Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 07:50:40PM +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: I really take a lot of care when I install a new software, and avoid bloated ones when it is possible. Excepted for the web browser, I am quite successful in that heroic quest. But web browsers still beat me, I can not found anyone which is stable, fast enough and not bloated. I tried lot of them, without success. lynx :) And gconf is not a 'configuration system'. To quote these ppl themselves (see /usr/share/doc/libgconf2-4/README): GConf is a configuration database system, functionally similar to the Windows registry but lots better. What is the difference between a configuration system and a configuration database system, excepted that the second one uses a database (which are tools made to handle lot of data and not configurations, as the name shows: data base, not configuration base btw) ? Not easily parsed! -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025133951.GB18657@tal
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
Le 25.10.2013 15:39, Chris Bannister a écrit : On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 07:50:40PM +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: I really take a lot of care when I install a new software, and avoid bloated ones when it is possible. Excepted for the web browser, I am quite successful in that heroic quest. But web browsers still beat me, I can not found anyone which is stable, fast enough and not bloated. I tried lot of them, without success. lynx :) There is a difference between non-bloated and not providing needed features. Like JS. FlashPlugin support can also be very useful on Internet. I do not say that I like to have to use them, I usually only enable them when needed, but I have to enable them on lot of sites. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cf29c5f0b997225edc387e5d838f7...@neutralite.org
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:18:10 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: That makes me wonder, perhaps this works because your install is that clean. There may be other differences. Versions, build options, etc. And there's always ltrace and strace to make sure that the software behaves exactly the way you want it. Impossible for my usage, fortunately I anyway mount from a terminal. I don't know if the OP could live without G and Dconf and gtk3. I didn't install that stuff simply for the sake of an clean experiment. I'm pretty sure that thunar doesn't use GConf, DConf or GTK+3, so these libraries were not needed. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131023102116.8ee1b2e35bfca57d9a728...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:21:16 +0200, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:18:10 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: That makes me wonder, perhaps this works because your install is that clean. There may be other differences. Versions, build options, etc. And there's always ltrace and strace to make sure that the software behaves exactly the way you want it. What will you strace, if you're missing the Trash can icon? ;) And no, I don't need a trash can, even if I delete using the mouse I delete and don't move to trash, but usually I use a terminal for file browsing and operations like remove. The OP is missing the Trash can icon and there's nothing wrong with it, if people want a Trash can. Impossible for my usage, fortunately I anyway mount from a terminal. I don't know if the OP could live without G and Dconf and gtk3. I didn't install that stuff simply for the sake of an clean experiment. I'm pretty sure that thunar doesn't use GConf, DConf or GTK+3, so these libraries were not needed. Thunar doesn't need them, but other software does. Don't ask me what software e.g. gtk3 needs, since I'm booted to a very old Linux right no. cat /etc/issue Welcome to openSUSE 11.2 Emerald RC 1 - Kernel \r (\l). uname -rm 2.6.31.6-rt19 x86_64 Regards, Ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/op.w5ec5hsxqhadp0@suse11-2
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
Le 23.10.2013 08:21, recovery...@gmail.com a écrit : Impossible for my usage, fortunately I anyway mount from a terminal. I don't know if the OP could live without G and Dconf and gtk3. I didn't install that stuff simply for the sake of an clean experiment. I'm pretty sure that thunar doesn't use GConf, DConf or GTK+3, so these libraries were not needed. Reco Don't you have gstreamer installer? I am interested in how to remove gconf2 and all it's family from my system, since I do not understand why I need a configuration system for stuff which is only used to play things in my web-browsers... which anyway needs flash-player to really play stuff. (it's not the only dependency I would like to remove, but it would be a good start. There also tons of dependency for libsdl which do not seems to make lot of sense) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7ed387e8a8fd9a38159a0918814ee...@neutralite.org
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
Hi. On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:15:34 +0200 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Don't you have gstreamer installer? Only that thing as a recommended dependency to webkit-gtk: $ dpkg -l gstream* | grep ii ii gstreamer0.10-plugins-base:amd64 Not that I need gstreamer. Once upon a time some kind soul told me about mplayer, and since then it's the only thing I ever use for video. sox and mpd play all audio I ever need to play. I am interested in how to remove gconf2 and all it's family from my system, since I do not understand why I need a configuration system for stuff which is only used to play things in my web-browsers... which anyway needs flash-player to really play stuff. (it's not the only dependency I would like to remove, but it would be a good start. There also tons of dependency for libsdl which do not seems to make lot of sense) The way I see it, these guys (Maintainers of GStreamer packages) thought it is a good idea that gstreamer should depend on gconf (there was some bug about it, but I forgot the number). Next, they split gconf dependency to gstreamer0.10-gconf … only to make said package a dependency to gstreamer0.10-plugins-base. As for removing that stuff, there's a neat trick I currently use: $ cat /etc/apt/preferences Package: libdconf0 Pin: release n=wheezy Pin-priority: -1 Package: libgconf2-4 Pin: release n=wheezy Pin-priority: -1 By itself, it doesn't magically remove all that depends on that libraries, but prevents installing them. And gconf is not a 'configuration system'. To quote these ppl themselves (see /usr/share/doc/libgconf2-4/README): GConf is a configuration database system, functionally similar to the Windows registry but lots better. That alone IMO should be the reason do not install that thing ever. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131023213359.f1b483af53f82c6fdc5d3...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:45:07 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: What will you strace, if you're missing the Trash can icon? ;) For that task I'd use the source of thunar, gdb and ltrace. Nothing reasonable can be gained for tracing syscalls in this case. Thunar doesn't need them, but other software does. Probably. As we discussed earlier, this 'GConf and/or DConf required' software is nothing special, and can be easily replaced with sane behavior equivalents. Don't ask me what software e.g. gtk3 needs, since I'm booted to a very old Linux right no. cat /etc/issue Welcome to openSUSE 11.2 Emerald RC 1 - Kernel \r (\l). uname -rm 2.6.31.6-rt19 x86_64 What do you mean it is old Linux? I use RHEL5 (2.6.18) at office half of the time, and it's still considered 'new, full of untested and experimental features' OS by these people. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131023214523.7560ba3574ec6a766b22f...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
Le 23.10.2013 19:33, recovery...@gmail.com a écrit : Hi. On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:15:34 +0200 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Don't you have gstreamer installer? Only that thing as a recommended dependency to webkit-gtk: $ dpkg -l gstream* | grep ii ii gstreamer0.10-plugins-base:amd64 Not that I need gstreamer. Once upon a time some kind soul told me about mplayer, and since then it's the only thing I ever use for video. sox and mpd play all audio I ever need to play. I simply agree with everything you said here, but unfortunately, opera depends on gstreamer0.10-plugins-good, which in turn... I am interested in how to remove gconf2 and all it's family from my system, since I do not understand why I need a configuration system for stuff which is only used to play things in my web-browsers... which anyway needs flash-player to really play stuff. (it's not the only dependency I would like to remove, but it would be a good start. There also tons of dependency for libsdl which do not seems to make lot of sense) The way I see it, these guys (Maintainers of GStreamer packages) thought it is a good idea that gstreamer should depend on gconf (there was some bug about it, but I forgot the number). Next, they split gconf dependency to gstreamer0.10-gconf … only to make said package a dependency to gstreamer0.10-plugins-base. As for removing that stuff, there's a neat trick I currently use: $ cat /etc/apt/preferences Package: libdconf0 Pin: release n=wheezy Pin-priority: -1 Package: libgconf2-4 Pin: release n=wheezy Pin-priority: -1 By itself, it doesn't magically remove all that depends on that libraries, but prevents installing them. When I install packages I take a lot of care to their dependencies and recommendations. This trick can be useful when you do not have time to spend in knowing on what you depend and why, but I have this time :) I really take a lot of care when I install a new software, and avoid bloated ones when it is possible. Excepted for the web browser, I am quite successful in that heroic quest. But web browsers still beat me, I can not found anyone which is stable, fast enough and not bloated. I tried lot of them, without success. And gconf is not a 'configuration system'. To quote these ppl themselves (see /usr/share/doc/libgconf2-4/README): GConf is a configuration database system, functionally similar to the Windows registry but lots better. What is the difference between a configuration system and a configuration database system, excepted that the second one uses a database (which are tools made to handle lot of data and not configurations, as the name shows: data base, not configuration base btw) ? That alone IMO should be the reason do not install that thing ever. +1. The only pseudo advantage it have it that there is daemon able to inform applications that the UI theme has changed. But since people do not change their themes everyday, that's just useless. Instant apply, they say.. tsss. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2d517e8af0e91f172bfb5229ec5c0...@neutralite.org
