Talk:Xfce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Pronunciation

A lead search result cites the following: Thankfully, the project lead for Xfce, Olivier Fourdan, corrected me and wrote: "I just pronounce it like 'X-F-C-E' or 'X-F-See.' Also please note that the common spelling is 'Xfce.' 'XFce' was used for some time, but XFCE has been dropped since 1997 at least."

How do you pronounce xfce? --69.42.5.52 22:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've always heard all the letters pronounced, as in 'ex-eff-see-ee'. --maru 16:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what about [IPA:xfce]? That would be kh'fsyeh! (meaningless comment - don't heed!) Said: Rursus ☻ 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fedora Core 4

Xfce is not included in the core of FC4, it's in the FC4 extras afaik. So, question is; should the page say that it's included as an optional component in FC? Also, I'd like to hear from a FC4 user what they think.

I think it's fair enough to say that if you can install it from Fedora Core (with internet or copied packages), that it's optional. ¦ Reisio 14:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xfld redirect

Is there any reason why "Xfld" redirects here instead of having its own article? --SuperTails92 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

...because nobody's made its own article, maybe? Get to work. ¦ Reisio 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I guess the next question is, why do we have a link at all? Angelo 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Default desktop environment

The article says that it is the default desktop environment for Slackware. Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt this incorrect? Isnt it so that there is no default DE in slackware and that it is completly up to the user? -- Frap 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that. It says that Slackware includes Xfce by default ("Some distributions which include Xfce by default: ... Slackware ..."). If that is true or not, I do not know. Andkaha^(talk) 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads: "Few distributions include Xfce as their default desktop environment, though most include it as an optional component. Some distributions which include Xfce by default:"

While this is up to some interpretation, by using the word default twice, it strongly suggests that the following distributions use Xfce as their default desktop environment. This makes especially little sense in the case of Gentoo, which installs without GUI. If you then want to use Xfce, you'd type "emerge xfce4" as root while connected to the Internet, which is exactly analogous to how you would install KDE or GNOME. And last time I checked, the Gentoo Live CDs didn't include a GUI either (forum quote: "The Gentoo CDs are for installing Gentoo. There is no GUI mode.").

The important question is: What kind of distributions (of Linux and *BSD) should be listed here? If "most Linux distributions" include an optional Xfce package or port, there is no point listing them, there are just too many. It would be more interesting to list only those distributions that use Xfce as their default desktop environment, like Xubuntu and I don't know which others. Aragorn2 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was also perplexed when I saw Gentoo on the list. Although after these comments, I can understand the rationale behind the wording, it is misleading at first glance, as is the the name of the section. I edited the line to read "...in their package tree:" instead of "...by default:" to avoid confusing new readers and added another list at the top where I separated the distros which use it by default. Most of this information was gotten through their corresponding Wikipedia articles, homepages, or DistroWatch, and not confirmed firsthand. I am also dubious about the usefulness of the distro list that just make it available, and the practicality of making such a list comprehensive, especially if you were to include other OSs.

Which also brings me to the point -- isn't this section a little biased towards GNU/Linux? Also, the first line says "Xfce is not as common in Linux distributions as KDE and GNOME." and subsequently uses the word 'distribution' but it sounds like the adjective 'Linux' is implied, even though some of the distros on the list are BSD-derived. Just some thoughts.

~ Atul 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse

Completly stupid question: does the mouse have a name?--mimithebrain 04:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The developers just refer to it as the "mouse logo".--Ktdreyer 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

so the mouses name is logo then.69.125.110.223 (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I don't support the merger of Xfwm into Xfce as they are clearly different things. The Xfwm article certainly needs expanding however. Secretlondon 00:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on those points since Xfwm is an optional part in various distributions; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce but only listed as the default desktop in Xubuntu. Therefore a separate entry for Xfwm will lessen duplication among other Xubuntu related entries. The second point is also good for Thunar and Xarchiver which are also mentioned. Gigapenguin 06:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the proposed merger from both articles, since I believe the consensus is to keep them seperate. Paul6743 12:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theme Engine

The old Xfce was modded to work on windows (libxfce) anyone know if an updated engine was every cross compiled? Liked to page from Gtkpref

[edit] Screenshot?

Does xfwm4 really support full transparency? That looks like a Beryl/Compiz screenshot. In Xubuntu 7.04 the terminal won't even display with the built in compositor turned on, and I didn't think there was an option for full transparency of other windows, just of window decorations. But I can't check at the moment... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.103.247 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes it does. You should also realize that XGL brought virtually nothing new to X. Everything it does was already available in various forms - what's different is the implementation. ¦ Reisio 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The caption states: 'A typical Xfce 4.4 desktop. Various Xfwm4 effects are visible (drop shadows behind windows, semi-transparent windows and panel).'. Now this is an Xfce screenshot, but certainly not a typical one. Today it still takes some technical knowledge and time before you can get actual transparency and desktop effects to work in X. Sure, for some it just works (lucky with graphics card, setup, etc) but for the majority of people it doesn't. So I would recommend either changing the caption, removing 'typical' or uploading a new picture, without the transparency (my preference). Let me know what you think. -thomasvk

All it took for me was checking the enable compositor checkbox in window manager tweaks. Linux has really made huge strides in usabilty just in the past couple years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, it's been built into X.org for a long while now... all you have to do is have a certain line in xorg.conf, IIRC - and that's probably only for odd distros like the one I use, for most it's probably autoconfigured. It's also an article on Xfce, not DE's or Unixes in general, and a typical Xfce properly configured has no problem with this. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMs/DT-FMs Need some infobox

Would be extra nice if there were some specialized infobox and a general pattern (in text sense) for evaluating window managers and desktop/file manager environments, such as GUI qualities (f.ex. clickability/keyability), number of special plugins/docks, configurability (no vs. by config file vs. by special tool), versioning and approximate age etc. I'll study infoboxes and patterns a little by myself, then we'll see. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)