Ode to XFCE 4.8, the Underrated..

[GSF1200S]

I see many discussions about KDE 4, Gnome 3, and Unity, but I do not see many discussions about XFCE. I understand this is proportionate to popularity, but I must say after using XFCE 4.8 for awhile (after having used 4.6 prior to that), it has to be one of the most underrated desktop environments around. If you use XFCE 4.6 or 4.8, Id like to hear about your experience. Ill start with some aspects of 4.8 that I find nice:

1) Lighter than KDE or Gnome 2; doesnt require 3d acceleration for the base desktop, though xfwin has built in compositing support.
2) I have yet to experience my panel, an applet, or any component of XFCE crash since installing 11.04.
3) Thunar: while available in any WM/DE, XFCE's native file manager is very extensible, relatively light, and now has built in support for networked file systems.
4) Gtk side of the pond: interfaces well with most gnome apps that use gtk style themes (I know, I know- DUH! But, if youre using KDE for instance, you will have a smattering of Qt and Gtk apps lying around).
5) Can use almost all gnome 2 panel applets through an XFCE panel applet called 'xfapplet'. This route is gnome-dependency heavy, but if you have the hardware, its not a big deal.
6) Auto-grouping of tasks available in the window list (sort by timestamp, group/title/timestamp, window title, group/window title); developer listened to requests and made old drag-and-drop method of grouping available too (grab the deb from Oneiric's section Ubuntu Package Search [website]).
7) Launchers can be created by drag and drop when the panel is unlocked, they scale well as the panel is made larger, and now also have the ability to add menu options directly from the launcher properties.
8) Main menu can now be edited by Alacarte or LXMenuEditor
9) Orage and its panel/clock applet that launches orage calender when you click it.
10) A very good list of panel-plugins.
11) By far, the best DE for dual-head separate X setups; separate systrays per head, separate panels/applets, separate wallpapers, xfwin handles launching on the appropriate screen (unlike kwin atm), etc.

Im sure there are many others, and Id like to hear them.. I dont intend for this to be an XFCE introduction thread, but more a thread for people to see the improvements made over XFCE 4.6, to perhaps find a new DE taking care of Gnome 3/KDE 4/Unity issues, and for praise/complaints to be waged against what I think is a vastly underrated desktop environment.

[SoFl W]

I also am becoming a fan of XFCE. I have a laptop that a try different disros on, an older laptop. It did not like 11.4/unity. Someone in the Gnome3/unity thread suggested XFCE, and I gave it a try. I liked it. I also tried Fredora 15 with XFCE.

I still am using 10.4LTS, but I did recently install the XFCE interface and switch between Gnome and XFCE trying to get more familiar with XFCE. There are a few things that I am not happy about, but I don't know if it is a configuration issue or if that is how XFCE works. But those things are not deal breakers, I just have to get used to them.

I know I wont be using Unity, at least for now.

[GSF1200S]

I also am becoming a fan of XFCE. I have a laptop that a try different disros on, an older laptop. It did not like 11.4/unity. Someone in the Gnome3/unity thread suggested XFCE, and I gave it a try. I liked it. I also tried Fredora 15 with XFCE.

I still am using 10.4LTS, but I did recently install the XFCE interface and switch between Gnome and XFCE trying to get more familiar with XFCE. There are a few things that I am not happy about, but I don't know if it is a configuration issue or if that is how XFCE works. But those things are not deal breakers, I just have to get used to them.

I know I wont be using Unity, at least for now.

What are these things? XFCE 4.8 may have resolved them, or others may have solutions to your issues. Again, Im not aiming for this to be a support thread, but a "community" discussion of a desktop I feel doesnt get enough word-of-mouth...

[Bandit]

I see many discussions about KDE 4, Gnome 3, and Unity, but I do not see many discussions about XFCE. I understand this is proportionate to popularity, but I must say after using XFCE 4.8 for awhile (after having used 4.6 prior to that), it has to be one of the most underrated desktop environments around. If you use XFCE 4.6 or 4.8, Id like to hear about your experience. Ill start with some aspects of 4.8 that I find nice:

1) Lighter than KDE or Gnome 2; doesnt require 3d acceleration for the base desktop, though xfwin has built in compositing support.
2) I have yet to experience my panel, an applet, or any component of XFCE crash since installing 11.04.
3) Thunar: while available in any WM/DE, XFCE's native file manager is very extensible, relatively light, and now has built in support for networked file systems.
4) Gtk side of the pond: interfaces well with most gnome apps that use gtk style themes (I know, I know- DUH! But, if youre using KDE for instance, you will have a smattering of Qt and Gtk apps lying around).
5) Can use almost all gnome 2 panel applets through an XFCE panel applet called 'xfapplet'. This route is gnome-dependency heavy, but if you have the hardware, its not a big deal.
6) Auto-grouping of tasks available in the window list (sort by timestamp, group/title/timestamp, window title, group/window title); developer listened to requests and made old drag-and-drop method of grouping available too (grab the deb from Oneiric's section Ubuntu Package Search [website]).
7) Launchers can be created by drag and drop when the panel is unlocked, they scale well as the panel is made larger, and now also have the ability to add menu options directly from the launcher properties.
8) Main menu can now be edited by Alacarte or LXMenuEditor
9) Orage and its panel/clock applet that launches orage calender when you click it.
10) A very good list of panel-plugins.
11) By far, the best DE for dual-head separate X setups; separate systrays per head, separate panels/applets, separate wallpapers, xfwin handles launching on the appropriate screen (unlike kwin atm), etc.

Im sure there are many others, and Id like to hear them.. I dont intend for this to be an XFCE introduction thread, but more a thread for people to see the improvements made over XFCE 4.6, to perhaps find a new DE taking care of Gnome 3/KDE 4/Unity issues, and for praise/complaints to be waged against what I think is a vastly underrated desktop environment.

I agree with all this...

[handy]

It isn't hard to see Xfce's already increased popularity snowballing due to the state of the other two DEs.

Xfce could easily become at least as popular at the other two over the next couple of years.

I hope it does, as it will send a strong message to the Gnome & KDE dev's about what the people actually want...

[Dustin2128]

I like xfce, but the reason it doesn't receive much hype is because it rarely changes things drastically like gnome and kde recently have. It's a very stable, very light, very nice environment, and most releases are compositing improvements or bugfixes.

[handy]

I like xfce, but the reason it doesn't receive much hype is because it rarely changes things drastically like gnome and kde recently have. It's a very stable, very light, very nice environment, and most releases are compositing improvements or bugfixes.

I guess if that's how it is, then the people who want drastic change for change sake have to suffer the consequences that go with it.

Personally, I want simple, effective, reliable, stable, the ability to use or adjust a theme so that it is easy on the eyes.

