Submitted by The Xfce development team is pleased to announce that the second and hopefully last release candidate of the upcoming Xfce 4.4 desktop is available for download now. The release focuses primarily on bug fixes and optimizations; see the release notes for a complete list of changes. The source tarballs and the graphical installer are available from the download page.
The installer is kind of funky. I downloaded it and tried to run it and I am missing all these dependencies. I started to track them down but I gave up since it was too much of a hastle. I guess I will wait a couple of days until I can pull it down with yum update. I would expect an installer to come with the required dependencies or ftp in the background to get the necessary files. Interestingly the previous installer worked perfectly with just a couple of clicks. It appears they added more glue files like some perl scripts that I can’t find. It is kind of funny to manually track down dependencies for a GUI based installer.
Edited 2006-11-05 18:30
Congratulations to to those guys, Openbox is mostly my wm of choice but I certainly look forward to trying this out. 4.4 is for sure a long time coming but it’s such a major improvement over 4.2.
Edited 2006-11-05 18:36
Has anyone found what is new from the last version (4.2?) to 4.4? It’s not easy to find on their homepage.
4.2 to 4.4 is a big update. The big updates are thunar a replacement for the file manager. and a few smaller applications have been added like x-archiver a graphical way of handelings compressed archives, mousepad a simple graphical editor, orage a calender application, and some smaller items.
I’ve been using RC1 for a long time. Having looked through the changelog its good to notice most are bugfixes with very few additions. Although having read through the list. I fail to see anything that I have hit as an error. I hope this is the last RC release as its been very solid from RC1.
http://xfce-diary.blogspot.com/2006/04/major-changes-in-xfce-44beta… http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/6448
I sure hope they keep to the core values of fast, lightweight, etc. that xfce has had for so long. From the sounds of it though, they are trying to be a new Gnome or KDE by adding all these seperate apps, new dependencies, and general “bloat”.
I’ll still give 4.4 a decent try when it goes final, but I think the time is approaching where xfce is no longer the light and fast alternative, instead just the smaller brother of Gnome, etc.
Browser: Links (0.99; Linux 2.6.13 i686; 84×26)
I think they have stuck to keeping XFCE lightweight. The windows appear faster than under Gnome. I was testing it out and comparing it to the latest Gnome and XFCE4 has more responsive events such as opening, closing windows. On my system Gnome would pull up the window chrome (titlebar, frame) and then you could see it visually fill in the window. XFCE didn’t have this visual delay it just popped into place. If you have a cutting edge system with the latest CPU, video card and 2 gigs of RAM then XFCE wouldn’t really offer you a benefit since the minor window delays wouldn’t be noticeable.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that XFCE comes with many beautiful themes. If you are looking for eye candy you can customize it to whatever you like, blending icons, window styles, etc. It can really look amazing if you take some time to tweak it.
I took a screenshot of RC2 running on Fedora 6. Thunar file manager is running with the XFCE Terminal application. Seamonkey browser 1.0.5 is set to the default browser and is showing the SeaGnome theme. The desktop theme is Clearlooks silver modified with Bluecurve icons:
http://markbokil.org/images/xfce4-rc2.png
Edited 2006-11-05 19:43
I am always wary when someone calls bloat!
Start with saying what kind of bloat!
XFCE aspires to be a fully functional desktop. It has added separate applications, and new dependencies, but define the bloat.
Clearly they have tried to put together a suite of *lightweight* alternatives to necessary applications, and most are optional.
Functionality is not bloat! Unneeded functionality is.
Maybe I just want slightly more than a WM, and way less than a DE. And to me xfce used to provide that, and I’m hoping 4.4 still does.
My definition of bloat is probably not the same for you; what I consider a useless feature may be a godsend for others. I don’t need an integrated file manager and graphical archiving tool. I’d rather keep the apps as separate as possible (ie: move the bare minimum into the core xfce components). All I really want is their panel, taskbar, settings panel, and that’s about it. Adding apps on top of that starts to move towards a heavier DE approach where everything is included.
I haven’t even tried 4.4 yet, but I might when I get home, or maybe just wait until the final version.
The release candidates at least the first one unless there has been a regression feels better than earlier versions.
You talk about cross-purposes. XFCE *is* a lightweight Desktop environment. As far as features, are concerned you are talking about *feature bloat*, everything you need and nothing you don’t.
KDE and I suspect GNOME. Can be stripped down quite heavily, because they are modular. search for kde-lite. I tried it for a time but I missed XFCE terminal application.
XFCE I would say is becoming a minimal collection of applications that fit in with XFCE i.e lightweight and fast alternatives to *common applications*.
Your feature bloat as you describe affecting it being lightweight and fast is false. The only problem I envisage is that a relatively small team, cannot evolve XFCE fast enough due to the amount of applications they need to maintain, and ends up like enlightenment.
“Your feature bloat as you describe affecting it being lightweight and fast is false.”
I don’t see how that can possibly be true. Adding more integrated components means more to load, bigger file sizes, more RAM usage, etc.
Your definition of bloat is different than mine, it’s not a big deal.
I still am hoping that xfce doesn’t try to keep adding integrated apps in the hope of being the next Gnome. It is a niche DE but does it’s specified job very well.
I don’t see how that can possibly be true. Adding more integrated components means more to load, bigger file sizes, more RAM usage, etc.
Yeah, but it’s not really adding integrated components. They’re adding applications that if you don’t run them, just use up a little disk space.
Your missing two fundamental point, because you don’t understand bloat.
Xfce is made up of many components, and applications. One of these new applications is X-archiver.
When XFCE is loaded it occupies no memory.
The memory when loaded is less than that of say file-roller.
If you only use CLI tools for dealing with archives you can remove X-Archiver completely from your system and XFCE will function exactly the same as before, only without a GUI for dealing with archives.
Show me the bloat. The falsehood is that you mistake what is integrated from what is loosely coupled.
BTW Memory footprint is not the same as feature Bloat. Loading times !? is not the same as feature bloat.
Your clearly missing one of the strengths of linux wher e you can mix and match components pretty much as will, and choose the best application for *your* purposes.
Edited 2006-11-05 21:01
Just because you keep saying the same thing doesn’t make it the proper definition cyclops. Bloat to you may be exactly what you said, bloat to me may be adding a new default theme, see what I’m saying? It’s like I said before, we just have different definitions of bloat, so you don’t have to keep forcing _your_ definition down my throat like it is the absolute be all end all what the word means. No where in any of my posts did I say feature bloat specifically, I just said bloat. Which to me can be memory usage, file size, number of applications, etc.
That’s cool if you want to keep going in circles and all, but I’ve already said my hope for 4.4, so good luck with that.
What kind of bloat are we talking about?
Functionality Bloat or Code Bloat. It’s two different things and Functionality Bloat does not equal Code Bloat.
You can easily write an application with little functionality in a lot of code, and you can just as easily write an application with a lot of functionality in a lot less of code.
I don’t mind Functionality Bloat as long as it doesn’t result in Code Bloat. Code Bloat is what makes applications start slower, react slower etc.
Functionality Bloat “just” means you can’t find the functionality you need – unless you search within the application for 30 minutes
No where in any of my posts did I say feature bloat specifically, I just said bloat. Which to me can be memory usage, file size, number of applications, etc.
And that’s the problem. It’s several different kind of “bloat”.
Memory usage and file size are related to Code Bloat. Number of applications relates to Functionality Bloat (if a modular approach has been taken). Many small modules are better than one big module.
When talking about bloat you have to specify what you’re talking about, unless you want to be dragged through a flame war on the definition on “bloat”.
Shakes head. I am not going around in circles. Your statement is faulty. I have stuck to one kind of bloat. Feature bloat.
A new theme is not bloat. I can’t even think where you are coming from with that.
There are many types of bloat, you mix and match them at will. Thats my problem.
Feature Bloat example Netscape too many features detract from the purpose of file browsing.
Code Bloat example Vista so much code to manage, unstable. BTW in your first example you talk about dependences. Dependences mean less code bloat
File Size you picked it apart from compiler optimization binaries make up a tiny fraction of a system and often contain debug information that you can strip. It can be an indication of code bloat, but really its not a good one.
Memory footprint. This in itself is a strange one, because it plays against your other mention start-up time. XFCE allows you to load into memory KDE/Gnome Libs to allow those programs to load faster. There is all kinds of caching for speed. It often comes down to Total Memory Size vs Hard Drive speed. The only real problems are memory leaks, and duplicate items in memory, look at how Gnome is trying to reduce it memory footprint.
Application Bloat. Give it a name Windows intergrated explorer, WMP into Windows…they are always there and cannot be removed. This is your problem XFCE does not integrate them you can pick your own media player or browser, you can even pick your own calender application, file browser and replace the old one completely, and they need not be loaded into memory at startup.
your throwing different definitions of bloat around to justify your statement, and hoping one sticks, the harsh reality is often these things are at odds with each other CPU Usage vs Functionality vs Code Bloat vs Memory footprint etc etc. Its complex.
Which is why I like the simple statement.
“All the features you need and none you don’t”.
Shakes head. I am not going around in circles. Your statement is faulty. I have stuck to one kind of bloat. Feature bloat.
Hehe, looks to me like you just came around full circle.
And yes, you keep mumbling the same thing over and over, post after post.
A new theme is not bloat. I can’t even think where you are coming from with that.
There are many types of bloat, you mix and match them at will. Thats my problem.
Feature Bloat example Netscape too many features detract from the purpose of file browsing.
Gee, are you ever dense cyclops.
He already said his piece, and you keep going on and on about the same thing.
Bloat is bloat, plain and simple. It’s ONE word with ONE meaning. It only means one thing, that something is bigger than it should be.
Do you need to be drawn a picture?
BTW in your first example you talk about dependences. Dependences mean less code bloat
Oh yeah? How do you figure that? Aren’t dependencies code too?
And the sad fact, which you’re resisting like your life depended on it, is that XFCE has grown larger and has progressed slower than many would like.
XFCE was supposed to be a WM+maybe a light desktop.
Did they need to waste time on all those apps, the calendar, file manager etc. instead of finishing the WM first and maybe then adding some apps once the main objective was accomplished?
Just doesn’t make sense to me.
And it’s starting to look to me like XFCE is getting to a very awkward size. Too big for old machines and too underfeatured for new, fast machines.
Personaly, at this point I’d run something like IceWM or Flux on an old machine and just jump straight to KDE on a new machine.
Maybe use XFCE on machines in a range somewhere in between. But that’s only approximately 1/3 of the market.
XFCE by its own description is a Desktop Environment. If you go to the main page http://www.xfce.org/ you will notice that the BIGGEST words on the page are “desktop environment”.
XFCE is the opposite of an “awkward size”. In reality I can think of several LARGE linux projects that suit a project by linux terms like XFCE, Playstation 3; Municator PC. PC’s are getting faster ,but I believe in the light of “One Laptop per Child” and the drive towards UMPC’s and the growing markets in the east wanting slimmer and more portable hardware, you should perhaps look a little further than what you consider the norm.
@shapeshifter.
full circle != same thing over and over.
Bloat may have one meaning, but you have to refer it to something.
Edited 2006-11-07 01:43
//Just because you keep saying the same thing doesn’t make it the proper definition cyclops. Bloat to you may be exactly what you said, bloat to me may be adding a new default theme, see what I’m saying? It’s like I said before, we just have different definitions of bloat, so you don’t have to keep forcing _your_ definition down my throat like it is the absolute be all end all what the word means. No where in any of my posts did I say feature bloat specifically, I just said bloat. Which to me can be memory usage, file size, number of applications, etc.
That’s cool if you want to keep going in circles and all, but I’ve already said my hope for 4.4, so good luck with that.//
You keep using that word bloat. I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat
I don’t think you understand the concept of bloat.
Adding loosely-coupled applications that do not reside in RAM but are only loaded off disk & into RAM as needed is not bloat.
XFCE does not exhibit the undesirable features that are associated with bloat. About the only resource that this new version of XFCE would consume more of is hard disk space, and we are talking only a few megabytes of that.
That’s because you don’t grasp the technology.
You can add as many applications you want to. They only use more memory _if_ you run them.
And considering the way many KDE, Gnome and Windows applications are written, it isn’t hard to write something that combines a lot of functionality with a very small size and instant reaction on user-trigged events.
Functionality bloat != Code bloat. Code bloat is always bad, and can be measured by objective criteria. Functionality bloat however is a very subjective thing.
XFCE is doing things just right. They can add as many modules they want, as long as they are exactly that: modules.
Now, say to yourself: “Modularity, modularity, modularity.”
And repeat it till you fall asleep
“XFCE aspires to be a fully functional desktop. It has added separate applications, and new dependencies, but define the bloat.”
XFCE is developing to a useful replacement for KDE or Gnome on systems that offer less ressources than “modern” PCs.
“Clearly they have tried to put together a suite of *lightweight* alternatives to necessary applications, and most are optional.”
And if you want it “more lightweighter”, you can simply use version 3 of XFCE. Runs still good on a 150 MHz workstation.
“Functionality is not bloat! Unneeded functionality is.”
Furthermore, inefficient implemented functionality – even if needed – may be bloat.
I like the modular conception of XFCE because it’s the best representation of “needed functionality”. If you don’t need a certain functionaliy, just remove the corresponding module. The rest of XFCE runs without any change.
“Functionality is not bloat! Unneeded functionality is.”
Exactly! I believe that XFCE is the ideal desktop for “oldish” hardware or for modern hardware if you want something fast and yet complete.
I’ve found it is still just as modular as it always was. Sure they’ve worked on a few new apps, but you still dont have to install thunar, or xarchiver or mousepad or whatever. Even gnome can be pretty stripped down to a certain extent..
I like the fact the there is an XFCE based Ubuntu.
I hear ya about the Xubuntu. I am a long time Fedora user but I am getting tired of all the tweaking it takes after a new release to get it up to speed. I use XFCE a lot and Xubuntu seems like it would be a perfect match for my system and my preference for a lightweight DE. I think I will wait until Xubuntu picks up the final 4.4 release and give it a try.
Edited 2006-11-05 19:55
I hope that the Xubuntu people will upgrade their XFCE package once 4.4 is released. Xubuntu is an amazing distro and XFCE is very impressive. It is my second favourite DE, behind the allmighty KDE.
Why wouldn’t they? They’ve been using 4.4 all this time. Not upgrading to the final release would make no sense at all.
For every release of some software there are almost always people complaining about that specific piece of software being bloated, and every time i wonder what these people are using their computer for and what kind of pc they have.
Are really all those people running a pc with sub-256mb ram? If so i can understand it, but i highly doubt that is the case. What do people want with all that available ram? I personally have ram so that programs can make use of it. The fact that i am running kde apps may make startups slower because there is more to load from the hd, but how much are we talking here? 10 seconds over the course of a day?
Those 10 seconds i can easily make up for within 10 minutes of using kde (not trying to evangelise kde here, its just that its what i am running) thanks to the extra features it gives me.
On a 512mb ram pc, i find it unlikely that there will ever be any significant swapping if you run kde or gnome, so why save ram just for the sake of it?
Using xfce because you find it better suited for your usage: be my guest, using xfce so that you can make sure that you have plenty of free ram: why?
Edited 2006-11-05 21:45
Oh trust me. With 512 MB of RAM there will be plenty of swapping with Gnome. GNUstep works better but lacks quite a few applications and has some rough edges.
The problem is that coders are getting lazier as computers are getting faster. It takes longer today to start an office suite than it did 8 years ago. With no more functionality today than back then. Now, that’s bad.
EDIT: The time lost by applications are quite large. An irritating delay everytime you click on something or choose a menu item, or press a key. In Gnome it’s pretty easy to write far far ahead of the update in textboxes.
There is quite a difference between an application starting in <=.4 Seconds and an application starting in 5 to 35 Seconds.
The problem is btw. not how much time you lose on waiting alone. The problem is the breaking of your work flow. All the constant small breaks where you have to wait is ruining your work rhythm. _Really_ annoying.
Edited 2006-11-05 22:06
I’m a big big fan of XFCE. 4.4 is gonna be a killer release. It looks so good, Thunar is so awesome, all the little apps that come with it work fine, etc.
If you want the fastest modern DE give it a try. It’s worth it. I suggest you to try it with Xubuntu 6.10 too, because it’s one awesome linux distribution.
Perfect setup for your girlfriend = Xubuntu 6.10 + XFCE 4.4 + Microsoft fonts only (make a fontconfig script to get rid of open source fonts
) + Firefox (with Flash) + Rhythmbox (and all the gstreamer codecs) + giFToxic (Gnutella) + aMSN + gnome-games. She will be in heaven!
Shots:
http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/2489/gf1if7.png
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7757/gf2hd8.png
Awesome, isn’t it? Look at how beautiful this thing is! For the first time ever, my girlfriend didn’t complain at all
I notice you are using the tango theme. I’m surprised how many of these I see around as XFCE 4.4 does not include freedesktops Icon naming standards. Which is something I personally feel is missing from this release.
@hal2k1 I love wikipedia stuff, but that is just a poor article. a more fun read its gnome but its still a good read.
http://live.gnome.org/MemoryReduction
Edited 2006-11-05 22:46
rx182:Microsoft fonts only (make a fontconfig script to get rid of open source fonts
)
I don’t know it may be because of the fonts, but i’m not sure. Do your girlfriend a favor and at least enable font anti-aliasing. This is not the year 2000 and we don’t have to suffer fonts like that anymore. The screenshots really hurt.
