XFCE in Slack 12 - Slackware

This is a discussion on XFCE in Slack 12 - Slackware ; I have a fresh install of Slackware 12, with the basic packages, except KDE. I am using XFCE for the windows manager. I like the improvements over the last version. There are couple of minor things that I have noticed: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: XFCE in Slack 12

  1. XFCE in Slack 12

    I have a fresh install of Slackware 12, with the basic packages, except
    KDE. I am using XFCE for the windows manager. I like the improvements over
    the last version. There are couple of minor things that I have noticed:

    1. XFCE's "Settings Manager" is missing the icons for all applications,
    except Screensaver.

    2. The Screensave configuration tool warns that /usr/share/wallpapers does
    not exist.

    Some icons are displayed. The desktop icons, the main panel icons, etc.

    I rechecked that all packages had been installed and that my tgz
    repository included all of the packages in the distro. I googled, and it
    mentions that gtk2-engines-xfce may be required for xfce 4. I don't see
    anything like that included in the xap package list.

    I'll probably do another test install, but if anyone is seeing the same
    thing, then I would like to know. I know it is nothing serious. I know
    some people on this group are xfce experts.

    TIA

    --
    Douglas Mayne

  2. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Douglas Mayne a écrit :
    > I have a fresh install of Slackware 12, with the basic packages, except
    > KDE. I am using XFCE for the windows manager. I like the improvements over
    > the last version. There are couple of minor things that I have noticed:
    >
    > 1. XFCE's "Settings Manager" is missing the icons for all applications,
    > except Screensaver.
    >
    > 2. The Screensave configuration tool warns that /usr/share/wallpapers does
    > not exist.
    >
    > Some icons are displayed. The desktop icons, the main panel icons, etc.
    >
    > I rechecked that all packages had been installed and that my tgz
    > repository included all of the packages in the distro. I googled, and it
    > mentions that gtk2-engines-xfce may be required for xfce 4. I don't see
    > anything like that included in the xap package list.


    It's already included in the 'xfce' package. Take a peek at the build
    script:


    for file in \
    xfce4-dev-tools-4.4.0.tar.bz2 \
    libxfce4util-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    libxfcegui4-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    libxfce4mcs-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfce-mcs-manager-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    exo-0.3.2.tar.bz2 \
    xfce-mcs-plugins-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfce4-panel-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    Thunar-0.8.0.tar.bz2 \
    xfce4-session-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfwm4-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfdesktop-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfce-utils-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfprint-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    gtk-xfce-engine-2.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    mousepad-0.2.12.tar.bz2 \
    Terminal-0.2.6.tar.bz2 \
    xfce4-appfinder-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfce4-mixer-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfce4-icon-theme-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    xfwm4-themes-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    orage-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    ; do


    Looks like something is botched with your install. XFCE looks OK here.

    Cheers,

    Niki

  3. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:38:52 +0200, Niki Kovacs wrote:

    > Douglas Mayne a écrit :
    >> I have a fresh install of Slackware 12, with the basic packages, except
    >> KDE. I am using XFCE for the windows manager. I like the improvements over
    >> the last version. There are couple of minor things that I have noticed:
    >>
    >> 1. XFCE's "Settings Manager" is missing the icons for all applications,
    >> except Screensaver.
    >>
    >> 2. The Screensave configuration tool warns that /usr/share/wallpapers does
    >> not exist.
    >>
    >> Some icons are displayed. The desktop icons, the main panel icons, etc.
    >>
    >> I rechecked that all packages had been installed and that my tgz
    >> repository included all of the packages in the distro. I googled, and it
    >> mentions that gtk2-engines-xfce may be required for xfce 4. I don't see
    >> anything like that included in the xap package list.

    >
    > It's already included in the 'xfce' package. Take a peek at the build
    > script:
    >
    >
    > for file in \
    > xfce4-dev-tools-4.4.0.tar.bz2 \
    > libxfce4util-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > libxfcegui4-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > libxfce4mcs-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce-mcs-manager-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > exo-0.3.2.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce-mcs-plugins-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce4-panel-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > Thunar-0.8.0.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce4-session-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfwm4-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfdesktop-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce-utils-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfprint-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > gtk-xfce-engine-2.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > mousepad-0.2.12.tar.bz2 \
    > Terminal-0.2.6.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce4-appfinder-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce4-mixer-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfce4-icon-theme-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > xfwm4-themes-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > orage-4.4.1.tar.bz2 \
    > ; do
    >
    >
    > Looks like something is botched with your install.
    >

    Yeah, it looks like I took one shortcut too many, and missed some part
    of the final configuration. )

    > XFCE looks OK here.