All the 3D stuff & transparency here & there & whatever else that the glamour-pusses like is of no use to me. I rarely ever look at my desktop & I don't use icons to navigate my system (I don't use icons).

My system starts up with the three app's I use the most automatically landing on their own respective desktops, & away I go...

Really, what do people use a computer for? To look at the 3D cube & fancy icons?

I'm bored now. Why hasn't my DE turned itself into something completely different so as to keep me entertained & stimulated... :confused:

Then when the DEs do change, they become less stable & irritate the many with most of the changes they make!

I'll take practicality over glitz any day, it may be boring to the many, but it works for me. =D>

[edit:] I run Arch/Openbox by the way, with the xfce-panel & four applets.

[ilovelinux33467]

I like XFCE. I mainly use KDE but I do keep a install of Fedora XFCE spin around.

[benc1213]

I guess if that's how it is, then the people who want drastic change for change sake have to suffer the consequences that go with it.

Personally, I want simple, effective, reliable, stable, the ability to use or adjust a theme so that it is easy on the eyes.

All the 3D stuff & transparency here & there & whatever else that the glamour-pusses like is of no use to me. I rarely ever look at my desktop & I don't use icons to navigate my system (I don't use icons).

My system starts up with the three app's I use the most automatically landing on their own respective desktops, & away I go...

Really, what do people use a computer for? To look at the 3D cube & fancy icons?

I'm bored now. Why hasn't my DE turned itself into something completely different so as to keep me entertained & stimulated... :confused:

Then when the DEs do change, they become less stable & irritate the many with most of the changes they make!

I'll take practicality over glitz any day, it may be boring to the many, but it works for me. =D>

[edit:] I run Openbox by the way, with the xfce-panel & four applets.

Can I see a screenshot of your setup? Are you using Arch?

[GSF1200S]

I guess if that's how it is, then the people who want drastic change for change sake have to suffer the consequences that go with it.

Personally, I want simple, effective, reliable, stable, the ability to use or adjust a theme so that it is easy on the eyes.

All the 3D stuff & transparency here & there & whatever else that the glamour-pusses like is of no use to me. I rarely ever look at my desktop & I don't use icons to navigate my system (I don't use icons).

My system starts up with the three app's I use the most automatically landing on their own respective desktops, & away I go...

Really, what do people use a computer for? To look at the 3D cube & fancy icons?

I'm bored now. Why hasn't my DE turned itself into something completely different so as to keep me entertained & stimulated... :confused:

Then when the DEs do change, they become less stable & irritate the many with most of the changes they make!

I'll take practicality over glitz any day, it may be boring to the many, but it works for me. =D>

[edit:] I run Openbox by the way, with the xfce-panel & four applets.

The thing is, with XFCE you can have EITHER (simplicity/no-glitz or flashy). Compiz works with XFCE, while xfwm works very well in itself. Other desktop choices either limit flashy or limit simplicity.. (not an attack, and I suppose not all). XFCE is basically the familiar desktop with tons of options and glitz or nothing all in the same package..

I agree about XFCE being overlooked because it never drastically changes.

[handy]

Sorry, I should have said that I used Arch too [edit:] I'll edit the post /edit. I think I'm probably notoriously known as an Arch user by many here. :)

I'll post an image of my most definitely boring desktop, one of Worker, which is my main system interface & one of this screen now.

[Dustin2128]

The font... so huge...

[handy]

The thing is, with XFCE you can have EITHER (simplicity/no-glitz or flashy). Compiz works with XFCE, while xfwm works very well in itself. Other desktop choices either limit flashy or limit simplicity.. (not an attack, and I suppose not all). XFCE is basically the familiar desktop with tons of options and glitz or nothing all in the same package..

I agree about XFCE being overlooked because it never drastically changes.

My progression went from Gnome, I used PC-BSD for a while which had the best KDE setup I have ever seen, though I've rarely used KDE (too much like Windows for me) it just has too much of everything for my personal taste.

Then I went to Xfce4, which I really liked, it is a snappy full featured desktop, which was nearly all so easy to configure, the menu configuration has apparently improved dramatically over the last 2 releases; then I gave Openbox a try & there I've stayed for about 2.5 years & have no reason to change.

I don't think about my DE-WM, which means it is just right. Due to it being setup on Arch, I don't have to go through all the hassles of rebuilding it all so that it is just the way I like it when a new distro release comes out. (Though there was a time when I did enjoy that. ;))

I think the Xfce dev's (do I remember correctly that there are just 2 of them?) are the quiet achievers. They do what they want to do, they do it to the very high standard that suits them before they release, & then they give the rest of the world the opportunity to also use the work that they have done.

If Openbox did not exist I would most likely still be running Xfce4. I certainly wouldn't be using either of those other 2.

[handy]

The font... so huge...

:lolflag:

I'm on 24" 1920x1280, & I sit about 5' away from the screen (I type from my lap).

So it is worth taking that into consideration. :)

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

I've been running XFCE since 11.04 came out and I decided that I needed not only an alternative to Unity, but an alternative to Gnome.

So far I'm really enjoying it. I'm finding that I like many of the Xubuntu default apps better than their Ubuntu counterparts also.

[Dustin2128]

:lolflag:

I'm on 24" 1920x1280, & I sit about 5' away from the screen (I type from my lap).

So it is worth taking that into consideration. :)
Well, I'm usually sitting about 2-3' from my screens which combine for 2960x1050, so I find that... excusable. ;)

[handy]

Well, I'm usually sitting about 2-3' from my screens which combine for 2960x1050, so I find that... excusable. ;)

To compound the issue I am quite short sited as well. I have the multi-focal glasses (dreadful things for our eye muscles) & deal with it. BUT! You may understand why I am so opposed to the way that OSX is made. See the rant (in so many other places in this forum) elsewhere?

[Dustin2128]

I'm extremely near-sighted but nothing else is wrong, so I wear normal single-sight glasses. I usually have all the fonts around 11-12 point, and I never have a problem reading things.

[handy]

I'm extremely near-sighted but nothing else is wrong, so I wear normal single-sight glasses. I usually have all the fonts around 11-12 point, and I never have a problem reading things.

I've probably got a couple of decades on you or so, so, that's how it goes.

I use 24 point in Firefox & 20 & 24 in everything else that runs on my system.

If there is a way to avoid eye strain I use it. That is not to say that my eyes don't still get strained, due to my having damaged the macula in my left eye, it does complain some in a few ways.

My wife thinks I'm sensitive when we watch a movie together... lol

& it does hurt sometimes but not always. I don't really understand why?

[FreeTheBee]

It would be interesting to see how many people switched to xfce after the release of unity and gnome-shell.

