Interview With XFce Lead Developer

Anonymous Howard writes: "There's an interesting interview with Olivier Fourdan, the main developer of the XFce lightweight desktop environment up at moongroup.com. Fourdan discusses the recently added new features of the desktop, as well as future plans." XFce is a really slick environment, too -- not quite minimalist, but nearly fat-free.

HELP...Where are programming jobs???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday at this post [slashdot.org] on slashdot, he said

"Where I come from, dotcoms are desperate for programmers..."

Please, where is this, I want to go there!

Re:YAWM - Yet Another Window Manager?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet in fact, KDE's Kparts follows this sort of idea.

first mirror, before /.ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted under general by Chuck Mead on Tuesday May 01 2001 @ 11:27 EDT 1. In September you answered 10 questions for Linux Orbit (see http://www.linuxorbit.com/features/interview1.php3 ). We're now several months down the road and you have done some amazing things with XFce and you've just made a major release. I wonder if you wouldn't mind doing the same for us so we can give the world an update on XFce's progress and future?

Sure, my pleasure, Chuck ;-)

2. Where did the little running mouse overlayed on a stylized "X" come from and what does it symbolize?

It was donated by Bonnie Green, a designer who worked at Linuxmall. She gave me maybe about 10 logos so I could choose the one I prefered, and I immediately choosed that one for several reasons.

The mouse is a good symbol for Xfce, it's a small animal, smart and fast. The X can be seen as the X-Window symbol, so the whole logo symbolize a fast light environment for X ;-) Perfect logo IMO.

3. When did you setup the development environment at sourceforge and how is that going for you and XFce?

Moving the developpment of Xfce to Sourceforge was an old idea, but I just could not find time for that (as usual ;-).

Since a few people from around the world (Europe, US and Mexico) are now actively working on the project, Sourceforge perfectly fits my need by providing a full featured web enabled environment. That was a good choice so far, since it would have taken so much time if I had to set up a similar tool on my own...

4. I see that the latest release contains "layers". Could you give some detail on what they are for?

Everybody knows about virtual desktops. They can be seen as several desktops side by side. Layers can be seen as desktops stacked. When a window belongs to layer, it can be raised or lowered only in its layer. A window belonging to a given layer can't be raised over another window belonging to an upper layer, for example.

5. Is XFce the first X desktop modified specifically to support Nautilus?

Not, far from it. Layers have been available in many window managers for a while, but until now, I did not see the need for layers in xfwm. Very few applications make use of WM layers, and most can live without.

Recently, someone asked on the Xfce list why, in Nautilus PR2, the root window was over all other windows. So I get a copy of Nautilus and tried it. I realized that Nautilus uses one of its own window as a root window, and, by placing it on the lowest layer, it could never come on top of the stack. Unfortunately, this is a big problem for window managers that don't support layers, since the "fake root window" is treated as any other window and therefore can be raised on top of the screen, obscuring all other windows.

I'm pretty sure that Nautilus will make it on the Linux desktop, so Xfce and especially xfwm, had to be compatible with Nautilus to stay in the run. That's why I started working on the functionality and released Xfce 3.8 (which is actually much more than just this new feature)

6. You've also developed some "themes" for XFce now. Will you develop a tool for XFce that will allow users to create their own themes?

Themes in xfwm are quite different from other window managers (not to be confused with GTK themes that are used in xfce panel and all other GTK+ apps, those have been supported for a long time, since xfce can generate GTK+ themes on the fly from user settings)

The window managers that support themes usually do that by applying images on their borders (by stretching them to fit the size of the window). This is very nice, visually speaking, but it can be cpu consuming, and very slow when running across a network, so I won't implement something like this in xfwm.

What I've done is xfwm is implement new "engines", ie different routines that can be selected to draw the window. It doesn't use any image to render the window decorations (except the tiny buttons). It's just like selecting different themes engines in GTK+ (notif, Redmond95, etc) except that xfwm engines are coded in xfwm, not loaded dynamically like gtk engines.

So for the moment, themes in xfwm is like selecting a drawing method for the window borders. There is no need for a specific tool yet. However, if I plan to implement some sort of "pixmap" engine, so that people will be able to apply images on the window borders, such a tool could become useful.

