MX Linux Forum

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:54 pm**

So there is a discussion on the Xfce forum about the future of Xfce, that Xfce devs have decided is tied to CSDs and headerbars down the path. I see this as destruction of the traditional DE that Xfce always was. Pretty brutal design if you ask me (spend some time looking at these screenshots carefully):
https://linuxreviews.org/Xfce_4.16

Xfce 4.16 will use "client side decorations" (CSD) or "GtkHeaderBars" which, in practical terms, means that window titles and a close button are shown instead of the regular window manager title bar. All the configuration dialog boxes in 4.16 have these client side decorations thanks to a change in libxfce4ui which makes every application using that library show a GtkHeaderBar instead of regular window title bars.

Those who do the work, the devs, are free to do whatever they want. However, I and many more are saddened by the loss of traditional Xfce. Xfce 4.14 was already a regression in a way because of immature GTK3 toolkit (right click menus, notification area, color picker etc.). But Xfce devs kept Xfce 4.14 clean. It's good and it isn't really possible to wish for more regarding a GTK3 port.

Xfce 4.16 isn't a problem today, but if you use Linux and Xfce because you LIKE it, then there might be trouble on the horizon. Half the fun is looking forward to improvements. I don't use a single CSD application. Well, except for Chrome from time to time, but Chrome has an option for normal titlebar (no CSD as I understand it).

Question to MX Linux users:
Will you stay with Xfce or use something else (another DE or WM)?

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:07 pm**

This subject has been posted before on the MX forums. I am looking for a replacement when the Xfce developers break Xfce with this by creating another Gnome. First I looked into KDE and the developers there have no intention of creating a Whisker menu for KDE which rules out KDE as a replacement because none of their application menus can be resized and all three feel clunky to use. The closest replacement I found to Xfce is Mate with the Brisk menu but no one can answer if it can be resized like the Whisker menu.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:09 pm**

I currently use gtk3-nocsd to get rid of CSD on the few gnomified apps (baobab, file-roller) we have packaged in MX. If that continues to work, or if Xfce 4.16 prvides some other way to turn off CSD, then I will stay with Xfce. Otherwise, I am prepared to leave - perhaps some wayland-based WM that doesn't do CSD (sway?) will be mature enough for my taste at that point. Or maybe I will try KDE again.

My issue is visually, I have a problem quickly identifying the window that has focus (assuming several on the screen at once) unless I can give it a unique brightly colored titlebar and border. Also, for security reasons, I don't want a client app to be able to spoof that it does or doesn't have focus by controlling the titlebar/border color itself.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:13 pm**

Does not bother me in the least.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:50 pm**

get used to gnome annexing any territory that that uses gtk. they dont care about anybody, theyre corporate sociopaths.

i would be absolutely thrilled if someone forked gtk. it was one of the best toolkits ever made.

but it gives gnome control of far too many projects, which it can then steamroll like its doing here. not for the first, time, not at all.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:58 pm**

Well, when they turn Xfce into GNOME Jr., I guess I will just go back to Fluxbox.

GTK3 is heavily tied into GNOME, the developers do not care at all if it breaks any other DE or WM.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:05 pm**

imschmeg wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:09 pm I currently use gtk3-nocsd to get rid of CSD on the few gnomified apps (baobab, file-roller) we have packaged in MX.

I forgot about file-roller, because I don't use it much. I have used Engrampa in MATE for a long time. It works well. I don't know what Linux Mint uses, but their X-apps were created to be traditional. Overall, I think Linux Mint is on the fence. They adopt a great deal of Gnomism, but still create their own thing.

richb wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:13 pm Does not bother me in the least.

You have two different "titlebars" with different shadows. Also ridiculous placement of Help and Close buttons.

Thunar-1.8.5git-4ce1e9ac-preferences.jpg

If it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. Nothing more to say about that.