I had 11.04 in classic mode, but recently installed arch with xfce, openbox and awesome wm. I find myself using xfce most of the time. I need to play around a bit more with openbox to get it the way I like, but I have been a bit lazy. Xfce was quite close to how like it out of the box. I just replaced the bottom panel with AWN and I installed Kupfer for starting applications quickly. I think xfce is a fine replacement for gnome2.

[Dustin2128]

As far as I know, unity is a compiz plugin. So why wouldn't they develop it on top of xfce, out of curiosity? Gnome 3 is bulky by comparison, and compiz is mostly DE agnostic.

[handy]

t would be interesting to see how many people switched to xfce after the release of unity and gnome-shell.

Some of us were predicting a marked upswing in Xfce usage after the 11.04 release & still a further swing to Xfce after that of the upcoming 11.10. (Well, at least I was.)



I had 11.04 in classic mode, but recently installed arch with xfce, openbox and awesome wm. I find myself using xfce most of the time. I need to play around a bit more with openbox to get it the way I like, but I have been a bit lazy. Xfce was quite close to how like it out of the box. I just replaced the bottom panel with AWN and I installed Kupfer for starting applications quickly. I think xfce is a fine replacement for gnome2.

I really like how Xfce4 is so modular. It allows you to choose which parts of it you want to use & which you don't. As previously stated, I only use the xfce-panel. :)

Re. Openbox, I imported my modified GTK theme, so that saved a lot of time (for me anyway), working out which panel & setting it up took a whole lot of time, until I realised I could use the xfce-panel, which suited me anyway.

Then getting my always open applications to open on their own desktops on boot, took quite some time after that.

The good thing (as you already know) about using Arch, is that every tweak that you make, stays put until your HDD fails. :)

The bad thing about using Arch, is that 3 years later you have forgotten about most of the things you learned in the configuration process!

It is (at least for those of us with feeble memories) worthwhile bookmarking valid how-to's, posts & other references, & backing up all of your Arch config' files (off machine).

At least that way we have the best chance of recovering our dream machine that has taken us years of tweak here, tweak there, add this, remove that craftsmanship. (Ooh I liked using that word. :D) lol

By the way, I have a few how-to's at the end of this page which are Arch specific. Two of them in particular are very valuable:

http://spiralinear.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=17

[kvv_1986]

It would be interesting to see how many people switched to xfce after the release of unity and gnome-shell.

After Shuttleworth said that Ubuntu classic will not be available, I tried all the popular desktops and shells, and while all of them ran smoothly on my hardware, I didn't like any of them. I even tried Awesome and vanilla Openbox simply out of spite. :P

But, I think it is safe to say that I will be using XFCE from now on. In fact, I like it more than Gnome2 even.


Some of us were predicting a marked upswing in Xfce usage after the 11.04 release & still a further swing to Xfce after that of the upcoming 11.10. (Well, at least I was.)


There is! :) Check out the "Introduce Yourself" (http://forum.xfce.org/viewforum.php?id=14) section of the XFCE forums. Lots of converts.

[pt123]

I don't like how Thunar can't remember the view settings for each folder.

[fancy_ninja]

AGREE..I for one prefer XFCE over all other window managers and DEs..it's light, fast, has a lot of options, is usable, and completely functional. i support this ode to the understated! long live xfce!! :D

[handy]

...

There is! :) Check out the "Introduce Yourself" (http://forum.xfce.org/viewforum.php?id=14) section of the XFCE forums. Lots of converts.

Cool, I never thought of looking there. :)


I don't like how Thunar can't remember the view settings for each folder.

I haven't had to use the various DE file managers since I discovered Worker, which is a DOpus v4* clone (well, not really a clone, but certainly inspired by) from the Amiga days.

Just as like Arch, Worker isn't for everybody.

[FreeTheBee]

Some of us were predicting a marked upswing in Xfce usage after the 11.04 release & still a further swing to Xfce after that of the upcoming 11.10. (Well, at least I was.)

That was my expectation as well, even more after starting to use xfce myself and liking it. Recently I started playing with pytyle in xfce as well. Turning it into a tiling wm whenever it is convenient is great asset for me.

I guess with 11.10 coming in the fall, I will replace my ubuntu 10.10 at work with xubuntu. It is better to go with a more complete system there I think, otherwise I spent my days tinkering instead of working :)



Re. Openbox, I imported my modified GTK theme, so that saved a lot of time (for me anyway), working out which panel & setting it up took a whole lot of time, until I realised I could use the xfce-panel, which suited me anyway.
Openbox is more of a hobby project right now, if I need to actually do something I use xfce. The panels need some work and I have to fix some issues with cairo-compmgr (or perhaps switch to xcompmgr or no compositing)



The bad thing about using Arch, is that 3 years later you have forgotten about most of the things you learned in the configuration process!
True, although some things tend to stick and fortunately there is the wiki :)

[FreeTheBee]

After Shuttleworth said that Ubuntu classic will not be available, I tried all the popular desktops and shells, and while all of them ran smoothly on my hardware, I didn't like any of them. I even tried Awesome and vanilla Openbox simply out of spite. :P

For me it was similar, I installed openbox and xfce to play around and see which I liked best. I never really liked kde, so I did not try that. I've looked at lxde in the past, but decided to go with just openbox this time and only use the tools from lxde that I like. E17 also looks interesting but it didn't really do it for me. Setting up Xfce was very smooth, so that became my main work environment.

I have been using awesome for about half a year now on a 12" netbook. On a small screen and without a mouse it works great I think. On my main setup with mouse, keyboard and 23" screen I don't use it as much though.

[Bucky Ball]

My laptop is a workhorse. I just want it to be as productive as I can; all apps open with key-combinations, the screen is blank (no icons) one taskbar and very little in that. I don't need bells and whistles. Xfce is perfect, it rocks, it's fast, and therefore I've used it for ages. Xfce only for lower spec machines? Well, good for them, but that is not the whole story and as far as I'm concerned an old hat theory.

Try it on a dual-core with 4Gb of RAM and feel the wind ... ;)

[smellyman]

A lot of kde hate still going around and it can become a sickness. I know because I am a reformed KDE hater.

if you havent' tried it lately you should give it a try.

[Bucky Ball]

A lot of kde hate still going around and it can become a sickness. I know because I am a reformed KDE hater.

if you havent' tried it lately you should give it a try.

Unless you don't want the bloat, which is why some of us prefer Xfce. Nothing wrong with KDE per se, just not suitable for how I compute. Don't need the 'extras'.

[FreeTheBee]

Taking the liberty to assume you comment on me saying I never really liked kde ;) I don't hate kde at all, it looks great and I'm sure it works great as well. My personal preference just lies elsewhere.

