean more code.  
More code means larger memory footprint. I have to say in defense of  
the XFCE developers that their product allows everyone to have it  
their way. It's not like the choice between Windows or OSX. You can  
use XFCE without any bloat. If you miss some features of other  
desktops, replace parts or all of XFCE with more bloated components.  
The choice is yours.

Let me use this occasion to thank the XFCE developers for providing a  
desktop which pleasantly stays out of my way while working and which  
is as configurable as it needs to be at the same time.

regards,
Markus


-- 
Markus Hoenicka
markus.hoenicka at cats.de
(Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka")
http://www.mhoenicka.de


From alexander.toresson at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 10:34:56 2008
From: alexander.toresson at gmail.com (Alexander Toresson)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:34:56 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b33ba6660807140134n7acc72eayb69b541d36a56aaa@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also i am sure that you know about a new xfce[link to LXDE site] fork, and if that isnt
> duplicated efforts, then i dont know what the deffinition of duplicated
> efforts is. :P

I fail to see how that is a fork of Xfce. Sure, it uses xarchiver, and
I found nothing about the origin of their session manager nor their
terminal (which means they could be forks of xfce4-session and
Terminal) but otherwise it use a different window manager, file
manager, desktop manager, does not use xfce-mcs-manager, etc...

// Alexander

From nickschermer at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 11:06:04 2008
From: nickschermer at gmail.com (Nick Schermer)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:06:04 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807131748x8e772f2qe8fe392077e2df22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
	<af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131748x8e772f2qe8fe392077e2df22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4abe35490807140206y4fb380d2k221a3de4bbb5751a@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/14 Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:
> I agree. Lightweight is important. The fact that computer hardware evolve in
> the first world (USA,europe,Japan,etc.) isn't a reason to start wasting
> resources.

Why don't you run Xfce 4.0 on an old pc, if you do, you can use an older
version of gtk/glib too. I mean you just can't use the latest and greatest
software on a ancient computer. You probably want to, but in the way
computers are evolving, that's not gonne work.

And about wasting resources, well if you tell us where we're wasting, we'd
be glad looking into it. But saying we wasting resources on one hand
and asking for new (quite heavy) futures on the other hand is not making
any sense.

> Also lightweight is better for the energy crisis which all countries are
> having.

You really think working on old computers saves power? You do realize that
power consumption is watts * time. New pc use more power, but reduce the
time ;-). (and i'm pretty sure my core duo laptop uses less power then the
p486 + monitor i had a decade ago).

Regarding the settings manager window: the "Etiqueta de boton" string,
makes the whole window grow because the box is homogeneous IIRC.
Should be fixed by the Spanish translators.

LXDE is not a fork, although is uses _a lot_ of Xfce code. The toolkit they use
is also Gtk, so don't expect it to be a lot faster then Xfce, just more like
another 'lightweight' desktop walking a different path.

Cheers,
Nick

From mark at foresightlinux.org  Mon Jul 14 11:19:56 2008
From: mark at foresightlinux.org (Mark Trompell)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:19:56 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dbfa5dfc0807140219i6ed71356vb649ccabeea2c8fe@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:


> I totally agree with the suspend/hibernate feature. The good thing is
> that there is a patch that is available and used by most fine
> distributions. If you ask me, I would integrate that patch right away,
> but that decisions belongs to Benny.

Where would I search for such a patch?

> Cheers,
> Olivier.

Mark

From nickschermer at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 11:23:54 2008
From: nickschermer at gmail.com (Nick Schermer)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:23:54 +0200
Subject: xfwm4
In-Reply-To: <5de034af0807132028k3c36c254h317066991e4a3ab4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122239q36a67d14qe7f3bad3916e0297@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131514h3b551138sc7e7b9cae2c078f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807131522l7744fccdidffeff7fb36f0b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131708n69ea7453m68da8439e93dd6d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080714023322.48521cd6@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131857h5ab9eeb2p4d04697a22190c9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<472d4b250807131902s47e0d5eaw5f4396e7b4bb8b0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131933w235bfe4clff572d19771de0f9@mail.gmail.com>
	<472d4b250807132006h5ecccde4ld2ef290c2e7abdc3@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807132028k3c36c254h317066991e4a3ab4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4abe35490807140223k14f28261q9a9ab1b9c3d39793@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/14 Diego Jacobi <jacobidiego at gmail.com>:
> The big problem here is that no one wil contribute in a project where there
> are no goals or todo list. There isnt any written philosophy of design in a
> webpage.
> And that would lead to somebody write an unaceptable app. or patch.
> If someone wants to add the minimizing effect, he will not know if another
> developer is already working on it, or if it will be acepted on the main
> stream. The same for thunar. Somebody have mentioned that networked
> filesystem is in the todo list of thunar, but i can not find that list or
> who and how is doing that, or see any aproach.

