MX-21 RC1 feedback (Xfce)

[SwampRabbit]

Please be careful in your wordings, you're chasing them off

I used a

If you have to locate the fish please do so, I haven't been beaten up in awhile. :lipsrsealed:

I edited the post for clarity though

[Eadwine Rose]

Bend over please.

*giggles*

[entropyfoe]

SwampRabbit,

OK, I will update and test tonight or tomorrow. (with a reboot !) Thanks.

[entropyfoe]

SwampRabbit, yes that is perfect. All the windows have a line of 2 pixels of grey against the window header's black. There is a visible end where each overlapping window begins. For me, and I think many, it is an easier user visual interface, because you know where to grasp a specific window.

I had rotating wallpaper images, and one came up with a large black area, along with those overlapped black window headers, it was like a whole part of the screen went black.

I think this default is easy to use, and still has the blue line on the active window.

These are subtle things for usability, but they matter, as Jobs showed.
Thanks for the tweak, though as I said, it is not only for me. There are many themes available with tweak and it is easy to change them and experiment. Greybirds were working fine.

But we want the default look to be good and have good usability. For users and picky reviewers.

[markol]

I just noticed that on Slovenian (sl_SI) localization MX Updater popup says "Na voljo je [num] posodobitev" (not replacing num with actual number of updates)

[fehlix]

I just noticed that on Slovenian (sl_SI) localization MX Updater popup says "Na voljo je [num] posodobitev" (not replacing num with actual number of updates)

I guess someone needs to adjust the Slovenian translation on transifex
as the translations on transifex have not been made properly:

The English text: contains "{num}" in curly brackets

"You have {num} new updates avaialble"

But Slovenian translated text contains square brackets [num] within the translated plural forms
So the translation system based on gettext cannot find and substitude the placeholder "{num}" with the actual number.

[computerworm01001]

5. As mentioned, archive manager has. And even since several versions of MX. There are non-Gnome3 alternatives available, such as Xarchiver. One of those alternatives should be the default. It would add a lot for a consistent desktop.

I second the motion to use xarchiver in lieu of file-roller. Xarchiver has the exact same functionality as file-roller and looks more consistent with XFCE, even with XFCE 4.16's recent half-assed attempt at CSD.

[computerworm01001]

Just use libxfce4ui-nocsd like everyone else. Even SwampRabbit posted a screenshot showing libxfce4ui-nocsd so I don't know why he pretends it doesn't exist.

viewtopic.php?p=653087#p653087
https://imgur.com/a/pwJO0Pb

I explained it here so everyone (including MX devs) would understand how easy it is to turn off CSDs in Xfce 4.16 without any bugs or side effects. Sigh.
viewtopic.php?p=652602#p652602

Cool it! Did I say or pretend it doesn't exist? No I did not, no one has. The post of mine that you are linking to has nothing to do with CSD or no CSD... we were talking about Docklike Taskbar.

As already stated by dolphin, myself, and many other people since the Betas... the whole thing is flaky.... there's like 90 different nocsd implementations spread across the universe right now.

You know how to get it to perfectly work perfectly on MX... please explain to us dummies again and show us exactly how "everyone else" does it then... prove it works without any issues in any way on MX 21.

Right now we're working tons of different so called "easy" things for this RC .... we don't need no roundabout snide attitudes. I won't stand for this childish nonsense, noCSD can shove it for all I personally care, and I won't touch anything related to it until people grow up. Don't type my screen name... don't talk about the dev team or the community... RAWR!

I dont pretend it doesn't exist either, it just doesn't actually do what we wanted as it only affects Xfce apps that use libxfce4ui. but more power to you, it is an option.

Hello dolphin_oracle, SwampRabbit, dreamer, and everyone else this may concern. I know that this is a very emotionally charged topic, and I'm not trying to reignite any fires here. I simply want to let you all in on my experience with gtk3-nocsd, which I understand to have been the noCSD default for the previous iterations of MX-21. Here is a link to a couple of screenshots: https://postimg.cc/gallery/NFj3hVB (I tried to attach them, but they were too large).

Both of these were shot on the same day, with the most up-to-date software per the respective distro repos. The first image shows XFCE 4.16 with gtk3-nocsd in Artix (Arch-based linux without systemd components).The second image shows XFCE 4.16 with gtk3-nocsd in MX-21-beta2. As you can see, gtk3-nocsd works perfectly in Artix, but abysmally in MX-21. So I think that maybe the problem is in Debian's packaging of gtk3-nocsd. It may not be much of a clue to work on, however, I very much hope this helps you in some way.

I strongly believe that we should have the option to turn off CSD in XFCE, especially since the XFCE devs did such a (in my opinion) half-assed job of implementing CSD. Why did they have to do it? XFCE was perfectly fine without this feature. And if they absolutely felt that they must do it, why didn't they do it for all of the XFCE apps, instead of giving CSD to the System Settings dialogs, and ignoring the rest? Or they could have added a toggle themselves to give users the choice to use CSD or not use it. The current iteration of XFCE-CSD is almost as messy as Windows 10's mishmash of UWP and Win32 apps. Why, why, why did they have to do it???

Okay, so that went a bit beyond just sharing my experience, and veered into the realm of opinion. I'm sorry, MX devs. I know none of this is your fault. You're just doing the best you can with the mess that the XFCE devs have made. I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints and arguments about this. As always, I have nothing but love and respect for dolphin_oracle, Adrian, SwampRabbit, and all the rest of the MX devs. Thank you for all you do for us, the MX users. I need to get some sleep now, so I will post my more extensive review of MX-21-RC1 several hours from now.

Kind regards,
computerworm01001

[hebelwirkung]

Cool it! Did I say or pretend it doesn't exist? No I did not, no one has. The post of mine that you are linking to has nothing to do with CSD or no CSD... we were talking about Docklike Taskbar.

As already stated by dolphin, myself, and many other people since the Betas... the whole thing is flaky.... there's like 90 different nocsd implementations spread across the universe right now.

You know how to get it to perfectly work perfectly on MX... please explain to us dummies again and show us exactly how "everyone else" does it then... prove it works without any issues in any way on MX 21.

Right now we're working tons of different so called "easy" things for this RC .... we don't need no roundabout snide attitudes. I won't stand for this childish nonsense, noCSD can shove it for all I personally care, and I won't touch anything related to it until people grow up. Don't type my screen name... don't talk about the dev team or the community... RAWR!

I dont pretend it doesn't exist either, it just doesn't actually do what we wanted as it only affects Xfce apps that use libxfce4ui. but more power to you, it is an option.

Hello dolphin_oracle, SwampRabbit, dreamer, and everyone else this may concern. I know that this is a very emotionally charged topic, and I'm not trying to reignite any fires here. I simply want to let you all in on my experience with gtk3-nocsd, which I understand to have been the noCSD default for the previous iterations of MX-21. Here is a link to a couple of screenshots: https://postimg.cc/gallery/NFj3hVB (I tried to attach them, but they were too large).

Both of these were shot on the same day, with the most up-to-date software per the respective distro repos. The first image shows XFCE 4.16 with gtk3-nocsd in Artix (Arch-based linux without systemd components).The second image shows XFCE 4.16 with gtk3-nocsd in MX-21-beta2. As you can see, gtk3-nocsd works perfectly in Artix, but abysmally in MX-21. So I think that maybe the problem is in Debian's packaging of gtk3-nocsd. It may not be much of a clue to work on, however, I very much hope this helps you in some way.

I strongly believe that we should have the option to turn off CSD in XFCE, especially since the XFCE devs did such a (in my opinion) half-assed job of implementing CSD. Why did they have to do it? XFCE was perfectly fine without this feature. And if they absolutely felt that they must do it, why didn't they do it for all of the XFCE apps, instead of giving CSD to the System Settings dialogs, and ignoring the rest? Or they could have added a toggle themselves to give users the choice to use CSD or not use it. The current iteration of XFCE-CSD is almost as messy as Windows 10's mishmash of UWP and Win32 apps. Why, why, why did they have to do it???

Okay, so that went a bit beyond just sharing my experience, and veered into the realm of opinion. I'm sorry, MX devs. I know none of this is your fault. You're just doing the best you can with the mess that the XFCE devs have made. I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints and arguments about this. As always, I have nothing but love and respect for dolphin_oracle, Adrian, SwampRabbit, and all the rest of the MX devs. Thank you for all you do for us, the MX users. I need to get some sleep now, so I will post my more extensive review of MX-21-RC1 several hours from now.

Kind regards,
computerworm01001

Cool it! Did I say or pretend it doesn't exist? No I did not, no one has. The post of mine that you are linking to has nothing to do with CSD or no CSD... we were talking about Docklike Taskbar.

As already stated by dolphin, myself, and many other people since the Betas... the whole thing is flaky.... there's like 90 different nocsd implementations spread across the universe right now.

You know how to get it to perfectly work perfectly on MX... please explain to us dummies again and show us exactly how "everyone else" does it then... prove it works without any issues in any way on MX 21.

Right now we're working tons of different so called "easy" things for this RC .... we don't need no roundabout snide attitudes. I won't stand for this childish nonsense, noCSD can shove it for all I personally care, and I won't touch anything related to it until people grow up. Don't type my screen name... don't talk about the dev team or the community... RAWR!

I dont pretend it doesn't exist either, it just doesn't actually do what we wanted as it only affects Xfce apps that use libxfce4ui. but more power to you, it is an option.

Hello dolphin_oracle, SwampRabbit, dreamer, and everyone else this may concern. I know that this is a very emotionally charged topic, and I'm not trying to reignite any fires here. I simply want to let you all in on my experience with gtk3-nocsd, which I understand to have been the noCSD default for the previous iterations of MX-21. Here is a link to a couple of screenshots: https://postimg.cc/gallery/NFj3hVB (I tried to attach them, but they were too large).

Both of these were shot on the same day, with the most up-to-date software per the respective distro repos. The first image shows XFCE 4.16 with gtk3-nocsd in Artix (Arch-based linux without systemd components).The second image shows XFCE 4.16 with gtk3-nocsd in MX-21-beta2. As you can see, gtk3-nocsd works perfectly in Artix, but abysmally in MX-21. So I think that maybe the problem is in Debian's packaging of gtk3-nocsd. It may not be much of a clue to work on, however, I very much hope this helps you in some way.

I strongly believe that we should have the option to turn off CSD in XFCE, especially since the XFCE devs did such a (in my opinion) half-assed job of implementing CSD. Why did they have to do it? XFCE was perfectly fine without this feature. And if they absolutely felt that they must do it, why didn't they do it for all of the XFCE apps, instead of giving CSD to the System Settings dialogs, and ignoring the rest? Or they could have added a toggle themselves to give users the choice to use CSD or not use it. The current iteration of XFCE-CSD is almost as messy as Windows 10's mishmash of UWP and Win32 apps. Why, why, why did they have to do it???

Okay, so that went a bit beyond just sharing my experience, and veered into the realm of opinion. I'm sorry, MX devs. I know none of this is your fault. You're just doing the best you can with the mess that the XFCE devs have made. I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints and arguments about this. As always, I have nothing but love and respect for dolphin_oracle, Adrian, SwampRabbit, and all the rest of the MX devs. Thank you for all you do for us, the MX users. I need to get some sleep now, so I will post my more extensive review of MX-21-RC1 several hours from now.

Kind regards,
computerworm01001

The option to turn off CSD would be very welcome. I've read elsewhere that this apparently would be difficult to implement and, not having a clue about how these things are programmed, there's nothing useful I can say on that. I wish though a toggle were possible. I can sort of live with the esthetic aspects of it. What does annoy me is that windows using CSD can no longer be rolled up, which is a feature I use frequently. Now obviously, most of this is just a question of getting used to and retraining the hand not to resort to gestures one's become so used to. And some design decisions in XFCE 16 I quite like, for example the way they've made changes to the "save file as" dialogue.

That said, I agree with @computerworm01001 that I can't see a convincing answer to the question of why they made those changes in the first place. It feels like they got all excited over the gnome antics but decided half way through that it wasn't worth pursuing.

[SwampRabbit]

@entropyfoe you're welcome and you are absolutely right, it needs some refinement. I actually changed all 4 themes and made some minor nitpicking adjustments. I'd like to work on them more in the future, but we'll see.