7. Many people believe that XFce is a clone of CDE and it certainly appears that it is but CDE is well known for its difficulty to configure. Is XFce easier to configure than CDE?

For sure, Xfce is very easy to configure since all common settings are managed thru graphical tools, using the mouse. However, Xfce is definitely not a clone of CDE. For me, a clone is just like Lesstif and Motif. You can use one in place of the other. But you don't consider GNOME or KDE as clones of windows, do you? It's the same for Xfce, it reminds CDE in some aspects, but it's very different. It's faster, lighter, and definitely easier to configure since almost everything can be set from the setup panel (in CDE, you'd better ask your sysadmin to add a new drawer on the panel!)

Just like GNOME and KDE ease the migration of Windows users to Linux, Xfce helps users who are used to CDE to migrate to Linux. But Xfce is not just that, it's a real environment on its own, and as time goes on, Xfce looks less and less like CDE.

8. What platforms does XFce currently run on and is it fully Gnome compliant?

Xfce runs on almost any Unix flavour, including commercial Unices (SUN, AIX, Digital UX, etc.), FreeBSD, NetBSD and even Darwin. Since it now includes layers (which was not implemented until Xfce 3.8), I think we can say it's fully GNOME compliant now. Some parts of GNOME compliancy are implemented in xfwm, and some other in an additionnal module (xfgnome). This is to allow users who don't use GNOME to save a few bytes ;-) 9. If it runs on all of those commercial Unices why haven't more commercial shops started using XFce instead of CDE? Probably because they didn't think of it ;-) Seriously, there is no company nor organization behind Xfce, just like there are for both GNOME and KDE, so I guess this can be seen as a problem for some. But after all, Xfce is GPL, so... I think (but this is just my opinion) that Xfce could help some people in migrating from CDE to GNOME since Xfce may look familiar to CDE users (and CDE still has a lot of supporters arround) and Xfce is GNOME compliant. Don't get me wrong here, I don't see it as something like "GNOME or Xfce" because Xfce doesn't feature all the goodies one can find in GNOME, but rather like GNOME and Xfce. Just a thought... 10. What new toys/features do you plan to add to XFce in the future? Icons on the desktop, for sure. Right now, if you want shortcuts on the desktop, ala Windows, you must run another file manager like GMC or Kfm (or Konqueror). I'm also planning to add support for IBM ViaVoice as an external module, so the window manager can be driven with simple oral commands. This is not even started yet, I've been working hard on 3.8 (and 3.8.1 which is the most recent release at this time. Edscott Wilson Garcia did a real good job by adding more goodies to Xfce, like xfsamba or xfglob. Other people have added other nice tools. I wouldn't have time for this right now. It's good to see that other people have joined the development of Xfce and actually release good stuff. I'm pretty sure that will continue to see new amazing tools for Xfce in the future, like Alex Lambert's menu editor for xfwm.

Documentation has to be reworked too, but that's almost as old as the project itself !

Re:YAWI

[Anonymous Coward]

Under unix/linux you have to worry what component model is used (if any), what window manager is running, what desktop environment is running, what unix distribution is used and so on.

It doesn't matter which window manager/desktop environment someone is running, it just matters that the libraries are installed. And with HD space as cheap as it is, it's not really that big of a deal to have libraries for both KDE and Gnome installed and then run KDE/Gnome programs in, say, XFCE or IceWM or WindowMaker or Blackbox or fvwm, etc.

As for UI differences... yeah, right. Like someone who uses KDE can't figure out how to point and click on the menus and shiny buttons in a Gnome program. The whole "We don't know which environment to code for" is such a lame excuse that I suspect it's just used to cover up the fact that those companies just really don't want to bother (they obviously haven't bothered understanding that most KDE/Gnome users run programs from the opposite environment all the time without giving a shit which libraries are used), and don't think they'd make any money (at least they're probably right about the money part).

Re:YAWI

[Caine]

They rightly assume that most users will be able to cope with whatever they're given.

What kind of retarded attitude is that? If that's the way you feel I have a programminglanguage for you. It's called Mupp and every command is state-dependant. Meaning that only way to know what a single character do is to read the program from the beginning, keeping track of state as it changes.