Well for developers there is a place called bugzilla and we have one here:
bugzilla.xfce.org. I guess almost every new feature you can think of
is already submitted there, and when someone is working on it: including
discussions how the implement it, patch review etc, etc, etc.

Most (if not all) people working for Xfce and being actually
interested in helping
to *fix* instead of shouting, know to find it.

> Like the suspend/hibernate ubuntu's patch which is not in the main stream, i
> dont know why.

Also a bug in bugzilla, with comments why it's not accepted (could be a time
issue here btw).

> Also distros, normally want to know when the new version will be out, or how
> much longer have to wait.

And _how much_ is that going to help distributions? I think almost every mayor
distribution shipping Xfce has at least 1 active member here in the
Xfce dev group,
and they are all very help full when it comes to testing, reporting
bugs etc. They
also have a quite good vision when a new release is comming.

It's also hard to pick a release date, take a look at projects as
X.org, kernel, gtk... You
never know what problems you'll face towards a release esp. when the project
is low on developer resources, like Xfce. And post phoning a release a
couple of
times isn't gonne work either.

Greets,
Nick

From nickschermer at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 11:25:14 2008
From: nickschermer at gmail.com (Nick Schermer)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:25:14 +0200
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <dbfa5dfc0807140219i6ed71356vb649ccabeea2c8fe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbfa5dfc0807140219i6ed71356vb649ccabeea2c8fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4abe35490807140225v42d2cd28weaecca690cba2db8@mail.gmail.com>

2008/7/14 Mark Trompell <mark at foresightlinux.org>:
> Where would I search for such a patch?

http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2034

Greetings,
Nick

From framstag at rus.uni-stuttgart.de  Mon Jul 14 12:20:06 2008
From: framstag at rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ulli Horlacher)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:20:06 +0200
Subject: Where is the mouse cursor?
Message-ID: <20080714102006.GA14259@fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>


I often have the problem "Where is my mouse cursor?!" because I overlook
it and it got lost.

I thought I have seen a find-and-show-the-mouse-cursor-function (holding
down the Control-key?) in an older version of xfce, but I cannot find it
any more in xfce 4.4.2 which I am currently using.

Is there an easy and quick using function somewhere?

-- 
Ullrich Horlacher              Server- und Arbeitsplatzsysteme
Rechenzentrum                  E-Mail: horlacher at rus.uni-stuttgart.de
Universitaet Stuttgart         Tel:    ++49-711-685-65868
Allmandring 30                 Fax:    ++49-711-682357
70550 Stuttgart (Germany)      WWW:    http://www.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/

From mailinglists at vinnl.nl  Mon Jul 14 18:20:04 2008
From: mailinglists at vinnl.nl (Vincent)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:20:04 +0000
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
	<af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aed7edfa0807140920x20570808qbf0442a5640d97b4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/7/13 Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>:
> > All this "lightweight desktop" stuff is pretty stupid anyways. In case
> > you didn't notice, it's 2008, and you will have a hard time buying a new
> > machine with less than 512MiB of RAM. Performance isn't an issue either
> > with todays CPU processing power. Instead, it'd be nice if people would
> > start to improve the user experience by - for example - reducing the
> > latency of the desktop (i.e. make clever use of XCB instead of Xlib to
> > avoid blocking on round trips to the Xserver) or making the Gnome people
> > actually accept Glib patches to reduce unnecessary overhead in the
> > object and signal handling. Wrt. latency there's also a lot of stuff
> > that could be improved in the kernel.
>
> I hope I'm not intruding into the discussion, but talking lightweight is
> still not stupid. We have some old computers from where I work (this
> is a non-profit and it's very hard to get new computers even with all
> the talk about replacing the old equipment) that we will no longer
> upgrade because it is already too slow to run the old software, let
> alone the new. Lightweight certainly still is useful and will still be
> useful in the next few years.
>