Other than that, i was a faithful user of XFce3, but XFCE4 is not shaping up to what i hoped it would. So i switched to Gnome. Nonetheless, keep up the good work and i will take another look once 4.4 is released.
– can’t mark more than one icons with a lasso
– create new file only works over an icon and not on every desktop position (integrate Thunar with xfdesktop?)
and…
– lacks Network-VFS or Fuse support
– Thunar lacks “copy/move to” in the context menu (like on KDE)
– sidebar handling (can’t remember, it was RC1)
– does drop (copy/move) a file/dir to a tab works? (can’t remember)
– does a USB scanner device works (open Sane)? (I don’t try when I use XFCE 4.4rc1)
-> or better: is full dbus/hal supported?
Your right about the desktop handling it is awkward. But you have to keep in mind it is all very new. Having the user to click on a desktop icon to add new icons is not following the current desktop standard. I was puzzled for awhile why the context menu kept appearing. Then I went to their website and read about it. Having to research how to make a button icon says a lot about the current desktop usability. The desktop integration is there in principal but not there in spirit, i.e, not smooth and natural like Gnome’s yet. XFCE desktop does come with a nice option to display windows as icons CDE style. Kind of cool to still see that around.
Edited 2006-11-06 01:17
but there are a few important deficiencies:
1) Launcher creation and placement on the panel is awkward. Too many unnecessary clicks. My ideal is the Launchers List plugin (a.k.a Quicklounge) for Gnome panel which allows creating launchers by drag-n-drop from Gnome menu and also reordering them by left-click drag-n-drop.
2) Desktop functionality: can’t right-click in any place of the desktop and create launcher or folder (gotta right-click on an icon which is counter-intiutive).
3) No means for adding alternate keyboard layouts. The keyboard layout plugin provided can only switch between what is already setup.
In response to (1): at least in my system I just have to open the dialog for adding new plugins and start dragging them to the panel I want. Not a problem to me.
It IS different from Gnome, and some suffer from that. But I don’t think it is harder at all.
Yes, you can add an empty launcher with drag-n-drop. But an empty launcher isn’t of much use, is it? Configuring it – that’s what takes too long and too many clicks. Ideally, you should be able to launch AppFinder and then just drag-n-drop and app from there to create a launcher for it. And AppFinder could be launched from the plugin adding dialog.
2) Desktop functionality: can’t right-click in any place of the desktop and create launcher or folder (gotta right-click on an icon which is counter-intiutive).
You might want to try RC2 then, because it’s working fine here now. looks like they fixed this.
But at least on my memory challenged laptop (PI366, 256MB) XFCE 4.4 RC1 eats close to 1.5 times the memory 4.2 did making it fairly slow (With Evolution + firefox open, XFCE actually eats more memory then KDE 3.5.5… go figure).
AFAICS, the added memory consumption comes from the different loaded plug-ins. (CPU/Network/APM monitors, volume slider, etc)
However, Both Thuner and Terminal are light-weight by themselves, making them an ideal companion to IceWM
Anyways, hopefully some size and memory optimization will be added before 4.4-release that will reduce the (IMHO) over-sized memory foot-print.
– Gilboa
Edited 2006-11-06 10:28
I can’t see what all the fuss is about in everyone’s postings. I mean, how good does XFCE have to be?
It is completely free.
It is well maintained.
With only a few tweaks, it can be made to look absolutely gorgeous.
Its modular design means you only have to install and load plugins you actually want.
It comes with a fast file manager as standard.
It successfully walks the line between barebones-spartan (e.g. fluxbox) and kitchen-sink (Gnome or KDE).
It’s fast, stable and fairly easy on resources.
It lets me – though maybe not you – run all my favourite apps with no problems.
Imho, this is all something to be very grateful for. XFCE isn’t perfect and there are a few things it can’t do, or do well, which it probably should. But it’s a great alternative to KDE, which can seem just too much, or to Gnome, which can seem sluggish and control-freaky (not to mention poorly designed in the case of Gnome’s squash-in-amateurish-old-icons panels).
XFCE is now my standard desktop. It says a lot for the team that they’ve come from backfield to being one of the three top contenders for a Linux desktop DE if you want more than the basics (in which case fluxbox is heard to beat, imho), and maybe the top contender if you have a slower machine.