Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Xfce 4.12 Desktop Release Ends Up Behind Schedule

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Xfce 4.12 Desktop Release Ends Up Behind Schedule

    Xfce 4.12 Desktop Release Ends Up Behind Schedule

    Phoronix: Xfce 4.12 Desktop Release Ends Up Behind Schedule

    While Xfce 4.12 was scheduled to be released on 10 March, the release didn't happen and it looks like the release won't be coming anytime soon...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMyNDg

  • bwat47
    replied
    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
    It was. I ported all of the core components a few years ago. XFCE devs wanted nothing to do with GTK+3. They're floating around somewhere still I'm sure, but now quite out of date.
    I've seen a few posts on the XFCE dev mailing lists suggesting that it may start happening soon. No specific posts about intensions for porting to GTK3, but things like this:

    http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce4...il/030249.html
    http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce4...il/030252.html

    Looks like they are porting the panel at least, which for me is one of the most important parts because it would mean I could finally use GTK3 indicators in xubuntu, which would mean the return of the messaging indicator

    I don't think its all the XFCE devs that want nothing to do with it, just some of them. I think overall they realize it needs to be done eventually, progress is just slow because some of them don't want to bother with it.
    Last edited by bwat47; 05-02-2013, 07:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • elanthis
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Too bad it wasn't ported to GTK3 already.
    It was. I ported all of the core components a few years ago. XFCE devs wanted nothing to do with GTK+3. They're floating around somewhere still I'm sure, but now quite out of date.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hamish Wilson
    replied
    Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
    Yes, you can make XFCE relatively more memory hungry by applying a different configuration. However, this usually implies using components not part of the standard XFCE desktop. Things like gconf, pulseaudio, nm-applet etc etc. This has nothing to do with XFCE itself.
    Well, personally I would never want to go without most of those, but yes, they do increase the memory footprint of my Xfce setup.

    Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
    Furthermore, to be honest I find XFCE to be pretty solid under Gentoo as well.
    I think the complaint was about default configurations and not about the software itself (which should be pretty solid on whatever you set it up on).

    Leave a comment:


  • Rexilion
    replied
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    its not a memory hog, I was just explaining:

    1. why i believe xubuntu is more use friendly than other xfce desktops i've tried

    2. xubuntu isn't really as resource intensive as people are making it out to be
    Yes, you can make XFCE relatively more memory hungry by applying a different configuration. However, this usually implies using components not part of the standard XFCE desktop. Things like gconf, pulseaudio, nm-applet etc etc. This has nothing to do with XFCE itself.

    It also depends whether if you are running x86 or amd64. The difference is in the 20MB range.

    Furthermore, to be honest I find XFCE to be pretty solid under Gentoo as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hamish Wilson
    replied
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    No need to bash xubuntu, it is definitely the best out of the box XFCE out there. I especially like that by default they use a fork of xfce4-volumed that actually supports pulseaudio properly, they use ubuntu's volume indicator instead of xfce's mixer panel plugin which plays much nicer with pulseaudio, and uses pavucontrol as the mixer which is way better than xfce's mixer.
    I generally use pnmixer and pavucontrol for my Xfce setups - I do have to agree that the default Xfce audio plugins are fairly terrible.

    Leave a comment:


  • bwat47
    replied
    Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
    Ah, that could explain it as well. I'm using alsa down here as well. However, I don't believe that pulseaudio is a memory hog these days...
    its not a memory hog, I was just explaining:

    1. why i believe xubuntu is more use friendly than other xfce desktops i've tried

    2. xubuntu isn't really as resource intensive as people are making it out to be

    Leave a comment:


  • Rexilion
    replied
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    No need to bash xubuntu, it is definitely the best out of the box XFCE out there. I especially like that by default they use a fork of xfce4-volumed that actually supports pulseaudio properly, they use ubuntu's volume indicator instead of xfce's mixer panel plugin which plays much nicer with pulseaudio, and uses pavucontrol as the mixer which is way better than xfce's mixer. Its really not that bloated and uses less resources than gnome or unity for sure.

    On login it only uses around 320mb of ram for me (running 64-bit, and I have a few extra startup items like synapse, and I'm using gala as my window manager instead of xfwm). system boots in about 10 seconds and logs in instantly on my laptop, I'm very satisfied with its performance.
    Ah, that could explain it as well. I'm using alsa down here as well. However, I don't believe that pulseaudio is a memory hog these days...

    Leave a comment:


  • bwat47
    replied
    No need to bash xubuntu, it is definitely the best out of the box XFCE out there. I especially like that by default they use a fork of xfce4-volumed that actually supports pulseaudio properly, they use ubuntu's volume indicator instead of xfce's mixer panel plugin which plays much nicer with pulseaudio, and uses pavucontrol as the mixer which is way better than xfce's mixer. Its really not that bloated and uses less resources than gnome or unity for sure.

    On login it only uses around 320mb of ram for me (running 64-bit, and I have a few extra startup items like synapse, and I'm using gala as my window manager instead of xfwm). system boots in about 10 seconds and logs in instantly on my laptop, I'm very satisfied with its performance.
    Last edited by bwat47; 03-16-2013, 01:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rexilion
    replied
    Originally posted by korrode View Post
    No.
    Bad.
    Don't do that.

    Last i looked at Xubuntu it was Xfce after Canonical had severely beaten it with the bloat stick.
    Could that be because Xubuntu also starts gconf and gnome-keyring? Maybe also a VNC server as well?

    And maybe some of the autostart gtk+3 apps that take a new gtk+3 lib into memory, next to a gtk+2 lib. I.e. nm-applet?

    I did a Ubuntu install based on cli.seed with 'base-installer/install-recommends=false'. Then I 'topped' it with only XFCE deps and some user apps. The memory usage after start is about 120 MB.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X