    I did a second test install, and everything looks normal here now, too.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Niki
    >

    Thanks for the answer and for the info. XFCE looks great in this
    incarnation, while keeping with its tradition of leaving a small
    memory footprint. The terminal looks like gnome-termina. However, I do
    like gnome's nautilus as a file manager better than XFCE's "thunar." But
    with gnome support lacking, XFCE is the best thing going, IMO.

    Thanks again!
    --
    Douglas Mayne

  4. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Douglas Mayne a écrit :
    >>

    > Thanks for the answer and for the info. XFCE looks great in this
    > incarnation, while keeping with its tradition of leaving a small
    > memory footprint. The terminal looks like gnome-termina. However, I do
    > like gnome's nautilus as a file manager better than XFCE's "thunar."


    Thunar has some nice features that Nautilus doesn't have. (I know, I use
    GNOME and XFCE everyday). Like bulk-renaming. Useful for downloaded
    music archives with spaces in names.

    Slackware's XFCE is definitely the cleanest and lightest of all
    distributions. On the other hand of the spectrum, you have Xubuntu which
    eats almost as much RAM as a full-blown Vista install. OK, slightly
    exaggerating D

    Niki

  5. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:06:52 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:

    > Thanks for the answer and for the info. XFCE looks great in this
    > incarnation, while keeping with its tradition of leaving a small
    > memory footprint. The terminal looks like gnome-termina. However, I do
    > like gnome's nautilus as a file manager better than XFCE's "thunar." But
    > with gnome support lacking, XFCE is the best thing going, IMO.


    I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched to XFCE
    also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all quit. Anyway, I
    was quite concerned about giving up Nautilus for Thunar too, and have been
    pleasantly surprised at how much I do like Thunar after using for a couple
    of weeks. There are a few little things I still miss from Nautilus, but
    this Thunar is going to work out, for me. It's noticeably faster, too.

    Another little adjustment has been using Mousepad as a GUI text editor,
    instead of Gedit. It works OK, but is quite a bit more stripped down. I
    guess I could play with GVim... I do miss Gedit some. At least gFTP is
    still here.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  6. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Dan C writes:

    > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:06:52 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks for the answer and for the info. XFCE looks great in this
    >> incarnation, while keeping with its tradition of leaving a small
    >> memory footprint. The terminal looks like gnome-termina. However, I do
    >> like gnome's nautilus as a file manager better than XFCE's "thunar." But
    >> with gnome support lacking, XFCE is the best thing going, IMO.

    >
    > I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched to XFCE
    > also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all quit. Anyway, I
    > was quite concerned about giving up Nautilus for Thunar too, and have been
    > pleasantly surprised at how much I do like Thunar after using for a couple
    > of weeks. There are a few little things I still miss from Nautilus, but
    > this Thunar is going to work out, for me. It's noticeably faster, too.
    >
    > Another little adjustment has been using Mousepad as a GUI text editor,
    > instead of Gedit. It works OK, but is quite a bit more stripped down. I
    > guess I could play with GVim... I do miss Gedit some. At least gFTP is
    > still here.


    Dan,

    Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    bling and no performance.


  7. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On 2007-07-24, Hadron wrote:

    > Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    > bling and no performance.


    At least it actually works, which is more than you can say about
    Gnome.

    nb

  8. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    notbob trolled:
    >On 2007-07-24, Hadron wrote:


    >> Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    >> bling and no performance.


    >At least it actually works, which is more than you can say about
    >Gnome.


    But for X-Window itself, KDE is the most important "application"
    ever produced for linux. Oldtimers who still like to do most of
    their work from an xterm (or konsole, IOC) will probably prefer
    XFCE, as we do. But some of the KDE apps are outstanding and there
    is a reason why XFCE allows you to preload KDE libraries.

    In contrast, the whole gnome-gtk1-gtk2-glib1-glib2-thingy, is a
    total nightmare, but for the fact that gimp came out of it. Lots of
    times we will pass on an app that we need to compile simply because
    it requires hundreds of dreaded libraries, in various mysterious
    versions, to even configure, let alone build. We used to like the
    wordprocessor ABI-Word, but both the KDE office apps and
    openoffice.org blow it away now, even if you can get it to compile.