[MrNatewood]

I tried XFCE in the past and again after 4.8 and it just isn't as polished as gnome2. It lacks a good selection of panel applets and It's just that crucial bit more difficult to add launchers to the panel and move them around in it(you have to start adding separators and really engineer the hell out of the panel when in gnome you just drag stuff around and it works). Also, Thunar is still far behind from Nautilus and PCManFM in handling samba&sftp locations. Overall at this point the XFCE experience *for me* is very rigid and I'm sticking with gnome2 for now.

(of course you can install stuff like Nautilus/PCManFM on top of xfce and even gnome-panel I suppose but then why bother running XFCE?)

[handy]

...
(of course you can install stuff like Nautilus/PCManFM on top of xfce and even gnome-panel I suppose but then why bother running XFCE?)

Possibly to avoid having to use what is coming down the line in the near future...

It certainly is nice that Xfce4 exists, as it is such a reliable & capable DE to have as a fall back. Not only that, but it should outperform its opposition in just about every area.

[keithpeter]

I see many discussions about KDE 4, Gnome 3, and Unity, but I do not see many discussions about XFCE.

1. Because it works (mostly) as advertised

2. Because the people who use XFCE4 usually tweak it to match their own needs, as the very interesting example using the worker file manager above shows

Agree with some of the OPs points though...

[koleoptero]

I have praised xfce many times about how it is the only DE for me that just works properly. Whenever I use it I find myself stop customizing after I rearrange the panels and stuff the way I want them. That doesn't happen to me in any other DE.

Two things I have seen push people away from it though are:

1. Thunar. It may be exciting that it got gvfs support but it's nothing new to other DEs and file managers. And it doesn't support tabbed browsing or split panes or anything.

2. The desktop. The icon spacing is ridiculous, the icon labels are ridiculously short, nothing of these is customizable at least, and it still doesn't support cut/copy/paste from thunar to the desktop. I don't use the desktop so this doesn't really bother me but a LOT of people do.

So even lxde that is fairly newer than xfce doesn't have these little problems (pcmanfm does tabs, the desktop looks fine). I still prefer xfce over lxde most of the time (although lxde in lubuntu 11.04 rocks so it's going well) but these are problems that shouldn't have lived that long, they should have been fixed a long time ago.

[Bandit]

:lolflag:

I'm on 24" 1920x1280, & I sit about 5' away from the screen (I type from my lap).

So it is worth taking that into consideration. :)


Well, I'm usually sitting about 2-3' from my screens which combine for 2960x1050, so I find that... excusable. ;)

LOL about the same here also. 27" Asus at 1920x1080 and about 1' to 2' max from the screen. :)

Feel like it times for new glasses again.. :(

[Bandit]

I tried XFCE in the past and again after 4.8 and it just isn't as polished as gnome2. It lacks a good selection of panel applets and It's just that crucial bit more difficult to add launchers to the panel and move them around in it(you have to start adding separators and really engineer the hell out of the panel when in gnome you just drag stuff around and it works). Also, Thunar is still far behind from Nautilus and PCManFM in handling samba&sftp locations. Overall at this point the XFCE experience *for me* is very rigid and I'm sticking with gnome2 for now.

(of course you can install stuff like Nautilus/PCManFM on top of xfce and even gnome-panel I suppose but then why bother running XFCE?)

Not to argue your experience, as that would be rude of me. But if I may politely add that everything can be done quicker and easier from the command line. This could be a great time to learn a few CLI tools that can be fun and very productive. :)

[neu5eeCh]

Switched both my computers to Xubuntu after trying Unity and nearly drowning my laptops with KDE. I love XFCE - more so than Gnome2 - cleaner and lighter. I installed Nautilus Elementary and, like a previous commenter said, don't feel the same compulsion to customize everything as with Gnome or KDE. Initially I wanted to install copmiz, but now I don't miss compiz in the least. Good riddance.

I may try Lubuntu with 11.10. I've come to a new appreciation for simplicity and the lightweight. Complaints about the desktop in XFCE are valid, but I can live with the shortcoming. Hopefully, the devs will fix this in the future.

Edit: I autohide my XFCE panel and use docky to launch apps. I've never tried to add launchers to the XFCE panel - after Gnome2 I prefer to keep it clean and uncluttered.

[BrokenKingpin]

I am also using Xfce as my main DE. I really like it for all the reasons the OP has mentioned.

A few things I would like to see:
- A filter/search option in the main menu
- A menu editor by default
- The issue fixed where restarting from the menu only logs you out

At this point I like Xfce 4.8 more than I do Gnome2. It for the most part has all the same capabilities and is quite light. I am looking forward to Xubuntu 11.10 as GDM will be replaced by LighDM, removing a number of Gnome dependencies.

[Bandit]

I got Xubuntu 11.04 32bit installed on my Netbook last night, its a little 10.1 Lenovo S10 (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5642147&CatId=4953) 4333 model with 32bit Antom (n270) cpu, 1.5GB of DDR2-667 and a 160GB 5400RPM HDD. Despite the 1024x576 display size being little to small IMHO. XFCE us running very very spunky on it. Much faster then WinXP SP3 is running on the other partition. I am gonna play around with it some more tonight.

[Dustin2128]

When netbooks are starting to catch up to your specs, you know it's time to upgrade. :(

[hhh]

As far as I know, unity is a compiz plugin. So why wouldn't they develop it on top of xfce, out of curiosity? Gnome 3 is bulky by comparison, and compiz is mostly DE agnostic.

Because it's not a Compiz plugin, it's a shell for Gnome.

[kvv_1986]

A few things I would like to see:
- A filter/search option in the main menu

Yes, I would like to see this too. I tried running MintMenu with XfApplet but I got an error. I don't think all gnome panels applets can be made to work with it.

So for now, I am using Gnome Do to hunt for files or programs. It pulls in a lot of gnome dependencies, and hence definitely not going to be light during run time. But, this shouldn't matter if you have a lot of unused RAM (I would guess about 30 MB) which is not at all a problem for me.

[handy]

The thing that I found slowed Xfce4 down was its session-manager. I found by not running it, Xfce's already great performance lifted to a noticeably speedier level.

Whether this is still the situation with the current version of Xfce I don't know, as these days I only use the xfce4-panel in Openbox?

It would be easy to test, just remove the xfce session-manager & check out the difference.

If you have use for a session-manager (I don't) you can (due to the simple to use modular make-up of Xfce) replace it with one of a number that are available. As a quick search will demonstrate.

[decoherence]

This thread has prompted me to make xfce my default on the installation I'm doing right now. I used to use 4.2 and 4.4 which I would set up similarly to a classic Mac as much as possible, complete with theme.

I don't think I ever gave 4.6 much time (in those heady days it was a new window manager/panel/pager combination every week!) but I'm looking forward to discovering the improvements in 4.8.

Thanks!

[omns]

Xfce is the shiz. 4.8 here on Squeeze.

http://s2.postimage.org/10u8smsx0/Screenshot_040711_145901.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/10u8smsx0/)

[Ric_NYC]

Ode to XFCE 4.8


"Oh, XFCE 4.8...

Oh..."

[GSF1200S]

Xfce is the shiz. 4.8 here on Squeeze.

http://s2.postimage.org/10u8smsx0/Screenshot_040711_145901.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/10u8smsx0/)

Nice dark theme there- I use Nodoka Midnight, but I might be interested in trying what youre using...


This thread has prompted me to make xfce my default on the installation I'm doing right now. I used to use 4.2 and 4.4 which I would set up similarly to a classic Mac as much as possible, complete with theme.

I don't think I ever gave 4.6 much time (in those heady days it was a new window manager/panel/pager combination every week!) but I'm looking forward to discovering the improvements in 4.8.

Thanks!

Thats good to hear; I was hoping this thread would bring a little more attention to XFCE in the Ubuntu community, and to bring more light to its features (and issues).. Hope you like it as much as I do..

[XubuRoxMySox]

I became a fan after finding LXDE buggy and troublesome on minimal Ubuntu. It was "under heavy development" (read: Beta) at the time though, and I intend to revisit LXDE soon when I have plenty of time to tinker again. I still think LXDE's file manager is second to none, and I always install it whatever DE I'm using.

So I gave Xfce a shot and wow! Xfce really can be ultra light (Crunchbang's Xfce mixture is a great example) and very fast! I find no discernible difference in speed nor in resource demand between Xfce the way I use it, and LXDE! But it offers alot that LXDE didn't: The wonderfully simple and amazingly configurable panel(s); the cool Xfce applets like weather, system monitoring, analog clock, etc., and the right-click simplicity and elegance that makes it easy to use and intuitive.

All the power and beauty of Gnome, but with much less demand on resources and much greater responsiveness, especially if using native applications. I'm an Xfce fanboy!

Robin

[omns]

Nice dark theme there- I use Nodoka Midnight, but I might be interested in trying what youre using..
It's one I hacked together from one of the Shiki variants and another one I can't remember. I use the mono version (need to install both) and it uses the murrina engine.

http://omnsproject.org/themes/DarkShible-Themes.tar.gz

In the future I'll need to port it to gtk3. I'm not sure where to start on that one.

[Bucky Ball]

Because it's not a Compiz plugin, it's a shell for Gnome.

Actually:


Unity is a shell interface for the Gnome desktop environment ...
... and:


Unity is written as a plugin for Compiz[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28user_interface%29#cite_note-CompizPlugin-12) and is written in the programming languages C++ and Vala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vala_%28programming_language%29) and is utilizing an uncommon OpenGL toolkit called Nux. Being a plugin for Compiz gives Unity GPU-accelerated performance on compatible systems.... from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28user_interface%29

[t0p]

I've used XFCE in the past and thought it was pretty good. On my desktop machine I'm currently using vanilla Ubuntu 10.4 (ie Gnome) and I will stick with it until it's old and grey (is's a LTS, and I tend to use LTS versions until they are replaced with another LTS).

But I'd like to comment on LXDE. I've been using Lubuntu on my netbook for some time, and I think it's great for older, less capable machines.

[mips]

This thread just gave me an itch to try out xfce ](*,)

[mkendall]

This thread just gave me an itch to try out xfce ](*,)

http://ubuntuforums.org/customavatars/avatar8017_1.gif

[handy]

This thread just gave me an itch to try out xfce ](*,)

I ran both Xfce & Openbox on Arch for a while when I was transitioning to Openbox, there was no problem, I was even using parts of the Xfce install with Openbox. Still do (though less now than then).

[Bart_D]

The thing I just don't get from nearly every post in this thread is this:
Why would you want XFCE to look and feel like Gnome?

Sorry, but I just don't get it! When I've used it (XUbuntu or Zenwalk) I've enjoyed XFCE as XFCE! It's different and THAT's why I used it. I don't see why it should look and feel like Gnome. Even some of the screenshots I've seen here or on the XFCE forums.....they don't look like XFCE at all!

I just don't get it.

[Nyromith]

The thing I just don't get from nearly every post in this thread is this:
Why would you want XFCE to look and feel like Gnome?

Sorry, but I just don't get it! When I've used it (XUbuntu or Zenwalk) I've enjoyed XFCE as XFCE! It's different and THAT's why I used it. I don't see why it should look and feel like Gnome. Even some of the screenshots I've seen here or on the XFCE forums.....they don't look like XFCE at all!

I just don't get it.

I prefer it to look like Windows 2000. Redmond theme, and the taskbar at the bottom. Just more logical and appealing to me.

[scott092707]

Any reason that I couldn't make a new partition on my new big hard drive, that would only be for /, and install Xubuntu there, pointing /home at the same partition that I use for my current Ubuntu's /home? (Presumably also point it at the same swap partition, as I would not be using both OSs at the same time... ) That way, i could try xfce out with exactly the same data as I normally use, and see what the differences are in usage.

-Scott

[malspa]

I ran both Xfce & Openbox on Arch for a while when I was transitioning to Openbox, there was no problem, I was even using parts of the Xfce install with Openbox. Still do (though less now than then).

Funny you should mention that; in Lucid, I've been using xfce4-panel in Openbox for about the past month. In Lucid, I don't even have the rest of Xfce installed, but that panel works quite nicely with Openbox.

As for Xfce 4.8, I've added that version to Fedora 15. Very nice. I still have some older versions installed on this machine, though. I added Xfce 4.4 to Mepis 8 some time ago, and SalineOS came with Xfce 4.6. I enjoy using each version.

[kvv_1986]

Any reason that I couldn't make a new partition on my new big hard drive, that would only be for /, and install Xubuntu there, pointing /home at the same partition that I use for my current Ubuntu's /home? (Presumably also point it at the same swap partition, as I would not be using both OSs at the same time... ) That way, i could try xfce out with exactly the same data as I normally use, and see what the differences are in usage.

-Scott

Yes, you could. During the partition process, point to the partition and use as /home and don't format. The problem with this is the /home partition stores config files, so there may be conflicts in themes used between the two.


The thing I just don't get from nearly every post in this thread is this:
Why would you want XFCE to look and feel like Gnome?

Because why not? I love XFCE, it is fast, powerful and stable. XFWM has not crashed on me even once, and can do everything that I want.

Can you show us what the XFCE is actually supposed to look like?

Also, I think many people are coming from Gnome to XFCE precisely because they can make it look and feel like gnome easily.