And I actually have a point with the above. It's that even though you CAN do something that's bad interface it doesn't mean you should. I've used Linux since 93, I'm a developer myself, and I'm a bit interested in UI design. And one of the major reasons that I switched from Linux to w2k was the lack of standard interfaces. I might be able to use Netscape, Emacs (which I *cough* still use in win) and Balsa, but that doesn't mean I want to. If I can get a consistent desktop, where everything works the same way, that makes me a lot happier, because I don't have to think and "fight" the application, just because things work diffrently than the other apps that I have running. In the end that makes me faster, and that I like.

The only good UI Linux has ever had on the other hand was the commandline. The only usuable GUI Linux has ever had is KDE, which is making tremendous achievements considering what they have to fight against.

Re:Bah

[WWWWolf]

I'll take WindowMaker any day. It's small and fast, but it actually looks good too. In fact I don't know of a window manager that looks better (except for maybe enlightenment, which is bloated).

Yep, Window Maker rocks. =) Just that it doesn't cooperate well with GNOME's desktop and session manager in Debian - but I don'te care, because a) gmc stinks even when it works and Dock and Clip work better than the panel, and b) I use only GNOME utilities, applications and facilities, not the desktop infrastructure.

Re:logo?

[Genom]

hehehe

Mice are also small, dirty, disease-carrying animals that are capable of multiplying at a frightening rate inside your walls.

(note that *some* linux geeks I know also fit this description, although the gestation period for their young is a bit longer ;) )

They're commonly referred to as vermin.

Marketing: XFce - The vermin desktop environment ;)

Actually (getting back on topic here) I tried out XFce a couple weeks ago - it's not bad, but as always I gravitated back to Windowmaker.

Re:What's wrong with icons on the desktop

[spitzak]

It might make sense to raise all the icons if any are clicked on. That way they are sort of a window as well. Another way to think of it is that the whole desktop is a transparent window that may be raised (then clicking anywhere raises them).

Personally I agree that icons are a bad idea. But one problem with the design is that people fail to consider all possibilities.

Re:YAWI

[spitzak]

In fact they considerably broke compatability with most programs before that that tried to be "mac compatable". This is because almost all those programs used the "Alt" key as the equivalent of the Mac Apple key. Not the "Ctrl" key. A quick look at an Apple keyboard of that time and a PC keyboard will show you that Alt is the obvious choice. Take a look at the Win32 API and you will see they originally intended Alt to be used (it produces a different WM_SYSCHAR event, while ctrl produces a normal WM_CHAR event).

This is also why so many Linux programs vary on whether it is Alt+C or Ctrl+C that copies. They copied the Mac or PC at various times.

I tried to change my own NT programs to use Ctrl instead of Alt and the users complained that they were used to the Alt combinations, I was forced to put it back. This shows how little importance a "consistent GUI" really has! I have now settled on a scheme where Ctrl+letter modifies text fields, while Alt+letter is the shortcuts in all menus (Alt+C will copy large selectable objects, while Ctrl+C will copy text in the focused text field). This violates MicroSoft's "standards" but appears to be much more popular.

Anybody that claims MicroSoft is encouraging consistent GUI is full of shit. I really believe they did this to break compability with programs that were not written by them.

Re:YAWI

[spitzak]

Every IBM PC text-mode program I ever saw used Alt+letter (and the numbered function keys) as shortcuts. Control+letter either did nothing or acted like Emacs, or inserted funny card symbols from the IBM character set. If you can find any program that used Ctrl+C for copy before Windows95 I would like to see it.

Text-mode Microsoft word used Alt exclusively for all the menus. Control ran their own strange keybindings and I don't think it used Ctrl+C for copy (they used that Shift+Delete idea).

Certainly the first Windows programs (I worked with the tiled version of Windows, before 3.1) did not reserve Alt for shortcuts to bring down menus. There was no such concept. The underscores did not show up until Windows 93. You were certainly allowed to use Alt+letter in the menus (I did this in my Windows programs), I don't know if the underscores took precedence as I never used them.

I also have never seen an X program that used Ctrl to act like the Mac before about 1995, but plenty that used Alt. I would think if this was a MicroSoft standard for Windows93 there would have been at least one example.

The Emacs bindings do not conflict with reasonable use of Ctrl, IMHO. I prefer a combination of MS style ZXCV and Emacs bindings for all the other keys. The fact that there is no shortcut for start/end of line is pretty inexcusable, and making ^A select all text has caused me to lose untold amounts of work because I type it by accident all the time.

What's wrong with icons on the desktop

[booch]

What's wrong with icons on the desktop is that the desktop usually has other windows in front of it. If you put the icons in a regular window, you can bring that window to the front when you need to access it. And if you put things in a toolbar, you can keep the toolbar in front at all times so that you can easily access the menu.

About the only solution that works for icons on the desktop is the Windows 98 "hide all windows" toggle button. But still, if you're going to go hit that button, why not just put a menu on that button?

Is it lean?

[Lars Arvestad]

Every other free software project starts off with the intent to get rid of bloat, get better stability, yadda yadda, better color combinations, yadda, XML, yadda. And then I see a feature list which equals or exceeds that competition. In this particular case, we have things such as all-GUI configuration tools and a key combo to highlight the mouse pointer would you have misplaced it on your vast 21" desktop.

Don't get me wrong: I think it is really cool that people try to one-up each other on free software, but should I really believe all these claims of superiority? I have not tried out XFce, but surely there is something that has been sacrificed? Can this beast be both lean and mean? Any data points? IMHO, if you make claims about being slim and bloat-free, you need to provide some evidence in that direction. Otherwise, just be proud over your featue list!

Lars
__

Re:Window Manager without the Cruft

[Osty]

Ion takes it a bit further and forces all windows to maximize to fit a fix sized box (frame). You can have multiple programs in a given frame and can navigate thru them or move from frame to frame with mouse or keystrokes. It's truly odd and a big departure from traditional CDE or Windows knockoffs.

Tiling window management has been around since forever. Hell, Windows 1.0 didn't have the concept of overlapped windows, but instead "forced all windows to maximize to fit a fix sized box" (aka, tiled the windows). What Ion, and other tiling managers do is nothing new. They're just adding some new features, just like all the overlapping managers have been doing since the Macintosh.

Pretty much everything's been done before, in some form or another. This is no exception.

Re:Is it lean?

[Osty]

XFCE, like Blackbox and other "minimal" window managers, uses a very small number of pixmaps, compared to stuff like Enlightenment, Sawfish, KDE, and even Window Maker (depending on your theme). As was stated in the interview, XFCE's "theme" support is more of a "border-drawing plugin" thing (where it's not really a plugin yet, but most likely will end up being so), rather than "draw a bunch of pixmaps, and stretchblit them onto the window borders". Pixmaps eat up RAM, and depending on the quality and implementation of 2D acceleration for your video card, using native drawing primitives is faster than blitting pixmaps around (especially when you have to do transformations on the pixmaps, like stretching or rotations).

I don't have any benchmark numbers, but I'm sure if you dig around on Google [google.com] you can find a few comparisons.

Re:YAWI

[jilles]

Not in the version I have (win2k pro). Ctrl+c is mapped to copy (just checked this) and actually works as expected. I had to start it to find out though, since indeed it is quite a useless application.

Re:YAWI

[jilles]

Welcome to rpm/deb hell. Not only do you need to have everything, you also need to have it in the right version, good luck.

And by the way, running is not the same as interoperating. I know abi word will probably run on my system and I also know that currently there's no way you can just paste some kde object in it. Also most likely it has completely different keybindings than xedit and looks completely different from my motif apps. But it will run. You are right about that. So, what. I can also run vmware on my gnome desktop and boot it into os/2 (hehe, ok I really run windows 2000).

The point is not whether you can run stuff on the same machine but whether the stuff you run on the same machine looks the same, feels the same and works together really well. It's not a technical problem but a problem of standardization. The problem will not be solved by more technical stuff instead that will only make the problem worse. Right now I'm very pessimistic about this ever being achieved on linux. KDE is sort of proving my point by providing a KDE implementation of everything and the kitchen sink.

Re:YAWI

[jilles]

The problem with choice in general is that it increases cost since developers and users are forced to make a choice (and therefore spend time on making the decision). If it is a relevant choice that is a good thing. But with something trivial as a window manager it is only annoying to even have to spend time thinking about. Under windows, you can assume a more or less standard look&feel, COM, printing, filemanagement, etc. Under linux there are multiple implementations of all these things and they can exist in various interesting combinations.

"there is still the ability to bring them together, pulling the best from each."

So, you would have another window manager to worry about (or do you really belief the others go away as soon as you merge them?). Following my line of thought, your suggestion would add to the problem rather than address it in any way.

In a propietary world, vendors make the decision as to what a window manager does and does not. It may not be optimal but it works and it allows application developers to focus on what really matters (namely features). The more you can assume about a target platform, the less you have to reinvent. Currently with linux there's not much you can assume to be present. The more you assume, the smaller your target audience becomes. Hence there are very few commercial desktop applications for linux. The few that do exist either don't integrate very well with other apps (netscape, staroffice, wordperfect, ..) or put very specific requirements on the user's desktop.

Re:YAWI

[jilles]

Choice is not good, it is the main reason application developers are not targeting linux very often. They don't know what wm/desktop environment to target. Target gnome -> unhappy kde users, target kde -> unhappy gnome users, target motif -> crappy looking application. Coding for apple or windows is easy since you only have one look&feel to target. Under unix/linux you have to worry what component model is used (if any), what window manager is running, what desktop environment is running, what unix distribution is used and so on. Consequently, most apps come with their own look and feel, their own keybindings and generally only interoperate with a limited set of other applications. A direct consequence of this 'choice' is that 10 years after linux was created end user experience is still pathetic. Not because of technical problems but because of a lack of standardization.

So as far as I'm concerned this window manager is redundant, a reinvention of a very old wheel and its mere presence slows linux adoption.

There's simply no way to do it right. A window manager is just about the most stupid app I can imagine. Other than UNIX there's no other platform where you have to worry what component is responsible for minimizing/maximizing your windows!

Re:YAWI

[jilles]

It is true that there are minor changes and sadly also incompatibilities between windows versions. However, since windows 95, apps have looked and functioned in more or less the same way. The first time you launch a random application, you can rely on the fact that alt+f4 closes the app, ctrl+c copies something, the file menu is on the left and probably contains file related menu items and so on and so on. There's so much you can assume more or less safely about a windows app (and most window apps actually behave rather well in this respect) that this gives a value to any conforming app a linux app currently cannot possibly provide simply because a consistent user experience is lacking and continues to be lacking.

Re:Shudder,,,,

[poopie]

worse names than xfce? Sure...

xplop
xdoodoo
xmess (oh, wait, that's a program)
xcrmnt

But seriously, xfce is nice. I've even run it on some suns instead of *REAL* cde just because it's faster. Although my daily WM in enlightenment/gnome, it's nice to have so many good choices.

Noting slows a new sun down like CDE.

Lightweight

[wiredog]

XFce is a lightweight wm. Small size is vital in embedded applications where you may be trying to sqeeze kernel+apps+data into &lt 4Mb.

Window Manager without the Cruft

[cobar]

If you want a window manager that's truly stripped down but still has plenty of functionality, try pwm [students.tut.fi] or Ion [students.tut.fi] which both make good use of the keyboard and run in about a meg of ram.

pwm somewhat resembles BlackBox without the bar at the bottom or iconify, adding the ability to attach windows together into frames for each navigation. You can move thru the frames with hotkeys, keeping the desktop more organized.

Ion takes it a bit further and forces all windows to maximize to fit a fix sized box (frame). You can have multiple programs in a given frame and can navigate thru them or move from frame to frame with mouse or keystrokes. It's truly odd and a big departure from traditional CDE or Windows knockoffs.

These are where real innovation and progress in window managing is. Making something that doesn't just look pretty or makes Windows users at home, but who would have guessed, actually help you manage windows better.

Re:Late Breaking News!

[bero-rh]

Umm... PLEASE get your facts straight...
WM3M will of course be built with not just QT and GTK, but also Motif, Xaw, FLTK, FOX, wxWindows, winelib and MFC using winelib - it will be interoperable with really everything, and use up just 3 TB of RAM!

Re:YAWM - Yet Another Window Manager?

[bockman]

As far as I know, both KDE and Gnome are quite modular and can be seen as 'Mr. Potato frameworks'. They offere more-or-less-docunmented interface to make your own theme engine, your applets (like pagers), your own Window manager.
I dunno about GNUStep, but I think that it will use another desktop framework, too.

So, the probem is not the lack of a framework, but the lack of a standard framework. Here [freedesktop.org] are working on it, however.

Re:logo?

[tps12]

Word. I tried XFce because of memory constraints, but the latest version isn't very light. WindowMaker does everything XFce does, and takes up less memory.

Re:Window Manager without the Cruft

[bXTr]

Pretty much everything's been done before, in some form or another. This is no exception.

OK, then why does everybody bitch like so many neurotic lesbians with PMS. Who fucking cares? Just use whatever the hell you want, and SHUT THE FUCKING HELL UP!!!

BTW, I think XFCE is great. Keep up the good work.

NEVER use a spineless operating system.

Re:Of course!

[Lord Omlette]

stop your bitching, half empty [half-empty.org] is infinitely better than kuro5hin

Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057

Re:Please no icons!

[gormanly]

Depends what you're doing. Personally, I normally have between 2 and 4 emacs windows open, at least 5 xterms, a couple of gv windows, and the gimp, plus a minimised netscape mail and sticky xmms and a load monitor. That fills about 4 virtual desktops at 1600x1200. Throw in some debugging work and I'd be having to go to my 6th virtual desktop to even see those icons.

Course, if you're just surfing for pron, I guess a dialer icon and a netscape icon would be great...

Icon's are annoying, and no use to me if I can't see them. If I can see them, they're just hiding my backdrop some more.

Please no icons!

[gormanly]

Icons on the desktop like in Windoze? Oh god no. I've been using xfce for over 2 years now and have seen it come on greatly, while still remaining lightweight, fast and easy to use. Olivier's done a great job bringing a CDEish interface to GNU/Linux, and keeping it portable - it was the first window manager we found that would compile on our alphas and run as a child of the ssh-agent back then, so I've really got a soft spot for it.

Everyone using the bloated Gnome or KDE that came with their distro should try it, just for a week. It's even better that AfterStep....

Re:Please no icons!

[Janon]

As I understand it, since I've been reading the XFce mailing list for a while, desktop icons will be optional if implemented, since they will be provided by a separate application and not by the XFce panel, window manager, or file manager.

Re:Is it lean?

[tal197]

Creating 'lean' software is mostly a matter of coding style, IMHO. One person's HelloWorld application may be bigger than another's OS kernel!

Remember elite on the BBC? A 3D space trading game that ran in 32K (including 20K screen memory, plus the OS!)

So, although there is a theoretical trade-off between size and features, I suspect that this has little effect in practise...

Re:YAWI

[Ur@eus]

If XFce had was based on a new development platform I would agree with you, but since it uses many of GNOME's development libraries and is GNOME complicant it just creates another great way to run GTK+ based apps and as such doesn't diversify the Linux desktop space in a negative direction.

Re:What about "layers"

[HiQ]

Yeah, from a technological point of view it's usefull to work in different directions. But from a user's point of view, why all these desktops? I think there's not enough energy spent on interfaces that differ from the WIMP GUI.

Re:YAWI

[HiQ]

Well, I don't want to be a muggenzifter (nitpicker), but just try CTRL-C in Microsoft's own paint program; it doesn't copy anything, it toggles the colorbar on or off. (Yeah, yeah I know, who uses this program...:)

YAWI

[HiQ]

Maybe it's about time to start a website called yawi.org, whereby yawi stands for Yet Another WIMP Interface. I'm not just trying to be negative, and I know that choice is good, but all in all I think that too much choice is not good. I think that too much time, effort and energy is wasted on too many things that are more or less the same. All those desktops, and they are all alike. When trying to get Linux promoted to a greater audience, maybe a site that can show people the way in the ever growing desktop-forrest is a good idea. But my main argument is that it *should not* be necessary.

Re:YAWI

[HiQ]

I agree with you on the part of not targeting the Linux platform. I disagree with you on the 'one look & feel' in Windows. Maybe that's the case on Mac's, but certainly not in Windows. First of all Microsoft changes it's GUI quite often, but not all of their applications follow those rules. Just look at the differences in GUI within Office. And not I'm just talking about Microsoft's own applications. Nowadays more and more software suppliers develop their own GUI's within an application.

Re:Please no icons!

[hyperstation]

i think the desktop is a good place not for program icons, for that i use menus, but for documents and other temporary things i may be working on...