    Aside from Gimp, the fact that firefox uses gtk is about the only
    thing that is going to keep those libraries alive.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  9. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    notbob writes:

    > On 2007-07-24, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    >> bling and no performance.

    >
    > At least it actually works, which is more than you can say about
    > Gnome.


    What are you talking about?

    Gnome works just fine.

    Or are you one of these "rabid" heads who tells lies to support their
    point of view?

  10. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Hadron schrieb:
    > Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    > bling and no performance.


    You can build a 'light' Gnome with these scripts - works fine for me:
    http://jaguarlinux.com/pub/slackware...e/gnome-2.18.3

    Juergen

  11. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On 2007-07-24, Hadron wrote:
    >
    > Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    > bling and no performance.


    I'd say the same thing about GNOME, except GNOME is a bitch and a half
    to build. If you don't like to be a pimp, use a different wm, like
    xfce, blackbox, fluxbox, fvwm, twm, ....

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  12. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:49:41 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:06:52 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:
    >


    >
    > I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched to XFCE
    > also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all quit. Anyway, I
    > was quite concerned about giving up Nautilus for Thunar too, and have been
    > pleasantly surprised at how much I do like Thunar after using for a couple
    > of weeks. There are a few little things I still miss from Nautilus, but
    > this Thunar is going to work out, for me. It's noticeably faster, too.
    >


    >

    I noticed in another thread about Gnome that you had tried DarkVision's
    build scripts (slackbots), and were very complimentary about his work.
    In a later thread, you tried garnome. Having tried both, how did they
    compare?

    TIA

    --
    Douglas Mayne


  13. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:21:52 +0200
    Hadron wrote:

    > notbob writes:
    >
    > > On 2007-07-24, Hadron wrote:
    > >
    > >> Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all
    > >> fake bling and no performance.

    > >
    > > At least it actually works, which is more than you can say about
    > > Gnome.

    >
    > What are you talking about?
    >
    > Gnome works just fine.
    >
    > Or are you one of these "rabid" heads who tells lies to support their
    > point of view?


    I switched to XFCE 5 months ago, after 7 years of KDE and dabbling with
    gnome occasionally.

    I miss konqueror, but dont want to install it. Konqueror is leagues
    ahead of Nautilus, which was one of my pet hates with Gnome, not to
    mention preferring many QT apps (still do).

    I could run KDE 3.5.7 on a P2-266 with 144MB RAM. Gnome (2.18) was far
    slower, the speed at which Nautilus would re-draw directories was
    terrible, not to mention Konqs plugins and customisations.

    Of course, each to their own, good points bad points etc.
    But I'm not sure why someone would run Gnome over XFCE.
    Thunar is pretty good (tabbed browsing + stepped levels would be nice),
    especially appreciate the ease at which you can add custom right click
    actions.

    Overall, its faster, really stable and doesn't get in the way of the
    apps.

    Maybe fluxbox is next, I think its probably a step too far for my
    desktop though
    (use it on my mythtv box).

  14. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:25:19 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:

    >> I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched to XFCE
    >> also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all quit. Anyway, I
    >> was quite concerned about giving up Nautilus for Thunar too, and have been
    >> pleasantly surprised at how much I do like Thunar after using for a couple
    >> of weeks. There are a few little things I still miss from Nautilus, but
    >> this Thunar is going to work out, for me. It's noticeably faster, too.


    > I noticed in another thread about Gnome that you had tried DarkVision's
    > build scripts (slackbots), and were very complimentary about his work.
    > In a later thread, you tried garnome. Having tried both, how did they
    > compare?


    Well, let's see... it's been a little while, and both of those
    installations have been overwritten with other things, but as I recall,
    both were quite satisfactory. I did have a little trouble with Garnome at
    first, but someone (sorry, can't recall who) told me to install some Perl
    application from CPAN, and that resolved the building difficulty. Both
    the DarkVision scripts and Garnome produced a very workable and vanilla
    Gnome installation, and I don't remember any "showstopper" problems with
    either one. I guess the Garnome way is a little more customizable, but I
    left things at default and it was good enough for me.

