xfce 4.4 beta looks awfully sweet!!!

komuthan · 05-27-2006, 09:10 AM

Iam using xfce 4.4 beta now.
Can i use desktop icons as shurtcut.I arrange desktop icons in settings manager but i cant create a desktop icon.

Ilgar · 05-28-2006, 02:43 PM

AFAIK at the moment you only get icons for minimized applications.

liquidtenmilion · 05-28-2006, 03:23 PM

You can change that in one of the options in the settings manager (cannot remember off of the top of my head).

However, you must manually create icons by creating symlinks. This means essentially that you cannot make your own icons though...

just do an ln -s /path/to/program ~/Desktop It should show up after a refresh of the desktop.

shadin · 07-17-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

I said it a few years ago, i knew it would happen. This release looks so much like gnome it's not even funny. It's not even that much lighter than gnome anymore. I'm wouldn't be suprised if XFCE 5 featured HAL and Dbus support, automounting, and a Places menu...

I've got a pretty powerful machine. AMD Opteron 175 Dual-Core 2.5GHz, 2GB PC-4000 DDR, Geforce 7900GT OC with a 10k RPM SATA drive as my OS drive. I normally use GNOME, but last night installed the latest beta of XFCE 4.4. The speed difference is incredible, XFCE is just so streamlined. And much lighter. Just because it has a GTK theme doesn't mean that it's anywhere near the footprint of GNOME. If my machine saw a significant improvement, then I can only imagine what a machine with less resources would experience.

It makes perfect sense that XFCE in its newer versions doesn't do well below 300MHz or so (though I have 4.2 running just fine on a 200MHz). XFCE has never claimed to be a barebones WM, it just claims to be less bloated than the bigger desktops and retain the same functionality. It succeeds at its goal. The only real frontend difference I'm noticing with 4.4 as opposed to 4.2 is Thunar (which is awesome, the original FM was a real pain) and the fact that I can have something on the desktop now (either launchers, or icons for minimized applications). Not really much bloat there, either, as you can do that with ROX and Fluxbox.

Old_Fogie · 07-17-2006, 10:51 AM

mmm...I don't know that it makes "perfect" sense for pc's less than 300mhz..

but, I think that if you were a user
a) with a slow pc
b) used XFCE over the years

you might find this trend of incremental bloat into the 'cholesterol free...' to be quite disturbing.

i've got a fast pc in addition to slow ones. once you tweak flux it's better imo.

For me, when I factor in that there's not much more really implemented into these newer versions; and there's really not a heck of alot more functionality than what you can get with fluxbox and a few add-ons that have been out for a few years now.

shadin · 07-17-2006, 09:29 PM

I suppose you could find it disturbing. However, I still think that the goals of XFCE are to be much lighter than GNOME and KDE, which it achieves. Fluxbox is definitely meant to be more minimal, lending itself to remaining plausible for the oldest of hardware even in new releases. There are more features by default in XFCE than Flux, but Flux tweaked with those runs about the same for me, anyway. I just think that stating that XFCE is becoming bloated seems unfounded, considering it's size compared to GNOME/KDE. The newer version is slightly smaller than the older one.

liquidtenmilion · 07-18-2006, 12:16 AM

Well, the "oldest of hardware" won't be able to run fluxbox, simply because they won't be able to run modern releases of X11, so their policy of "looking incredibly basic so we can run on 44mhz computers" when you're going to need a modern pc(64mb+ ram, i685+) to run X11 anyway.

cwwilson721 · 07-25-2006, 02:44 PM

The package link does not work on slacky.it

More places to get it?

cwwilson721 · 07-25-2006, 05:24 PM

No place for a slackware package of this?

As I said, the link posted in my posts in this thread is not valid anymore.

jimX86 · 07-25-2006, 05:47 PM

Looks like they built a new package on July 11th.

http://www.slacky.it/index.php?optio...ileinfo&id=540

cwwilson721 · 07-25-2006, 06:48 PM

Bunch of missing icons.....Says something about 'hicolor' on the terminal

Any idea?

jimX86 · 07-25-2006, 07:28 PM

Missing from the panel? I don't have that issue. I noticed that this time they list uri as a dependency... I don't remember that from before. Did you install uri?

corrected misspelling... i said uli and meant uri

cwwilson721 · 07-25-2006, 07:31 PM

What is uli?

Also, when trying to install an applet to use on the panel, it gives

Code:

checking for bind_textdomain_codeset... (cached) yes
checking for locales directory... ${prefix}/share/locale
checking for xfce4-panel-1.0 >= 4.1.90... Package xfce4-panel-1.0 was not found in the pk                                  g-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `xfce4-panel-1.0.pc                                  ' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'xfce4-panel-1.0' found
configure: error: Library requirements (xfce4-panel-1.0 >= 4.1.90) not met; consider adju                                  sting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if your libraries are in a nonstandard pre                                  fix so pkg-config can find them

Now what? Is this thing toast? Way to far out of sync to use?

As far as missing icons go, no not in the panel, but in settings, menu, etc.

cwwilson721 · 07-25-2006, 07:34 PM

Sorry....

Code:

checking for xfce4-panel-1.0 >= 4.1.90... Package xfce4-panel-1.0 was not found in the pk
g-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `xfce4-panel-1.0.pc
' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'xfce4-panel-1.0' found
configure: error: Library requirements (xfce4-panel-1.0 >= 4.1.90) not met; consider adju
sting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if your libraries are in a nonstandard pre
fix so pkg-config can find them.

jimX86 · 07-25-2006, 07:39 PM

First I need to point out a stupid error I made. I typed in uli... the program that's a dependency now is "uri".

It runs okay on 10.2 for me. I just installed it on current from 7/14 under QEMU, and it runs okay on that too.