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:50:40 +0200 berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: I simply agree with everything you said here, but unfortunately, opera depends on gstreamer0.10-plugins-good, which in turn... If you really don't need these libraries, there's a way. Check opera binary with ldd. If you see that it is linked with gstreamer0.10-plugins-good libraries, you're out of luck. Now, if they don't (i.e they use dlopen(3) instead of compile-time linking) - just use equivs to make a fake gstreamer0.10-plugins-good package, install it, and you're set. Repeat the process once Jessie becomes stable. What is the difference between a configuration system and a configuration database system, excepted that the second one uses a database (which are tools made to handle lot of data and not configurations, as the name shows: data base, not configuration base btw) ? You're both right and wrong IMO. You're right, as there's no noticeable difference between a 'configuration system' and a 'configuration database' both to a user (they're given tools) and for a developer (they're given API). You're wrong by defining a database as something that handles a lot of data. For example, /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, /etc/group are their own database of users and groups (see getent(1)) with a real primary key - foreign key dependencies along each other. This database even has some utilities to work with it (useradd, usermod, passwd to name a few). And you've picked the wrong part of the quote. It's the 'functionally similar to the Windows registry' part which makes me feel uneasy :) Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131023224329.69c17175f24ee023ae655...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
Hi. On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:50:57 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: And I also don't use NetworkManager, my Ubuntus/Debian aren't different to my Arch Linux, however, a default Xfce4 usually is used with lot's Gnome applications. Out of curiosity, what are names of these Gnome applications? Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131022193411.632068fd8235b4d20e444...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 19:34 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: Out of curiosity, what are names of these Gnome applications? Xfce does need gtk. Xfce doesn't provide some software, resp. only rudimentary software for some usages. Likely it's used with NetworManager, Gedit etc. and as mentioned before, for seeing devices with Thunar, even trash, you need gvfs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382471516.2766.8.camel@archlinux
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 19:34 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: Out of curiosity, what are names of these Gnome applications? Xfce does need gtk. Xfce doesn't provide some software, resp. only rudimentary software for some usages. Likely it's used with NetworManager, Gedit etc. and as mentioned before, for showing devices in Thunar, even trash, gvfs is needed. Sure, there's no hard dependency to Gnome software (or KDE software), but at least I install a DE to get a DE and Xfce4 is missing features. Would you like to use mousepad for programming? What are you using as your MUA? Etc. pp.. XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts isn't a subject from me, but I agree that it's quasi impossible to use Xfce without stuff from Gnome or if installing Qt doesn't matter, KDE. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382473119.3610.12.camel@archlinux
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:18:39 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 19:34 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: Out of curiosity, what are names of these Gnome applications? Xfce does need gtk. XFCE needs GTK+2. Current GNOME needs GTK+3. GNOME2 depended on libgconf, and no XFCE part depends on it. Xfce doesn't provide some software, resp. only rudimentary software for some usages. I don't see this as a bad thing. Why bother implementing, say, DE-tied display manager, then there is an excellent nodm? Likewise, nothing beats good old xscreensaver. Unless you're trying to to something very uncommon, TightVNC client is as good as that GNOME gizmo. Likely it's used with NetworManager, Which doesn't even depend on X, not to mention any GUI toolkit. And I always failed to understand what's so hot about that NetworkDestroyer anyway. Gedit etc. and as mentioned before, Mousepad is a graphical text editor for Xfce. for showing devices in Thunar, even trash, gvfs is needed. For that, you need thunar-volman, which in turn depends on libgudev, which in turn listens for udev events via libudev. Actual mounting can be provided by anything (which includes, but surely not limited to dreaded gvfs, which chews on harddrives). Sure, there's no hard dependency to Gnome software (or KDE software), but at least I install a DE to get a DE and Xfce4 is missing features. Would you like to use mousepad for programming? Of course not. Vim covers all my programming and text editing needs. They say that Emacs will be good for that too, once they put a text editor inside :) Are you implying that Gedit is suitable as an IDE? What are you using as your MUA? Etc. pp.. Sylpheed, mutt, maybe Icedove (Thunderbird in Debian-speek). Evolution is not the only MUA provided in Debian, and there is nothing special about it IMO. XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts isn't a subject from me, but I agree that it's quasi impossible to use Xfce without stuff from Gnome or if installing Qt doesn't matter, KDE. Why, it's perfectly possible as it's exactly what I'm doing for several years. I was merely curious if there's some 'killer GNOME app' that I'm missing, and it looks like it's still not. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131023005320.48d4779978692f656b72d...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 00:53 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: I was merely curious if there's some 'killer GNOME app' that I'm missing, and it looks like it's still not. That's true, with one exception, I disagree regarding to gvfs. You perhaps can explain the OP how to use udev or anything else to get back mountable devices and trash by Thunar/on the desktop. Regards, Ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382475910.3610.42.camel@archlinux