[koleoptero]

Any reason that I couldn't make a new partition on my new big hard drive, that would only be for /, and install Xubuntu there, pointing /home at the same partition that I use for my current Ubuntu's /home? (Presumably also point it at the same swap partition, as I would not be using both OSs at the same time... ) That way, i could try xfce out with exactly the same data as I normally use, and see what the differences are in usage.

-Scott

Use a different username with the xfce install because the gnome and xfce configs don't mix well together.

[Python Jedi]

Someone is going to yell at me, but I'm about to try and make XFCE look like unity. The one thing I won't do is make the title bar move to the panel, I have no idea how to do that. I'll post back with the results, and check for suggestions of programs to use.

(Why? Because I can, and it'll probably be faster than Unity, and less buggy.)

Scratch that, it's going to be above my head, I'd love to see someone try though.

[GSF1200S]

It's one I hacked together from one of the Shiki variants and another one I can't remember. I use the mono version (need to install both) and it uses the murrina engine.

http://omnsproject.org/themes/DarkShible-Themes.tar.gz

In the future I'll need to port it to gtk3. I'm not sure where to start on that one.

Thanks :)

[mips]

I ran both Xfce & Openbox on Arch for a while when I was transitioning to Openbox, there was no problem, I was even using parts of the Xfce install with Openbox. Still do (though less now than then).


Funny you should mention that; in Lucid, I've been using xfce4-panel in Openbox for about the past month. In Lucid, I don't even have the rest of Xfce installed, but that panel works quite nicely with Openbox.

As for Xfce 4.8, I've added that version to Fedora 15. Very nice. I still have some older versions installed on this machine, though. I added Xfce 4.4 to Mepis 8 some time ago, and SalineOS came with Xfce 4.6. I enjoy using each version.

First thing I tried was xfce4-panel, it's nice but I noticed my cpu (1.4Ghz Celeron M) usage jumped up a bit which kept the laptop fan going. The plugins are also great and everything is easy to use.

I uninstalled it after playing around with it for a short while, very nice indeed. Back to tint2 for now.

[handy]

The thing I just don't get from nearly every post in this thread is this:
Why would you want XFCE to look and feel like Gnome?

Sorry, but I just don't get it! When I've used it (XUbuntu or Zenwalk) I've enjoyed XFCE as XFCE! It's different and THAT's why I used it. I don't see why it should look and feel like Gnome. Even some of the screenshots I've seen here or on the XFCE forums.....they don't look like XFCE at all!

I just don't get it.

I think I can say that for most users the look of Xfce4 has got very little to do with why they use it. Xfce is faster & generally simpler to use, though still fully featured.

That Xfce can look like Gnome must be a plus for those few that are concerned about the superficialities.

[handy]

Funny you should mention that; in Lucid, I've been using xfce4-panel in Openbox for about the past month. In Lucid, I don't even have the rest of Xfce installed, but that panel works quite nicely with Openbox.

That's what I've been doing for roughly a couple of years. Can't see any reason why I would want to change...

[neu5eeCh]

What's the advantage of OpenBox in XFCE? From what I can gather from other comments, the gain in memory usage is little to nonexistent. What other reasons are there? Just curious...

[koleoptero]

What's the advantage of OpenBox in XFCE? From what I can gather from other comments, the gain in memory usage is little to nonexistent. What other reasons are there? Just curious...

The desktop menu. Don't say xfce has one, it's nothing like the obmenu. Other than that I don't think there's a reason.

[handy]

What's the advantage of OpenBox in XFCE? From what I can gather from other comments, the gain in memory usage is little to nonexistent. What other reasons are there? Just curious...

It's not Openbox "in" Xfce. It is running the xfce-panel in Openbox. As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with resource usage it has everything to do with how I like to interface with my computer.



The desktop menu. Don't say xfce has one, it's nothing like the obmenu. Other than that I don't think there's a reason.

The Openbox menu is called via a RMB on the desktop.

You either like it that way or you don't.

Which is a really easy solution to a problem that doesn't exist. :)

[neu5eeCh]

It's not Openbox "in" Xfce. It is running the xfce-panel in Openbox. As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with resource usage it has everything to do with how I like to interface with my computer.

Then how is openbox "with" an XFCE panel different from openbox "inside" Gnome or KDE (http://openbox.org/wiki/Main_Page).


The Openbox menu is called via a RMB on the desktop. You either like it that way or you don't. Which is a really easy solution to a problem that doesn't exist. :)

Did you install an openbox distro like #! or did you install it as an alternative DE?

[handy]

Then how is openbox "with" an XFCE panel different from openbox "inside" Gnome or KDE (http://openbox.org/wiki/Main_Page).

You can run a WM inside of a DE, but you can't run a DE inside of a WM.



Did you install an openbox distro like #! or did you install it as an alternative DE?

I run Arch. I started out with Arch Gnome, quickly changed to Arch/Xfce then changed to Openbox. As I was migrating to Openbox from Xfce, I had both Xfce & Openbox installed simultaneously.

I could choose before opening X, which DE/WM I wanted to use.

Initially when I was using Openbox I was also using some of the multiple parts of the modular Xfce DE.

Eventually I found that I prefer to use the Openbox WM with just the xfce-panel with four applets installed on it.

There are no other Xfce components on my system, & there hasn't been for 2 years or so.

[neu5eeCh]

You can run a WM inside of a DE, but you can't run a DE inside of a WM.

OK. Right. Guess I'm being dense but... XFCE is a DE and Openbox is a WM. I thought you wrote that Openbox couldn't be run inside XFCE? - or were you just referring to your own configuration?




I run Arch. I started out with Arch Gnome, quickly changed to Arch/Xfce then changed to Openbox. As I was migrating to Openbox from Xfce, I had both Xfce & Openbox installed on simultaneously.... [snip] There are no other Xfce components on my system, & there hasn't been for 2 years or so.

Got that part, at least. Thanks.

[malspa]

OK. Right. Guess I'm being dense but... XFCE is a DE and Openbox is a WM. I thought you wrote that Openbox couldn't be run inside XFCE? - or were you just referring to your own configuration?

I don't think handy said that. Every DE runs on top of some WM. You can't run a WM on top of a DE. But you can run applications from a DE inside of a WM like Openbox or Fluxbox or whatever.

In Lucid, which came with GNOME, I added Openbox. I actually use gedit (from GNOME) for text editing, Dolphin (from KDE) for file browsing, and xfce4-panel (from Xfce) for my panel. I didn't install all of KDE or all of Xfce, just whatever came along with those packages (Dolphin and xfce4-panel). I don't think handy (or other people) would like to do things that way, but that's how I did it, and it works great here.

[Bucky Ball]

Yea, malspa, I have a couple of setups like that. My studio desktop is a real hybrid of xfce, Gnome, UStudio packages with the rt kernel, Edubuntu and Ubuntu Satanic Edition artwork and I can't remember what else! I love it! Years in the making ... lol ;)

Don't see anything wrong with it here; Linux all about user being able to configure their machine just how they want it, right?