Of course talking light-weightness is not stupid. However, it is madness to
assume that, because Xfce ran on old computers five years ago, Xfce should
still run on those same computers today even though they've become five
years older. "Old computers" of today can handle more than "old computers"
of yesterday.

-- 
Vincent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080714/6fb714b3/attachment.html

From grante at visi.com  Mon Jul 14 18:26:43 2008
From: grante at visi.com (Grant Edwards)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
	<af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
	<aed7edfa0807140920x20570808qbf0442a5640d97b4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g5fuo3$l2d$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 2008-07-14, Vincent <mailinglists at vinnl.nl> wrote:

> Of course talking light-weightness is not stupid. However, it
> is madness to assume that, because Xfce ran on old computers
> five years ago, Xfce should still run on those same computers
> today even though they've become five years older. "Old
> computers" of today can handle more than "old computers" of
> yesterday.

Cool.  Where do you get one of those computers who's capacity
increases with time?  My "old computers" of a few years ago are
the same machines as my "old computers" of today.  :)

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! The FALAFEL SANDWICH
                                  at               lands on my HEAD and I
                               visi.com            become a VEGETARIAN ...


From rfquerin at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 18:31:53 2008
From: rfquerin at gmail.com (Richard Querin)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:31:53 -0400
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <g5fuo3$l2d$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<5de034af0807131134x3a485cceod0c3a980292bd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080713205041.0b112645@84.200.240.9>
	<5de034af0807131605t4d46d344o260698d02572a9eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<487A9371.6060907@unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>
	<af2cae770807131719xacbc562o2841db58f49a1a74@mail.gmail.com>
	<aed7edfa0807140920x20570808qbf0442a5640d97b4@mail.gmail.com>
	<g5fuo3$l2d$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <7d81675b0807140931o25e79833y3ca8e6697aa7b83a@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Grant Edwards <grante at visi.com> wrote:

> On 2008-07-14, Vincent <mailinglists at vinnl.nl> wrote:
>
> > Of course talking light-weightness is not stupid. However, it
> > is madness to assume that, because Xfce ran on old computers
> > five years ago, Xfce should still run on those same computers
> > today even though they've become five years older. "Old
> > computers" of today can handle more than "old computers" of
> > yesterday.
>
> Cool.  Where do you get one of those computers who's capacity
> increases with time?  My "old computers" of a few years ago are
> the same machines as my "old computers" of today.  :)
>

I think something like a 5 year old or 8 year old moving window is
completely reasonable. Xfce works great with my P4-3Ghz which is now
probably 5 years old. Gnome works, but not nearly as well. But I don't
expect XFCE to work well with my Pentium75 from years gone by. Things have
to change. But you can still make sure you cater to old machines and define
what that means based on the current state of the art.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20080714/94a8de58/attachment.html

From grantmasterflash at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 18:49:02 2008
From: grantmasterflash at gmail.com (Grant McWilliams)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:49:02 -0700
Subject: Where are the goals of XFCE.
In-Reply-To: <4abe35490807140225v42d2cd28weaecca690cba2db8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5de034af0807122300j42ba467ei9aa2fb959b91438f@mail.gmail.com>
	<60f2b0dc0807130436u7ddc6451v1b31c8cdc5bf1de@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbfa5dfc0807140219i6ed71356vb649ccabeea2c8fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<4abe35490807140225v42d2cd28weaecca690cba2db8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ed123fa30807140949i7d9fa605gac3cab109877c3ea@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Nick Schermer <nickschermer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2008/7/14 Mark Trompell <mark at foresightlinux.org>:
> > Where would I search for such a patch?
>
> http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2034
>
> Greetings,
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> http://www.xfce.org
>

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 i