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:05:10 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 00:53 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: I was merely curious if there's some 'killer GNOME app' that I'm missing, and it looks like it's still not. That's true, with one exception, I disagree regarding to gvfs. You perhaps can explain the OP how to use udev or anything else to get back mountable devices and trash by Thunar/on the desktop. Sure. I've just installed thunar and thunar-volman with the needed dependencies (I've disabled auto-install of recommended stuff long time ago). I've ensured that no GConf, DConf, gvfs or GTK+3 libraries are present (no QT libs too). I've used USB stick to do a quick test. Thunar helpfully showed me that it's a '1.89 Gb Volume' (um, whatever). Next, I've added that line to /etc/fstab: /dev/sdb1 /mnt auto noauto,user 0 0 Clicked on '1.89 Gb Volume' and … it mounted. Talk about magic. Next, I've selected 'Eject device' and … it unmounted! Awesome. That lead me to the conclusion that gvfs is a complex solution to a non-existent problem. Even without that /etc/fstab line Thunar showed me 'Trash', whatever that thing is. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131023020404.6ba086041dec5fa54d945...@gmail.com
Re: XFCE without GNOME/KDE parts (Debian Wheezy - HP Pavilion dm1)
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 02:04 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:05:10 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 00:53 +0400, recovery...@gmail.com wrote: I was merely curious if there's some 'killer GNOME app' that I'm missing, and it looks like it's still not. That's true, with one exception, I disagree regarding to gvfs. You perhaps can explain the OP how to use udev or anything else to get back mountable devices and trash by Thunar/on the desktop. Sure. I've just installed thunar and thunar-volman with the needed dependencies (I've disabled auto-install of recommended stuff long time ago). I've ensured that no GConf, DConf, gvfs or GTK+3 libraries are present (no QT libs too). I've used USB stick to do a quick test. Thunar helpfully showed me that it's a '1.89 Gb Volume' (um, whatever). Next, I've added that line to /etc/fstab: /dev/sdb1 /mnt auto noauto,user 0 0 Clicked on '1.89 Gb Volume' and … it mounted. Talk about magic. Next, I've selected 'Eject device' and … it unmounted! Awesome. That lead me to the conclusion that gvfs is a complex solution to a non-existent problem. Even without that /etc/fstab line Thunar showed me 'Trash', whatever that thing is. That makes me wonder, perhaps this works because your install is that clean. Impossible for my usage, fortunately I anyway mount from a terminal. I don't know if the OP could live without G and Dconf and gtk3. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382487490.3610.168.camel@archlinux
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRFPFiXBCVWpc5J4RAjz4AJ9ZVt5163HanuHSxt+hqGV1Fa7hOQCgqN0I 6DVvmuNag6V92h7ih5ZkLI0= =DzTD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:51 +0530, Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Try it. Experience it. You can easily install it and try it, without losing anything. Main reason it doesn't have the configuration daemons or backend components that require resources. It does have some stuff. It also removes features, which is misguided. XFCE has everything I want and then some. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:51:57 +0530 Masatran, R. Deepak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? GNOME uses additional libraries on top of GTK, and takes a performance hit as a result. That said, the performance of GNOME has been improving slowly with each recent release. BTW, GNOME and XFCE are desktop environments, as opposed to window managers. They each include a window manager (metacity and xfwin, respectively). -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 11 May 2007 08:33:57 -0400 Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:51 +0530, Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Try it. Experience it. You can easily install it and try it, without losing anything. Main reason it doesn't have the configuration daemons or backend components that require resources. It does have some stuff. It also removes features, which is misguided. XFCE has everything I want and then some. Which removes features, which is misguided? I think I'm misguided :). greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:09 -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 08:33:57 -0400 Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:51 +0530, Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Try it. Experience it. You can easily install it and try it, without losing anything. Main reason it doesn't have the configuration daemons or backend components that require resources. It does have some stuff. It also removes features, which is misguided. XFCE has everything I want and then some. XFCE is my default desktop now. Proudly. It works with all the bell, buttons, widgets, function, window behavior, effects... I want. Which removes features, which is misguided? GNOME. Case goes like this. Peep likes to use feature X in GNOME. Discovers a bug in feature X, files a bug against it. GNOME team(s) look at it, ponder and ask for guidance from the Mighty Jeff Waugh, who then consults in a dark and cryptic language called sane defaults and user don't know what they need. They then pronounce feature X is deprecated and no longer supported in GNOME, except by another crypotic program called gconf-tool. This is just an example and might possibly be embellished by the explaining individual (me). Just look and make a call for yourself. I think I'm misguided :). Using GNOME? Yes, yes you are. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote: Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO. Used to be faster seems to mean that you have then and now comparisons. Where do these comparisons live so I can take a peek? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brendan wrote: On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote: Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO. Used to be faster seems to mean that you have then and now comparisons. Where do these comparisons live so I can take a peek? No, I do not have comparisons because I only used it very briefly. I should be a bit more careful in my statements. I will rephrase. The older versions were much lighter than the current version in their resource usage. However, the new version has many feature additions to make it more functional, and therefore need the additional resources. With modern computers the difference is negligible, but for a older computer that has limited memory, there are better alternatives. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRLBIiXBCVWpc5J4RArfMAJ4/pOFBWY6uUdBj3Z8qW175rHPglQCgt6cL MuUS6KAcX2g8BGke2ArvmCs= =V6Oo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote: Brendan wrote: On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote: Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO. Used to be faster seems to mean that you have then and now comparisons. Where do these comparisons live so I can take a peek? No, I do not have comparisons because I only used it very briefly. I should be a bit more careful in my statements. I will rephrase. The older versions were much lighter than the current version in their resource usage. However, the new version has many feature additions to make it more functional, and therefore need the additional resources. With modern computers the difference is negligible, but for a older computer that has limited memory, there are better alternatives. Again, I say, show me the mem usage comparisons. The core of XFCE doesn't seem to have gotten any slower for me. Same hardware, newer versions... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brendan wrote: On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote: Brendan wrote: On Friday 11 May 2007, Joe Hart wrote: Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO. Used to be faster seems to mean that you have then and now comparisons. Where do these comparisons live so I can take a peek? No, I do not have comparisons because I only used it very briefly. I should be a bit more careful in my statements. I will rephrase. The older versions were much lighter than the current version in their resource usage. However, the new version has many feature additions to make it more functional, and therefore need the additional resources. With modern computers the difference is negligible, but for a older computer that has limited memory, there are better alternatives. Again, I say, show me the mem usage comparisons. The core of XFCE doesn't seem to have gotten any slower for me. Same hardware, newer versions... Well, why don't you answer the OP's question then instead of asking me to tell you about things that you obviously know more about than I do? I do not use XFCE. I did, at one time, but found it to be not what I was looking for. Perhaps if I spent more time configuring it I would have found it better, but I didn't because I guess I just am too impatient. Although you would think if I was so impatient, I would use a lightweight window manager that would respond instantly to my clicks instead of in a few milliseconds. ;) Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRLgaiXBCVWpc5J4RAgnoAJwO4zT50CwDkHmSFJT5/p4GheiYwwCggUz/ InLOYdmHYLXzAsp7ZKxk7xc= =gKwc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
Hi, I've just installed XFCE and it's great, fast and light on my 300mhz laptop. However, now whenever I go back to Gnome my gnome menu applet in Places-Bookmarks now hijacks me to Thunar, Bloody Vikings! How do I switch it back to nautilus when I'm in Gnome. I like thunar, but I have a whole bunch of nautilus scripts that I want to access through nautilus. I looked all around in XFCE settings and gconf editor but can't seem to find where to switch the filemanager back to nautilus for placesbookmarks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 11:27 -0700, Steven Ponsford wrote: I've just installed XFCE and it's great, fast and light on my 300mhz laptop. However, now whenever I go back to Gnome my gnome menu applet in Places-Bookmarks now hijacks me to Thunar, Bloody Vikings! How do I switch it back to nautilus when I'm in Gnome. I like thunar, but I have a whole bunch of nautilus scripts that I want to access through nautilus. I looked all around in XFCE settings and gconf editor but can't seem to find where to switch the filemanager back to nautilus for placesbookmarks. Check Properties and Open With for a directory in Nautilus and see if it's set to open with Thunar. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:50 +0100 Liam O'Toole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:51:57 +0530 Masatran, R. Deepak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? GNOME uses additional libraries on top of GTK, and takes a performance hit as a result. That said, the performance of GNOME has been improving slowly with each recent release. BTW, GNOME and XFCE are desktop environments, as opposed to window managers. They each include a window manager (metacity and xfwin, respectively). s/xfwin/xfwm/ Liam Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:07:12 -0400 Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:09 -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 08:33:57 -0400 Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:51 +0530, Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Try it. Experience it. You can easily install it and try it, without losing anything. Main reason it doesn't have the configuration daemons or backend components that require resources. It does have some stuff. It also removes features, which is misguided. XFCE has everything I want and then some. XFCE is my default desktop now. Proudly. It works with all the bell, buttons, widgets, function, window behavior, effects... I want. Which removes features, which is misguided? GNOME. Case goes like this. Peep likes to use feature X in GNOME. Discovers a bug in feature X, files a bug against it. GNOME team(s) look at it, ponder and ask for guidance from the Mighty Jeff Waugh, who then consults in a dark and cryptic language called sane defaults and user don't know what they need. They then pronounce feature X is deprecated and no longer supported in GNOME, except by another crypotic program called gconf-tool. I didn't get your point because I thought you were relating feature subtraction to performance, and I therefore thought that you meant that Xfce was removing features ... This is just an example and might possibly be embellished by the explaining individual (me). Just look and make a call for yourself. I think I'm misguided :). Using GNOME? Yes, yes you are. No, no, you're misguided about what I use; I'm a proud Xfce user, and I've never really used GNOME or KDE. greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Masatran, R. Deepak wrote: XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. It used to be faster. Today, I don't think it really is. IceWM and Fluxbox are both better alternatives, IMO. XFCE is considerably more lightweight than GNOME. It doesn't have anywhere near the service load that gnome has, although it certainly *can*. There are options to turn on or off both gnoma and kde services -- useful if you run one or the other style of apps more frequently. It is true that it is much heavier than say ice-wm or *box. It seems to be getting heavier too, though its still pretty nice IMO. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:50 +0100 Liam O'Toole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:51:57 +0530 Masatran, R. Deepak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, GNOME and XFCE are desktop environments, as opposed to window managers. They each include a window manager (metacity and xfwin, respectively). s/xfwin/xfwm/ However, you don't have to install all the xfce modules that make it a desktop environment. From what I've found, you need xfce4 session manager since it is responsibile for starting all the components you use, but, for example, on the box where I have it, I don't have the desktop icons thiny or thunar installed. For filemanager I generally use mc but since my browser is Konquorer, it functions as a graphical file manager when I need that. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:16:13 -0400 Douglas Allan Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:50 +0100 Liam O'Toole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:51:57 +0530 Masatran, R. Deepak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, GNOME and XFCE are desktop environments, as opposed to window managers. They each include a window manager (metacity and xfwin, respectively). s/xfwin/xfwm/ However, you don't have to install all the xfce modules that make it a desktop environment. From what I've found, you need xfce4 session manager since it is responsibile for starting all the components you use, but, for example, on the box where I have it, I don't have the desktop icons thiny or thunar installed. For filemanager I generally use mc but since my browser is Konquorer, it functions as a graphical file manager when I need that. You can even dispense with xfce4-session and start the various components directly. Obviously you then lose the session management stuff. -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE, and Gnome
XFCE advertises itself as a fast window manager. But since both are based on GTK, won't Gnome be equally fast? What is it that makes XFCE faster than Gnome? Good question. I've used xfce, and have not found it any faster, or easier, on the system's resources, than gnome. The only window manager that was better in my experience was ion3 (but it did not make it into Etch; so, I'm using the Sid version). Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFCE (no gnome) = CDROM badness
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:58:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since installing XFCE exclusively (ie debain xfce binary1 cd), my computer struggles to read CDs. I can mount them ok, but: 1) when I open any folder (with Thunar) it will take me to the directory that the folder itself was in. So the url would read for example: /home/me/floberfolder/floberfolder/floberfolder/floberfolder no matter which folder I open, i just end up back at floberfolder (which is a made-up folder name). use a terminal and provide the output of ls -al /home/me/floberfolder/ A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