--

Re:Please no icons!

[hyperstation]

what's wrong with icons on the desktop, really. otherwise, its just wasted space

--

Re:Please no icons!

[boy case]

In Windows (the operating system I sit in front of more often than not), I always end up sticking any downloaded file, etc., etc on the desktop because at that exact moment I want to download it and probably run it / open straight away. And I prefer to download explicitly because otherwise word or excel or acrobat opens inside my browser window (mm good idea.. huh?) and then quite often crashes or makes IE behave oddly. But the result is my desktop ends up covered in crap. What I really need to use a temp folder somewhere. But there's no shortcut to temp folder in the save as.. dialog. But if there's a shortcut to Desktop I can press that or otherwise just hit the Up directory button repeatedly without too much thought. Then I guess I could stick a shorcut to this temp area onto my little task bar tool bar icon place. (Next to the start button in Windows 98+) Now that, I'm sorry to admit, is a brilliant feature. 95% of the time I run programs from the select few icons I've put there. No menu, no window on top of it, etc. Which is the major problem with stuff on the desktop - if you're actually doing anything with the computer you've probably obscured it with various windows. Hence the "show desktop" shortcut icon and keypress. Anyway I can't help feeling there's no going to be a major leap forward in UI until we abandon the whole desktop metaphor and while we're at the the filesystem is folders and files one too. At least the part the user cares about - i.e. wherever and however the computer keeps their work.

Re:YAWI

[King of the World]

erm ...programmers seem to have bought into Microsoft's PR that Windows is built on one UI. Each office has it's own toolkit and there are better 3rd party toolkits used in MailWarrior/Hotdog. Windows is as fragmented as Linux. The reason more Linux GUI apps suck more than Windows GUI apps is that Linux programmers don't put in the same effort - there is no technical reason. They rightly assume that most users will be able to cope with whatever they're given.

Re:Shudder,,,,

[kenthorvath]

Hehe, I read it as XForce, so it sounds really cool to me.

YAWM - Yet Another Window Manager?

[Codeala]

Hmm, is XFce a YAWM? I guess this depends on how you see this. First, it is not exactly the same as ________ (insert your favorite WM here). Like all the other WMs I am sure it has its "reasons" of being. But I am sure there are many areas where it is just reinventing the wheels. Wouldn't it be nice if we take the "Mr Potato(tm)" approaching to making Windows Manager? Let me explain...

First you have the basic body, which takes care of all the communications with the Desktop (eg Gnome, KDE) then you have difference parts to plug in. For example you can have you basic eyes (no frill window frames) or the glow-in-the-dark eyes (fancy non-rectangular frames). Ears (sounds), hands (Pager :-), etc. Wouldn't it save everyone time if you have this kind of framework to get start on? Want a light-weight WM? Just pull out everything. Want something to show off your new AMD box? Jazz up the parts with 3D, surround sounds, whatever.

Mind you, a project like XFce is exactly what free software is all about; you can do whatever you need/want. But don't expect to make any money any time soon, unless your idea is really, Really, REALLY difference.

PS Nothing against Olivier and his team, I wounldn't even know how to go about creating my WM. Just the usual noise from a /drone ;-)

====

Re:who is ESR?

[barrym]

not sure if you're serious or not ... but :

http://tuxedo.org/~esr/ [tuxedo.org]

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=15073 [everything2.com]

Obligatory "Who uses X anyway?"

[dopevector]

Before someone else says it, I must inject the obligatory "Who uses X anyway?"

Once emacs gets color on the console (version 21, hopefully soon), we will never need X again. You will have all of the functionality of a windowing system, widget set, mail reader, text editor, calendar, diary, news reader, common lisp, two flavors of VI emulation, and a web browser all built in to a console window manager.

Anyone know if it would be possible to hack in framebuffer support for images in emacs on the console so I could get my pr0n on the console?

What about "layers"

[_N0EL]

I agree, especially when it comes to more "toys," but the layers idea sounds useful.

Shudder,,,,

[V50]

Despite the fact that I USE XFce I STILL can't stop reading it as XFeces.... You think they could have POSSIBLY chosen a worse name?