    Bottom line is that I liked both of them (equally), and would be using one
    or the other today if I hadn't gotten hooked on Xfce in the meantime...



    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  15. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:41:54 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    >> I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched to XFCE
    >> also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all quit. Anyway, I


    > Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all fake
    > bling and no performance.


    I agree about KDE... As for Gnome, it has been removed from
    official Slackware for quite a while now (since version 10.2, I think).
    What I meant there above was that the third-party packagers of Gnome for
    Slackware (Freerock, Gware, Dropline) seem to have all ceased any new work
    (all their currently available offerings are *several* versions behind the
    official Gnome developers. I was a longtime Freerock user, and loved it,
    but it doesn't work (not properly, anyway) on recent Slack releases.
    Dropline may have something that works now, but I'm not sure. Never did
    like that one much anyway.

    I think I'll be using Xfce for a long time to come.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  16. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Dan C wrote:

    > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:06:52 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:
    >
    > > Thanks for the answer and for the info. XFCE looks great in this
    > > incarnation, while keeping with its tradition of leaving a small
    > > memory footprint. The terminal looks like gnome-termina. However, I
    > > do like gnome's nautilus as a file manager better than XFCE's
    > > "thunar." But with gnome support lacking, XFCE is the best thing
    > > going, IMO.

    >
    > I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched to
    > XFCE also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all quit.
    > Anyway, I was quite concerned about giving up Nautilus for Thunar


    Default GUI file managers are for retards and children. You should use
    a _real_ file manager like mc, or one of it's dumbed down clones like
    tuxcmd or gnome-commander if you need your hand held.


    > too, and have been pleasantly surprised at how much I do like Thunar
    > after using for a couple of weeks. There are a few little things I
    > still miss from Nautilus, but this Thunar is going to work out, for
    > me. It's noticeably faster, too.
    >
    > Another little adjustment has been using Mousepad as a GUI text
    > editor, instead of Gedit. It works OK, but is quite a bit more
    > stripped down. I guess I could play with GVim... I do miss Gedit
    > some. At least gFTP is still here.


    Never mind, you really aren't ready for real software. Stick with
    Thunar.

    >
    >



  17. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Dan C wrote:

    > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:41:54 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    > >> I have been a long-time Gnome user too, and just recently switched
    > >> to XFCE also. The third-party Gnome packagers seem to have all
    > >> quit. Anyway, I

    >
    > > Gnome is history? I can't stand KDE - it's like a pimp's car - all
    > > fake bling and no performance.

    >
    > I agree about KDE... As for Gnome, it has been removed from
    > official Slackware for quite a while now (since version 10.2, I


    That's because Slackerware is becoming nothing but a garish Windoze
    wannabe. Use to be a good distribution. Back around v3 or so. :-(


    > think). What I meant there above was that the third-party packagers
    > of Gnome for Slackware (Freerock, Gware, Dropline) seem to have all
    > ceased any new work (all their currently available offerings are
    > *several* versions behind the official Gnome developers. I was a
    > longtime Freerock user, and loved it, but it doesn't work (not
    > properly, anyway) on recent Slack releases. Dropline may have
    > something that works now, but I'm not sure. Never did like that one
    > much anyway.
    >
    > I think I'll be using Xfce for a long time to come.
    >
    >



  18. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Nomen Nescio wrote:

    > That's because Slackerware is becoming nothing but a garish Windoze
    > wannabe. Use to be a good distribution. Back around v3 or so. :-(


    The benefit of there being more than one operating system is that you
    don't have to use the ones you don't like.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  19. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Two Ravens wrote:

    > Nomen Nescio wrote:
    >
    > > That's because Slackerware is becoming nothing but a garish Windoze
    > > wannabe. Use to be a good distribution. Back around v3 or so. :-(

    >
    > The benefit of there being more than one operating system is that you
    > don't have to use the ones you don't like.


    Or garish windoze wannabe operating systems that nobody likes.


  20. Re: XFCE in Slack 12

    Anonymous wrote:

    > Or garish windoze wannabe operating systems that nobody likes.


    It must be liked by quite a number as "Distowatch" ranks it at 11, and
    Linux Counter has it as the third most installed distribution, it has
    also managed to survive longer than any other GNU/Linux distro, so your
    statement, to a Slackware newsgroup, that it is a distribution
    that "...nobody likes", seems somewhat fatuous.

    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast