Tweet
Should have been Eeeee Eeeeeeee, just to confuse everyone.
-
-
-
I'm a simple man. I see a distro named after a weasel species, I upvote.Comment
-
-
Having recently switched to XFCE as my primary desktop, I would agree that's it's really really fast and extremely customizable. It took some tweaking to get it looking nicer than the default setup (installed Arc-Dark them, used lxappearence to configure the GTK 2.0/3.0 theme and icon theme, etc.). For some reason the XFCE settings only configured GTK 2.0 theme and icon theme, not sure why?Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
In addition, flatpak applications were using the old Greybird theme, so I had to to once again set the icon theme and application theme using the command line (normally I'd do this via gnome-tweaks).
Other stuff like the gnome nightlight functionality required a separate application (redshift), which wasn't hard, it just required some extra steps.
Finally XFWM4 didn't automatically disable compositing for full screen applications like mutter does, so for gaming I run a script beforehand to do this.
After lots of tweaking I really do have a fantastic desktop, but I *also* thought Gnome3 was a fantastic desktop! My wife users Ubuntu 19.04 and it works really great for her. I guess i'm not sure where some of the hostility comes from debianxfce? You love XFCE, that's great - you should use it. Other people like Gnome or KDE, why does that bother you? There exists (in my mind) a place for both types of DE's.Comment
-
I admire the idea behind gnome: making a unified desktop experience.
The problem is their defaults suck.Comment
-
-
Assuming that you're well intended, it looks like you need clarification on how to use the Xfce bug tracker. Your link filtered the issues using 3 criteria:Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
1. Limited to Xfsettingsd, which is just one of the many Xfce4-settings components (click Remove filter after Component: Xfsettingsd);
2. Limited to Xfce4-settings, which is just one of the many Xfce4 DE core components, although there's a good number of Xfce apps and plugins that are developed but the team, all of which should be considered as part of Xfce, but the core alone lists 16 products;
3. Limited to the "---" resolution, which does not mean solved, but that there's no resolution for those items, meaning that they are open issues having one of the following statuses: NEW, NEEDINFO, ASSIGNED or REOPENED.
After I removed the Xfsettingsd filter, I got 233 bugs. After I removed the Xfce4-settings filter and clicked "See all search results for this query", I got 2965 bugs.
Now if I only target the core components, here's the number of items having a resolution of "---" (a.k.a. open, unfixed issues):
1. Exo: 24 bugs
2. Garcon: 8 bugs
3. Libxfce4ui: 10 bugs
4. Libxfce4util: 5 bugs
5. Thunar: 351 bugs
6. Thunar-volman: 28 bugs
7. Tumbler: 34 bugs
8. Xfce4-appfinder: 18 bugs
9. Xfce4-dev-tools: 1 bug
10. Xfce4-panel: 391 bugs
11. Xfce4-power-manager: 97 bugs
12. Xfce4-session: 99 bugs
13. Xfce4-settings: 233 bugs
14. Xfconf: 13 bugs
15. Xfdesktop: 81 bugs
16. Xfwm4: 534 bugs
Without using a calculator it's still easy to see the number of bugs in the core components of Xfce is close to 2000. This is not surprising for a desktop environment, considering how much work is involved, but it's far from the 27 bugs that you also indicated as all solved.
Now if I had to choose between Xfce 4 and Gnome 3, I'd go for Xfce 4. It looks a bit old and it's not intuitive enough, but it covers my needs and workflow better than Gnome 3. Of course, that's just a personal preference based on my needs and knowledge of the desktop environments. Because if at first glance a DE's defaults are not close to what I need, I prefer not using it because I prefer working less on adjustments and more on what I actually have to do.
Clearly, I afford this approach because I have great or good enough options for me. But that doesn't make me claim Gnome 3 or KDE suck or that the DEs I choose are the best. It's a waste of time to complain about the things that I wouldn't use anyway, just as it makes no sense to claim that my (subjective) choices are the best.
On a modern PC I prefer MATE or Cinnamon. On an older PC I prefer LXDE or Xfce (although Xfce requires more RAM and storage I/O), and on a very old PC I'd use openbox, maybe with the LXDE panel if the PC can handle it.
Now to actually get on topic, Xubuntu and Linux Mint Xfce both have nicely polished Xfce desktops compared to the default Debian look. I wonder, does Debian come with the default themes for all the desktop environments they offer or it's their choice to offer those themes? Their visual defaults, especially the icons themes should be improved. I think this is important, which is why I appreciate Xubuntu's efforts to put Xfce in a better spot. As for the names Canonical picks for their releases... oof! I guess they want something striking enough to be easier to remember.
Comment
-
WOW ....>>>
Now if I only target the core components, here's the number of items having a resolution of "---" (a.k.a. open, unfixed issues):
1. Exo: 24 bugs
2. Garcon: 8 bugs
3. Libxfce4ui: 10 bugs
4. Libxfce4util: 5 bugs
5. Thunar: 351 bugs
6. Thunar-volman: 28 bugs
7. Tumbler: 34 bugs
8. Xfce4-appfinder: 18 bugs
9. Xfce4-dev-tools: 1 bug
10. Xfce4-panel: 391 bugs
11. Xfce4-power-manager: 97 bugs
12. Xfce4-session: 99 bugs
13. Xfce4-settings: 233 bugs
14. Xfconf: 13 bugs..
15. Xfdesktop: 81 bugs
16. Xfwm4: 534 bugs
>>> So crazy
Comment
Comment