[mips]

OK. Right. Guess I'm being dense but... XFCE is a DE and Openbox is a WM. I thought you wrote that Openbox couldn't be run inside XFCE? - or were you just referring to your own configuration?


Let me try and explain.

Install a base linux system + Xorg + Openbox. Now lets say you like the xfce panel so you do a
sudo apt-get install xfce4-panel or pacman -S xfce4-panel

which pulls in ONLY the xfce panel and no other xfce componets.

Now in my mind that means you are running openbox with a xfce-panel unlike installing the xfce base components and then using openbox as the windows manager instead of the default xfwm one.

Installing xfce panel in openbox <> running openbox in xfce.

[koleoptero]

Short version: You can run anything you want with anything you want.

[neu5eeCh]

Short version: You can run anything you want with anything you want.

Which brings me right back to where I was before. ;) However, the distinction being made between a windows manager and a desktop environment is what threw me before. Right now, I'm using XFWM4 but, if I understand correctly, I could switch that to Openbox, then add or remove XFCE components (or do that anyway with XFWM).

[danbuter]

The thing I just don't get from nearly every post in this thread is this:
Why would you want XFCE to look and feel like Gnome?

I just don't get it.

Mine looks like a Mac. I even have the dots on the top left of each window.

[urukrama]

What's the advantage of OpenBox in XFCE? From what I can gather from other comments, the gain in memory usage is little to nonexistent. What other reasons are there? Just curious...

I run Openbox within XFCE. Openbox is, for my purposes, the best window manager. It is light, easy to theme, and much more configurable than xfwm4.

[omns]

Even some of the screenshots I've seen here or on the XFCE forums.....they don't look like XFCE at all!

I just don't get it.
I don't get this comment. What exactly is Xfce 'supposed' to look like?

Xubuntu is far from my idea of the perfect Xfce as is Zenwalk. Both are nice but not really to my liking. Xfce is more about usability and lightness. This 'looks like' argument seems a little strange. As an example, my current Xfce 4.8 setups (see below) draw some ideas aesthetically from Unity but essentially it is a just a very light build of Xfce. It is fast, lightweight and great to use. Xfce (particularly 4.8 ) is extremely configurable and you can pretty much make it look like anything you want without sacrificing the speed and usability that Xfce provides.

If you are really saying why would you make it like gnome by adding in apps and plugins, then that is a different matter. Xubuntu falls down in this regard and isn't a great representation of what the Xfce desktop has to offer - imo.

http://s2.postimage.org/10u8smsx0/Screenshot_040711_145901.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/10u8smsx0/)

[neu5eeCh]

I don't get this comment. What exactly is Xfce 'supposed' to look like?[....]


So, omns, tell us a little about your desktop. What distro are you using? Are you running Compiz? How did you set up the transparency? What is the launcher? Etc... Helps me consider possibilities for my own desktop.

Edit: Just saw your Distro in the signature.
Edit2: And never mind, just visited your web site. Thanx!

[Bucky Ball]

Haha, what's Xfce supposed to look like? Try starting with Xubuntu, add Gnome themes, Edubuntu and Satanic Edition artwork, ubuntustudio-desktop, and a whole bunch of other stuff and it looks like a hybrid, just the way I wanted my studio desktop though.

Any desktop is supposed to look (and operate) how the user wants it. One of the reasons I use Linux. ;)

Below is a screenshot of my laptop. Guess what it's using? What's it supposed to look like? Yes folks, that's it, that's what I get when I boot up. Could be anything installed in there!

[fancy_ninja]

any desktop is supposed to look (and operate) how the user wants it. One of the reasons i use linux. ;)


+1

[GSF1200S]

+1

+2

I dont really buy the whole "XFCE exists to be light" argument; XFCE can be light, or it can run well with components of other desktop environments. While I prefer minimalistic in terms of layout, I dont compromise function in terms of what I want; I have the resources (system in sig) to run whatever I want while it still remains fast, so why not? I think XFCE is very good at scaling to the kind of experience you want, whether that be like Handy who keeps things very simple, Bucky Ball who prefers to mix it up, or myself who tends to do the same but probably in an even more "heavy" manner..

[malspa]

Haha, what's Xfce supposed to look like? Try starting with Xubuntu, add Gnome themes, Edubuntu and Satanic Edition artwork, ubuntustudio-desktop, and a whole bunch of other stuff and it looks like a hybrid, just the way I wanted my studio desktop though.

Any desktop is supposed to look (and operate) how the user wants it. One of the reasons I use Linux. ;)

Yep, I agree 100%.

[neu5eeCh]

Yep, I agree 100%.

Bunch of commies... XFCE is supposed to look one way and one way only.

;) <-- Disclaimer added because there's sure to be somebody who takes my comment seriously.

[mips]

;) <-- Disclaimer added because there's sure to be somebody who takes my comment seriously.

In commie land a smiley does not absolve you from flame throwers :tongue:

[handy]

Let me try and explain.

Install a base linux system + Xorg + Openbox. Now lets say you like the xfce panel so you do a
sudo apt-get install xfce4-panel or pacman -S xfce4-panel

which pulls in ONLY the xfce panel and no other xfce componets.

Now in my mind that means you are running openbox with a xfce-panel unlike installing the xfce base components and then using openbox as the windows manager instead of the default xfwm one.

Installing xfce panel in openbox <> running openbox in xfce.

Yes, what he ^ said, which is exactly what I do, do too.

You can run more of the modular Xfce4, in Openbox, though as I think I've already stated earlier in this thread, once you are running the Xfce4 session-manager, you noticeably drop the natural Openbox speed down to that of Xfce4.

There are a number of other session-managers available out there though, which are faster than the one used by Xfce4 & you can use one of them instead.

There have been two upgrades to Xfce since I used the full version on my desktop, so there is a chance - though for some reason I doubt it has happened - that they have made their session manager faster.

It would be nice if someone could test that out for us. (I don't feel like installing Xfce on my machine to do so - lazy I know.)

[malspa]

Bunch of commies... XFCE is supposed to look one way and one way only.

:lol:

Bunch of commies... Computers are supposed to run Windows!

[Gremlinzzz]

It improved allot :D
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=197637&stc=1&d=1310871364

[Rodney9]

I would really love Xubuntu 10.10, if it did not loose it's resolution every 2nd or 3rd time I boot up.

[handy]

I would really love Xubuntu 10.10, if it did not loose it's resolution every 2nd or 3rd time I boot up.

Try Linux Mint Xfce?

[mips]

[edit:] I run Arch/Openbox by the way, with the xfce-panel & four applets.

I just figured out that if you install the svn version of tint2 it also has a launcher!

http://oi56.tinypic.com/14w7kg.jpg

Launcher is on the left. Task bar can have icons but I disabled them and you can obviously go much bigger. I need to get the battery applet going and reenable wicd at some stage.

[handy]

That looks great; far from intrusive.

[beew]

I have a test install of Xubuntu 11.04. It is indeed light and fast and with the Ubuntu theme and Compiz enabled it is pretty too.

But I find thunar really annoying to use and limiting comparing with gnome2 and Unity,--which while still a work in progress I think is way better than thunar. There seem to be too many missing functionalities and weird behaviour. Examples: Can't cut and paste into desktop; icons for all partitions on my hard drive appear on the screen even though they are not mounted and there seems to be no easy way to get rid of the icons; cannot choose which applications to appear in the menu (nothing like the "Main Menu" in gnome), as far as I know I can only get rid of some launchers by actually removing the desktop files (irreversibly) ; cannot restore the bottom panel after I got rid of it; for some reasons every time I reboot the Cairo dock appears in multiple copies and I have tried many work arounds with no avail.

Finally it appears to have some problems with dual monitors with different resolutions, somehow two desktops with different resolutions appear on the same screen.

[Bucky Ball]

Have you tried pcmanfm for file manager? Also, you can use Nautilus. Just install it. ;)

[beew]

Have you tried pcmanfm for file manager? Also, you can use Nautilus. Just install it. ;)

If I install Nautilus then it would be just Ubuntu. no? :)

[Bucky Ball]

No. It would be Xubuntu with a different file manager. Absolutely everything else would be the same. Then you could switch back to Thunar or pcmanfm as you choose (I do that via changing the keyboard shortcut to the file manager).

Yes, Nautilus will need some Gnome dependencies, but it is far from installing ubuntu-desktop and shouldn't change the speed a jot, only the speed of the file manager. ;)

[ScionicSpectre]

Lol, I guess to some people Nautilus is the main difference between GNOME 2 and Xfce4.

You know, the real surprise is that XFCE wasn't more popular before Ubuntu started to look good and have so many nifty little hacks (like the notifications and indicators). The default themes for Xubuntu looked quite a bit more polished than that old Human theme.

Then again, the orange was a big thing back then. XD

[GSF1200S]

I just figured out that if you install the svn version of tint2 it also has a launcher!

http://oi56.tinypic.com/14w7kg.jpg

Launcher is on the left. Task bar can have icons but I disabled them and you can obviously go much bigger. I need to get the battery applet going and reenable wicd at some stage.

Will it run on two separate X sessions? Itd be cool to be able to run some openbox with 2 tint2's..

I have to wonder though, with all the luxuries that XFCE gives, is it worth it? XFCE has come to be a complete desktop environment, it sticks to its guns and stays simple, and is pretty light (LXDE too). It would be interesting to run elements of XFCE on openbox (maybe Tint2 on my less used screen and xfce4-panel on the other- I just wonder if Tint2's systray would work..).

[handy]

I don't know if you would be able to use the Openbox ability to open different app's on specified desktops when Openbox is initially opened, with tint or not.

Perhaps mips will test that out? :)

[GSF1200S]

I don't know if you would be able to use the Openbox ability to open different app's on specified desktops when Openbox is initially opened, with tint or not.

Perhaps mips will test that out? :)

In my experience, when I do boot scripts (desktop launch scripts), I have to specify which x session I want it to open on:

DISPLAY=:0.0 clipman &
DISPLAY=:0.1 conky &

etc.. Last time I tried that with Tint2, it wouldnt run on the both X sessions complaining an instance already exists.. When I get time ill give it a shot and post back here..

[handy]

@GSF1200S: I use the following at the end of ~/.config/openbox/rc.xml



# end of the example
-->

<application class="Sakura">
<desktop>5</desktop>
<maximized>yes</maximized></application>
<application class="Gvim">
<desktop>4</desktop>
<maximized>yes</maximized></application>
<application class="Worker">
<desktop>6</desktop>
<focus>default</focus><position force="yes"><x>0</x><y>0</y><monitor>0</monitor></position></application>
<application class="Firefox">
<desktop>1</desktop>
<maximized>yes</maximized>
<focus>yes</focus><position force="yes"><x>0</x><y>0</y><monitor>0</monitor></position></application>
</applications>
</openbox_config>

[mips]

In my experience, when I do boot scripts (desktop launch scripts), I have to specify which x session I want it to open on:

DISPLAY=:0.0 clipman &
DISPLAY=:0.1 conky &

etc.. Last time I tried that with Tint2, it wouldnt run on the both X sessions complaining an instance already exists.. When I get time ill give it a shot and post back here..

I suspect you will have to run two instances of tint2 with a config for each x/openbox session. I don't think you can have two systrays but that is based on pure speculation (on my part).

I just reinstalled xfce panel and it's heavyish, it sits there and eats about 1.3% of my cpu&mem which would be fine on my desktop but my 7yr old celeron laptop feels it. I'll keep running it and see how it goes.

[handy]

...

I just reinstalled xfce panel and it's heavyish, it sits there and eats about 1.3% of my cpu&mem which would be fine on my desktop but my 7yr old celeron laptop feels it. I'll keep running it and see how it goes.

Looking at it via htop, it looks like the xfce-panel is using 0.86% on my machine.

The plugins that I'm running are the clock, mixer, screenshot & workspace switcher.

[fancy_ninja]

A resounding *BUMP* to this thread! Xfce is definitely my DE of choice..my brother recently moved and gave me an older Gateway laptop (not sure of the specs yet..i DO know it needs a new wireless card..), and I'll certainly be running Xfce on it as well! anyone else have any thoughts/experiences/hallelujah moments with Xfce they'd like to share??

[XubuRoxMySox]

My old hand-me-down Dell Dimension doesn't have the resources to run KDE, or a fancy dock or anything. But when I get a new 'puter (someday) I'm anxious to try Unity! I think it looks cool.

But in the meantime I've got my Xubuntu Xfce desktop panel looking like Unity and behaving, kinda sorta, like a dock. It's pretty and functional and doesn't use alot of resources like a dock would.

I wrote a li'l blog post to show (with screenshots and everything) how I did it if anyone is interested. Beyond what I wrote, I'm told that installing Talika and using XFApplet can enable Xfce4 panels to "menuize" icons on the panel just like Unity does!

How I did it: "A Unity-Inspired "Dock-looking Xfce Desktop in Xubuntu 10.04 (http://www.linux.com/component/content/article/133-general-linux/471566)"

I tried attaching a screenshot but it won't accept it... tried linking to Imageshack but it doesn't appear when I preview the post. But the pics are in the link.

Xfce ROCKS!! Long live Xubu!

-Robin