--Volrath50

Re:YAWI

[mrparker]

No. All of this choice and fragmentation is a good thing as long as we have the source. Think about it - no matter how many window managers are out there, there is still the ability to bring them together, pulling the best from each.

In a proprietary world this is a bad thing and can kill a company that distributes operating systems, but in an open community there is always the ability to port an application over to your favorite desktop, or to pull over wm-specific features that you might like.

Late Breaking News!

[deran9ed]

RedHat Systems announced today that they will no longer produce RedHat Linux but instead are focusing on creating new and improved Windows Managers. Industry analysts see a sudden boom for WM's as they're called in the geek world of Linux, and are urging RedHat to compete with the established 2,069,722 different window managers currently on the market.

"We're all ecstatic over here. To think that five years ago there were about four or five window managers such as FVWM, TWM, and others, we now have a variety." stated a developer at RedHat.

RedHat is planning on releasing its first RHWM or RedHat Windows Manager complete with 100 megabytes of animated gif images for buttons. Third quarter they expect to release WM3M or Window Manager 3 Million which is built with both QT, and GTK libraries for interoperability.

No longer will you have 2,069,722 options, but you will now have complete access to 8 cd's worth of window managers including WM's built on XML, JAVA, PERL, Python, REBOL, and an attempt to intermix Wine by releasing an entire WM built with Visual Basic.

RedHat's stock price is going through the roof at this announcement as venture capitalists without a clue as to what they're purchasing are jumping on the bandwagon.

keeping blackbox dapper [antioffline.com]

Re:YAWI

[philovivero]

Choice is not good, it is the main reason application developers are not targeting linux very often. They don't know what wm/desktop environment to target. Target gnome -> unhappy kde users, target kde -> unhappy gnome users, target motif -> crappy looking application.

Well, yeah, except you're wrong.

Code an app as GNOME, and KDE manages to use it just fine (I can drag 'n' drop between GNOME file manager and KDE editors, for example).

KDE even somehow managed to colour my GNOME apps to match the colourscheme I chose.

The reason Linux is not being targetted is, well, I don't know. I'd guess most developers are very shallow and haven't actually tried any of this. Interoperability between KDE and GNOME really works.

Now as far as Motif, duh. Of course you don't want to code your app with that 20's vintage widget-set.

--

Re:Please no icons!

[Hater's Leaving, The]

If you trly on the backdrop as your interface to your mouse menus, then you do not want to waste that space by covering it with icons. OK, there's plenty of backdrop, but that's why it's such a good place to put menus, and that's why it's a shame to waste it with icons. (you see, I've inverted the 'waste' comment!)

'Tog' has written some interesting articles on mouse-use and user interface features http://www.asktog.com/menus/designMenu.html

On the assumtion that the backdrop has a large area (aided by the region next to the borders being free), then I claim the following sequence:

- find some backdrop
- press user-prefered button
- drag to favourite program from short list (or pie!)
- let go

is more time-efficient than:

- find icon correxponding to required program
- click user-prefered button

Note - some people do not _prefer_ the time efficient method, and that's fine - primarily you've _got_ to be happy with your interface.

For example - I don't like pie menus, I like lists, even though it has been shown that pies are often more time-effiecient.

However, I think we are all agreed that the ability to chose completely different user interface styles to suit your own preferences is a 'good thing'.

Happy clicking,
THL.
--

Re:What about "layers"

[VampireByte]

You're correct. I've had (technically proficient) friends considering Linux confused just over KDE vs. Gnome... I tell them it doesn't matter, it's just point and click anyway, but they stay hung up over this issue (but such and such uses KDE, what if Gnome goes away and I wasted my time) and it's sad because they just drop the whole thing. I guess the whole GUI thing really is important to Linux acceptance by users.

...sure, it seems great.......

[Canivour]

And it probably is. After reading the article I can see that it will have its highs and lows. Although the idea of icons on the desktop will remind me too much of KDE, GNOME, and all the rest. Ill end up checking it out to see if I like it, and thats assuming if ill even be running X since I enjoy the console so much :) .

logo?

[spyder913]

The mouse is a good symbol for Xfce, it's a small animal, smart and fast. The X can be seen as the X-Window symbol, so the whole logo symbolize a fast light environment for X ;-) Perfect logo IMO.

I'm just glad that I now know where the mouse on their logo came from, hehe =)