I feel that if Linux wants to be taken seriously, better not go down the Gnome route.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:11 pm**

jeffreyC wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:58 pmGTK3 is heavily tied into GNOME, the developers do not care at all if it breaks any other DE or WM.

software that isnt modular ultimately does this. we really should, next to the free software movement, have a movement that eschews as much software as possible that isnt modular. when developers try to force you to use things you dont want or need, its a bad sign. and dishonest ones deny it, but this isnt about developer freedom-- its about developers absolutely giving the finger to users. i wish gnome was the only example of this.

of course its all relative. modularity only goes so far before it gets cumbersome. gnome goes in the other direction-- but not without warning. it has done this sort of thing on smaller levels for 10 years. if users dont push back, this sort of abuse will go on forever. if gnome were the only example, if i couldnt think of several mainstream examples of this sort of thing-- it wouldnt take a movement.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:11 pm**

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:03 pm**

"de-commoditising protocols" -- halloween documents, 1998

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:33 pm**

Dearest Xfce Devs,

We like your product more than Gnome. We're sorry that you have a problem with this.

Love (for now),
non-CSDers

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:49 pm**

imschmeg wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:33 pm Dearest Xfce Devs,

We like your product more than Gnome. We're sorry that you have a problem with this.

Love (for now),
non-CSDers

<3

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:20 pm**

Help make me smarter. What's the matter with CSD? It looks like a walk in the park to me. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2020/01/xfc ... decoration, and https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.16/roadm ... ral_ui/csd

What am I missing?

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:29 pm**

While I prefer the no-CSD look, I've been running MX the past few years with CSD apps (gnome-sudoku, Archive manager aka file-roller, simple-scan, lollypop music player, gthumb, oomox, evince for a short period) co-existing with the non-CSD stuff.

I have decided that I can live with the mixed look.

[ADDED - of course, a lot depends on the overall performance of XFCE 4.16 when it does come out. I will get an earlier look at its gradual development since I run Manjaro XFCE as well, and it'll probably roll the new changes even before 4.16 becomes final (ie, 4.15+), once a large chunk of the work is done. So we'll see. Anything happens, I have LXDE and Budgie respectively as a second DE on my 2 Manjaro installs.]

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:34 pm**

figueroa wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:20 pm Help make me smarter. What's the matter with CSD?

there is not much wrong with options.

whats wrong with breaking things that collective millions of people use, then telling them to switch to it? nothing, if its optional. gnome has an adversarial relationship with options. they dont like them, they dont want you to have them. thats the real problem here. the example is fairly new-- the problem is not. its more of a modus operandi at this point.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:34 pm**

The only thing that I see that CSD "breaks", from looking at the various images, are the Window Manager-themed titlebars. It's too soon to tell how Xfce 4.16 will handle window manager theming so maybe that will be addressed by the time it's released in a couple of years or so. The icons in the upper right to minimize, window and maximize apps are still there, just a bit further down. Actually I think those windows in Xfce 4.16 with CSD look less old-fashioned and more polished. It should please Dedoimedo anyway. And it's not anything we need to be concerned about until perhaps MX-22.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:38 pm**

JayM wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:34 pm The only thing that I see that CSD "breaks", from looking at the various images, are the Window Manager-themed titlebars. The icons in the upper right to minimize, window and maximize apps are still there, just a bit further down.

so the only thing it breaks is the ability of window managers to decorate windows.

or (unless this is inaccurate, please let me know if so-- im interested in the truth here) it basically breaks the ability of a window manager built with gtk to do one of its primary tasks (which is to control the appearance of window decorations.)

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:42 pm**

freemedia2018 wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:38 pm
JayM wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:34 pm The only thing that I see that CSD "breaks", from looking at the various images, are the Window Manager-themed titlebars. The icons in the upper right to minimize, window and maximize apps are still there, just a bit further down.
so the only thing it breaks is the ability of window managers to decorate windows.

or (unless this is inaccurate, please let me know if so-- im interested in the truth here) it basically breaks the ability of a window manager built with gtk to do one of its primary tasks (which is to control the appearance of window decorations.)

We're looking at a few screenshots taken from probably an alpha release so it's too soon to tell how Xfwm 4.16 is going to handle theming.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:46 pm**

I feel sorry for the Xfce devs. It's like "damned if they do, damned if they don't." They were criticized for Xfce 4.14 only making under the hood changes and improvements while on the surface it was still the same old Xfce DE for the most part. Now they want to do something to modernize its appearance and they're getting jumped on for that too.

Personally I don't really care as long as it 1. works without hogging resources or slowing my computer down and 2. stays out of my way.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:56 pm**

So far, devs can still choose to use gtk3 toolkit without using CSD, I think. That's why you can have gtk3 geany and pcmanfm, for example, which still have no CSD. Or Cinnamon's nemo file manager.

So if XFCE chooses to go all CSD, it will only affect their native apps. What will affect me personally the most is Thunar and probably xfce4-terminal. If Thunar starts to annoy me in future (which was the case with gnome's Nautilus after it got gnome3-ified and crippled), I'll just install pcmanfm or Nemo.

I still use geany over mousepad or even MX's default featherpad (which is a QT app).

And frankly how many native XFCE apps are used in MX? We don't use mousepad or parole by default. Instead of parole, we have Clementine and VLC. We have nomacs, which is an independent viewer (and has its own theming), instead of ristretto.

XFCE Terminal - again, let's see. The thing that annoyed me about gnome-terminal currently is the loss of transparency and insistence of removing the menubar (you can reinstate it for a session but it doesn't stick, even if you use the dconf settings to try to set it by default). In AUR, there is a patched version of gnome-terminal with transparency, so I assume it can be done.

Really, a lot depends on the XFCE devs' choices.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:59 pm**

JayM wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:46 pm I feel sorry for the Xfce devs. It's like "damned if they do, damned if they don't." They were criticized for Xfce 4.14 only making under the hood changes and improvements while on the surface it was still the same old Xfce DE for the most part. Now they want to do something to modernize its appearance and they're getting jumped on for that too.

that always sucks. it shouldnt be hopeless from a dev standpoint. modernisation is a tricky word-- its used by google to mean "we are a huge for-profit corporation only supporting three browsers, but we dont want people saying we are proprietary or guilty of anti-trust-- so we are just going to say 'use a modern browser' instead"

this word gets thrown around a lot in some pretty illegitimate rationalisations for things. on the one hand, i have always appreciated the commitment to users that xfce has, over gnome and over other projects. on the other hand, ive watched a lot of projects get taken over, and its too early to say if thats happening. for what its worth, these complaints are the sort that people make as projects get taken over and sabotaged. im not saying thats happened to xfce, only that i watch things like this and continue to formulate theories regarding the state of the free software ecosystem. if this is NOT an example of a project being taken over, then im very happy that its an exception to the rule. not only are exceptions possible, they are a first goal! xfce has always resisted annoying, useless fashion trends. thats a feature.

asqwerth wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:56 pm So if XFCE chooses to go all CSD, it will only affect their native apps.

interesting.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:37 pm**

figueroa wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:20 pm Help make me smarter. What's the matter with CSD? It looks like a walk in the park to me. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2020/01/xfc ... decoration, and https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.16/roadm ... ral_ui/csd

What am I missing?

My argument against CSD is not the same as most others. Most people argue against it based on visual appeal or personal control. My problem is that my vision is impaired to the point where I cannot easily pick up low contrast differences on a computer screen. If there are several CSD windows on the screen at once, I can have trouble determining which among them has the focus. There are subtle but not user-controllable hints distinguishing which window has focus under CSD that are quite obvious to others, but I might not pick them up unless I get very close to the screen. Or strain my eyes. This is both annoying and a bit of a security problem, as I do not want to do something like type a password when the wrong window has focus. I have tried Debian with Gnome, but can't use it for this reason (although for other security reasons, I really want to use wayland instead of Xorg, if/when wayland becomes truly ready for prime time).

The theme I use in Xfce has brightly colored titlebar and borders that are very different when the window is active vs. not. I need those highlight hints for all windows in whatever WM or DE I use.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:53 am**

Maybe the only thing that I think will really get to me is the big fat title bars, but it seems there are some temp workarounds for that.

I'm packaging something right now that a user requested from the application developer to start implementing some fancy GTK3 stuff.
The user gave mock window layouts and they weren't bad, just a bit different.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:56 am**

imschmeg wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:37 pm ....My problem is that my vision is impaired to the point where I cannot easily pick up low contrast differences on a computer screen. If there are several CSD windows on the screen at once, I can have trouble determining which among them has the focus. There are subtle but not user-controllable hints distinguishing which window has focus under CSD that are quite obvious to others, but I might not pick them up unless I get very close to the screen. Or strain my eyes. This is both annoying and a bit of a security problem, as I do not want to do something like type a password when the wrong window has focus. I have tried Debian with Gnome, but can't use it for this reason (although for other security reasons, I really want to use wayland instead of Xorg, if/when wayland becomes truly ready for prime time).

The theme I use in Xfce has brightly colored titlebar and borders that are very different when the window is active vs. not. I need those highlight hints for all windows in whatever WM or DE I use.

Let me check on some gtk themes and get back to you maybe tomorrow.

It might come down to finding a theme that implements a difference between active and inactive windows that is visible enough for you.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:23 am**

Maybe Lxqt is the future ???

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:30 am**

LU344928 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:23 am Maybe Lxqt is the future ???

Personally I really don't like it.

Tried it before in Sparky, Artix (not antiX).

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:56 am**

asqwerth wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:30 am
LU344928 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:23 am Maybe Lxqt is the future ???
Personally I really don't like it.

Tried it before in Sparky, Artix (not antiX).

Sure, no Whisker menu but having used LXDE a lot I like it's simplicity and I believe LXDE development is almost at an end and they're handing it over to Lxqt.

However, one thing in Lxqt that does annoy me is when you log out or shutdown down you always get a nag screen saying "If you leave now you will lose all unsaved work. Are you sure?'

I wouldn't mind so much if there was a field saying 'Don't ask again' that you could check but there isn't. Either the devs have overlooked this annoyance or they're treating us like, well, perhaps I shouldn't use that...

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:00 am**

JayM wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:46 pm I feel sorry for the Xfce devs. It's like "damned if they do, damned if they don't." They were criticized for Xfce 4.14 only making under the hood changes and improvements while on the surface it was still the same old Xfce DE for the most part. Now they want to do something to modernize its appearance and they're getting jumped on for that too.

Personally I don't really care as long as it 1. works without hogging resources or slowing my computer down and 2. stays out of my way.

That's because the Xfce developers ignore their user base and go off in the opposite direction in some cases like this CSD idea they have. In the https://forum.xfce.org/ there are many good recommendations that get ignored.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:50 am**

dreamer wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:54 pm Question to MX Linux users:
Will you stay with Xfce or use something else (another DE or WM)?

I would be very disappointed if I can't use my custom window manager theme with Xfce as I do currently and have been for many years.
Not sure if I'd leave MX because of it though.
Hopefully by the time this change is forced on everyone someone will have a fix/workaround/different option available so those of us that love Xfce can continue to happily use it.
I guess the coding side of it is very complicated but if it's possible for the devs to give users the simple choice of yes or no, that would probably be very much appreciated.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:18 am**

The Xfce dev team is likely smaller than that of MX, and all volunteers. I'm sure they listen to their users judging from some of their comments on those forum pages linked earlier. I suspect they even may be considering going in that direction because it may be a lot harder not to, due to GTK being subject to the whims of Gnome devs.
Please restrict your negative comments about Xfce devs. Or go join their team and help code.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:42 am**

sunrat wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:18 am The Xfce dev team is likely smaller than that of MX, and all volunteers. I'm sure they listen to their users judging from some of their comments on those forum pages linked earlier. I suspect they even may be considering going in that direction because it may be a lot harder not to, due to GTK being subject to the whims of Gnome devs.
Please restrict your negative comments about Xfce devs. Or go join their team and help code.

I disagree. They listen while they offer support but when it comes to development it doesn't look that way. Changing is easier than leaving it alone?

I am not a coder. The MX Linux developers listen to there user based just as every good development team does. Why can't the Xfce developers do the same?

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:20 am**

Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:42 am
sunrat wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:18 am Please restrict your negative comments about Xfce devs. Or go join their team and help code.
I disagree. They listen while they offer support but when it comes to development it doesn't look that way. Changing is easier than leaving it alone? I am not a coder. The MX Linux developers listen to there user based just as every good development team does. Why can't the Xfce developers do the same?

Yeah, this isn't primarily about the devs. It's about Xfce which has many users. If you develop something used by many there is responsibility. You don't have to care about this responsibility, but the result will be angry users. That's just the logical effect.

There seems to be some internal struggle, basically Simon pushing CSDs, while other devs may be more skeptical. Simon has done good work for Xfce, but this is a radical departure for Xfce. Especially since Xfce is a good home for those who want a small, modular and efficient desktop environment aka not Gnome.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:38 am**

JmaCWQ wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:50 am Not sure if I'd leave MX because of it though.

ive used antix, problems with xfce wouldnt stop me from using mx. id just remove xfce (from the live dvd) and add something else.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:40 am**

Mauser wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:07 pm First I looked into KDE and the developers there have no intention of creating a Whisker menu for KDE which rules out KDE as a replacement because none of their application menus can be resized and all three feel clunky to use. The closest replacement I found to Xfce is Mate with the Brisk menu but no one can answer if it can be resized like the Whisker menu.

I would think LXQt's developers would be the most open to taking it in this direction. I was just googling about it, and found a thread from back in 2015 saying they want it.

I don't know much about this, but from some comments I've read: KDE uses Qt as well, so LXQt & KDE can share a lot of packages. If that's true, porting/creating the whisker menu could make it available for both desktops(?). That might create more incentive for someone to do that? LXQt is gaining more use. Manjaro has had a user-created distro for a few years. SparkyLinux has a LXQt version.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:58 pm**

dreamer wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:20 am
Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:42 am
sunrat wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:18 am Please restrict your negative comments about Xfce devs. Or go join their team and help code.
I disagree. They listen while they offer support but when it comes to development it doesn't look that way. Changing is easier than leaving it alone? I am not a coder. The MX Linux developers listen to there user based just as every good development team does. Why can't the Xfce developers do the same?
Yeah, this isn't primarily about the devs. It's about Xfce which has many users. If you develop something used by many there is responsibility. You don't have to care about this responsibility, but the result will be angry users. That's just the logical effect.

There seems to be some internal struggle, basically Simon pushing CSDs, while other devs may be more skeptical. Simon has done good work for Xfce, but this is a radical departure for Xfce. Especially since Xfce is a good home for those who want a small, modular and efficient desktop environment aka not Gnome.

Thank you for clarifying it.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm**

az2020 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:40 am
Mauser wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:07 pm First I looked into KDE and the developers there have no intention of creating a Whisker menu for KDE which rules out KDE as a replacement because none of their application menus can be resized and all three feel clunky to use. The closest replacement I found to Xfce is Mate with the Brisk menu but no one can answer if it can be resized like the Whisker menu.
I would think LXQt's developers would be the most open to taking it in this direction. I was just googling about it, and found a thread from back in 2015 saying they want it.

I don't know much about this, but from some comments I've read: KDE uses Qt as well, so LXQt & KDE can share a lot of packages. If that's true, porting/creating the whisker menu could make it available for both desktops(?). That might create more incentive for someone to do that? LXQt is gaining more use. Manjaro has had a user-created distro for a few years. SparkyLinux has a LXQt version.

In my experience I don't find them to be a trustworthy source. From what I understand if I understand correctly is the Whisker menu is built with the Gtk tool kit while LXQt & KDE are both built with the Qt tool kit which that difference doesn't look good for the Whisker menu being added to either LXQt or KDE. From what I understand the Whisker menu would have to be rebuilt using the Qt tool kit in order to work on KDE. I did make a request to the KDE developers to add the Whisker menu to the three application menus, but based on their response they had no idea what the Whisker menu is. This means the KDE developers don't look at what the competition is doing. Perhaps they are so busy and wrapped up in development. I showed them and described to them the Whisker menu but they didn't seem to have any interest in it. I could live with the Application Launcher in KDE if I could resize it so easily like the Whisker menu but when I ask the KDE developers they once again act like they don't understand and it doesn't seem like they will add that feature. Perhaps they are so busy and became lost in KDE since it has so many features already. With the speed of Xfce development we probably won't see what the Xfce developers actually do in at least 5 years which is a big plus for all of us. Also this gives the MX Linux developers to come out with work arounds if Xfce gets ruined.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:36 pm**

Mauser looks like you and I think alike. Maybe if needed in the future the xfce-panel could be made to run under LXQT, and then we get the whisker menu in LXQT that way? Kind of like a PeppermintOS mashup with MX?

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:09 pm**

Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm In my experience I don't find them to be a trustworthy source. From what I understand if I understand correctly is the Whisker menu is built with the Gtk tool kit while LXQt & KDE are both built with the Qt tool kit which that difference doesn't look good for the Whisker menu being added to either LXQt or KDE.

From what followed in your post, I assume you mean KDE isn't trustworthy(?). The link to Manjaro says the LXQt people were jonesing for Xfce's whisker. LXQt's community might be more welcoming of someone wanting to implement it with the Qt framework?

IMO, LXQt is kind of odd. It started out intending to be an exact recreation of LXDE. But, it seems like they're adding some newness to it. Some people were unhappy with the direction LXDE took with this, the higher resource usage (Lubuntu deprioritized being lightweight). My impression was that LXQt/Lubuntu were letting things flow where they will. That might have been a good strategy because now Xfce is getting larger. LXQt might be the lightweight desktop again (relative to others).

Another thing that seems odd to me: I've read someone remark how LXQt is essentially competing against KDE. Neon KDE isn't that large (I just installed 20 distros. I did it a year ago too. I was surprise then and now how KDE is relativlely lightweight. It has a lot of config items to disable eye candy and animations. When you do that, it's in MX's territory.). That makes me wonder why the LXQt peple didn't just create a KDE-light desktop instead of something new from scratch.

Anyway, it has seemed like LXQt is creating a new "brand" (so to speak), finding a new niche. Especially as other distros evolve. It seems to me they'd be the most welcoming of an effort to bring Whisker to Qt. (And then, I think that would be useable in KDE too.).

I personally have always liked KDE. It reminds me of OS/2 for some reason. I wasn't very fond of LXQt a year ago. But, that could just be my own aversion to change. I just booted a Lubuntu 20.04 alpha the other day, and I thought LXQt looked nicer than I remember 19.4 being.

It's interesting how these things are evolving. A year or two ago, people were upset about LXDE being replaced with Qt. Xfce was the baseline of comparison. Now the spot light's on Xfce doing something new. Maybe this is LXQt's opportunity to be the baseline. (KDE used to be synonymous with large. Now it's in the mid-range compared to Mint Cinnamon, Zorin Core
or Elementary OS.).

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:18 pm**

A year or two ago, people were upset about LXDE being replaced with Qt. Xfce was the baseline of comparison. Now the spot light's on Xfce doing something new. Maybe this is LXQt's opportunity to be the baseline.

people who were happy with the way things were are probably going to be unhappy no matter what. despite what this could sound like, im on their side with this.

what i would like is something that is so profoundly and easily scriptable that once people are happy with it, they can keep it the way they want for 15-20 years.

that way when people make these changes, theyre only to a layout file-- not to a binary-- and people who liked it "the old way" can just use an older layout. honestly, machine learning is doing all kinds of amazing things (probably wont help directly, im not saying it does) and we cant even get icons and titlebars right. not a specific critique of xfce-- this is the entire ecosystem of free (better than non-free, sure-- but how much?) gui toolkits im taking issue with.

why cant they just make THEMES extend to LAYOUT so that big changes dont affect people who dont actually want to be affected? it really shouldnt be so hard to give choices here. its only hard due to the fact that they make it hard-- first for themselves. then for the rest of us. somebody-- no, i dont know who-- really ought to help these people. perhaps someday. this isnt rocket science. its only complicated if the toolkit developers want it to be. (they want it to be.)

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:26 pm**

sometimes devs do things to keep themselves interested, else they get bored and wander off, which isn't good for anyone.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:58 pm**

az2020 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:09 pm
Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm In my experience I don't find them to be a trustworthy source. From what I understand if I understand correctly is the Whisker menu is built with the Gtk tool kit while LXQt & KDE are both built with the Qt tool kit which that difference doesn't look good for the Whisker menu being added to either LXQt or KDE.
From what followed in your post, I assume you mean KDE isn't trustworthy(?). The link to Manjaro says the LXQt people were jonesing for Xfce's whisker. LXQt's community might be more welcoming of someone wanting to implement it with the Qt framework?

IMO, LXQt is kind of odd. It started out intending to be an exact recreation of LXDE. But, it seems like they're adding some newness to it. Some people were unhappy with the direction LXDE took with this, the higher resource usage (Lubuntu deprioritized being lightweight). My impression was that LXQt/Lubuntu were letting things flow where they will. That might have been a good strategy because now Xfce is getting larger. LXQt might be the lightweight desktop again (relative to others).

Another thing that seems odd to me: I've read someone remark how LXQt is essentially competing against KDE. Neon KDE isn't that large (I just installed 20 distros. I did it a year ago too. I was surprise then and now how KDE is relativlely lightweight. It has a lot of config items to disable eye candy and animations. When you do that, it's in MX's territory.). That makes me wonder why the LXQt peple didn't just create a KDE-light desktop instead of something new from scratch.

Anyway, it has seemed like LXQt is creating a new "brand" (so to speak), finding a new niche. Especially as other distros evolve. It seems to me they'd be the most welcoming of an effort to bring Whisker to Qt. (And then, I think that would be useable in KDE too.).

I personally have always liked KDE. It reminds me of OS/2 for some reason. I wasn't very fond of LXQt a year ago. But, that could just be my own aversion to change. I just booted a Lubuntu 20.04 alpha the other day, and I thought LXQt looked nicer than I remember 19.4 being.

It's interesting how these things are evolving. A year or two ago, people were upset about LXDE being replaced with Qt. Xfce was the baseline of comparison. Now the spot light's on Xfce doing something new. Maybe this is LXQt's opportunity to be the baseline. (KDE used to be synonymous with large. Now it's in the mid-range compared to Mint Cinnamon, Zorin Core
or Elementary OS.).

I don't mean that. You got it all wrong.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:07 pm**

nathan2423 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:36 pm Mauser looks like you and I think alike. Maybe if needed in the future the xfce-panel could be made to run under LXQT, and then we get the whisker menu in LXQT that way? Kind of like a PeppermintOS mashup with MX?

Yes, if it could be done. But Peppermint uses LXDE not LXQt. So it may be possible with LXDE because it's built with the Gtk tool kit. LXQt is built with the Qt tool kit which would be possible less likely to do that.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:13 pm**

dolphin_oracle wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:26 pm sometimes devs do things to keep themselves interested, else they get bored and wander off, which isn't good for anyone.

i know this, i do it too. but i also teach and encourage people how to make their own versions of the stuff i make-- to customise it to their hearts delight. its interesting (one of my primary interests, something ive spent more than a year on) to find the limitations of how much that attitude really scales-- and why. there are projects that used to encourage such things, only to eventually ridicule and discourage it. that shift is imo one of the most relevant problems in free software in this century.

i dont take things that people are counting on and then sabotage them. i wish i could single out one project, rather than create a growing list of examples. its so common a problem i connect it to encroaching influences-- with historical promises of doing such a thing strategically. there is a libreplanet talk and/or essay coming out on this subject (not from me) and while xfce (gtk) is not the example, there are a few examples that are more prominent, one NOT discussed a lot on this forum, which is the example used in the talk or essay. a lot of people are OK with this, and some people are going to be ok with it no matter what. funny thing, when you make changes, some people like them. and by itself, short of obviously relevant context-- thats certainly no problem at all. if youre happy, its probably great.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:14 pm**

Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:07 pm Yes, if it could be done. But Peppermint uses LXDE not LXQt. So it may be possible with LXDE because it's built with the Gtk tool kit. LXQt is built with the Qt tool kit which would be possible less likely to do that.

Peppermint uses Xfce, and with some things LXDE (lxsession, lxappearance). The Peppermint wikipedia page says it uses LXDE. But, last April I asked about that. I was planning to leave Lubuntu, and worried Peppermint faced the same problem Lubuntu did (with LXDE having no future). They said it's a hybrid Xfce environment.

The way so many Xfce distros look so different... it seems like whatever Xfce does going forward could be overridden. (Hopefully). I never liked Xfce, such as Xubuntu. But, some of the distros just don't look like X (the way I thought it normally looked.).

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:25 pm**

freemedia2018 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:18 pm
A year or two ago, people were upset about LXDE being replaced with Qt. Xfce was the baseline of comparison. Now the spot light's on Xfce doing something new. Maybe this is LXQt's opportunity to be the baseline.
people who were happy with the way things were are probably going to be unhappy no matter what. despite what this could sound like, im on their side with this.

what i would like is something that is so profoundly and easily scriptable that once people are happy with it, they can keep it the way they want for 15-20 years.

that way when people make these changes, theyre only to a layout file-- not to a binary-- and people who liked it "the old way" can just use an older layout. honestly, machine learning is doing all kinds of amazing things (probably wont help directly, im not saying it does) and we cant even get icons and titlebars right. not a specific critique of xfce-- this is the entire ecosystem of free (better than non-free, sure-- but how much?) gui toolkits im taking issue with.

why cant they just make THEMES extend to LAYOUT so that big changes dont affect people who dont actually want to be affected? it really shouldnt be so hard to give choices here. its only hard due to the fact that they make it hard-- first for themselves. then for the rest of us. somebody-- no, i dont know who-- really ought to help these people. perhaps someday. this isnt rocket science. its only complicated if the toolkit developers want it to be. (they want it to be.)

GTK3 is a corporate (Red Hat) product built to work with another product of the same corporation (GNOME). They actively oppose any and all theming to protect the brand identity of their employers products. This is why every new release breaks themes built against the previous releases.

They do not care if it breaks anything but their specific version of GNOME. Xfce? What's that?

Old but still true:
https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/11 ... in-threes/

These devs are not doing it to scratch an itch, they are collecting a paycheck so they are going to do what the employer says.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:38 pm**

az2020 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:14 pm
Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:07 pm Yes, if it could be done. But Peppermint uses LXDE not LXQt. So it may be possible with LXDE because it's built with the Gtk tool kit. LXQt is built with the Qt tool kit which would be possible less likely to do that.
Peppermint uses Xfce, and with some things LXDE (lxsession, lxappearance). The Peppermint wikipedia page says it uses LXDE. But, last April I asked about that. I was planning to leave Lubuntu, and worried Peppermint faced the same problem Lubuntu did (with LXDE having no future). They said it's a hybrid Xfce environment.

The way so many Xfce distros look so different... it seems like whatever Xfce does going forward could be overridden. (Hopefully). I never liked Xfce, such as Xubuntu. But, some of the distros just don't look like X (the way I thought it normally looked.).

I know that. I tried Peppermint before, but earlier you said it uses LXQt and not LXDE which use two different desktop environments with two completely different tool kits. The one must change I would do is get rid of Nemo and use Thunar instead because Nemo is horrible for copy & paste multiple files when some files are being already in where you paste them.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:39 pm**

I'm appreciating all the comments, but I hear a lot of incessant whining about changes to things they use but neither develop or pay for. Why not just be a lot more appreciative for the developers who keep XFCE stable, compatible, and robust in a changing world. I like the snails pace development of XFCE, and how they have successfully avoided feature creep and change for the sake of change.

Likewise, I quite like the slower development pace of LXDE, and I think the rumors of its demise are not panning out. LXQt, on the other hand seems to be perennially unusable as a primary desktop.

Now that I know more, I'm not worried about changes to XFCE.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:25 pm**

Hi,
sorry dass ich Deutsch schreibe, kann nicht Englisch. - Möchte etwas zu XFCE sagen. Ich mag es sehr, weil es leicht konfigurierbar ist. Ich kann es schon fast blind einstellen, das gefällt mir. Verliere mit den Einstellungen wenig Zeit, alles geht schnell. - Es gibt daher viele Leute, die auch XFCE mögen. Man merkt es indirekt überall. => Manjaro, dann MX-Linux, die sind dadurch schnell in die erste Reihe gekommen. => Distrowatch ist zwar kein ganz objektiver Maßstab, aber diese Statistiken sagen doch etwas über die Vorlieben der User: wenn man beispielsweise alle Ubuntu-Distris bei Distrowatch anguckt, man sieht sofort, Xubuntu ist statistisch deutlich populärer als die anderen Buntu-Distributionen (dabei stabiler ist sie nicht!!!).

Liebe MX-Linux!!! Danke den Entwicklern!!! toni11

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:39 pm**

figueroa wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:39 pm I'm appreciating all the comments, but I hear a lot of incessant whining about changes to things they use but neither develop or pay for.

simple rule:

dont break stuff out of greed and break free software to make it more controlled, then insult people for not liking it when they know what youre doing and why-- when its worked fine for two decades. you have a weird concept of "appreciation" too, when youre not even the person who started the thread.

instead of complaining about "whining" why not just ignore the "whiners". i sincerely hope that will include me, as we obviously have nothing to talk about. no worries-- ignore is a feature for the greater good. it makes forums nicer for everybody. i dont intend to mention it again. also, how do you know what people have paid for?

jefferyc: preaching to the choir. which is alright, but right there with you.

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:50 pm**

It would be interesting to come back to this thread in a year or two, and see how people feel. Last April I did not like Lubuntu 19.4 & LXQt. But today it doesn't look bad. (The Linux Lite guy pronounced a few years ago that it would never -- ever! -- have UEFI support. I think he's about to disassociate from that with the upcoming LL 5.0.). '''

Why do we make so much out of seemingly trivial things (in retrospect, anyway) -- but, the Grub is accepted without complaint? That's one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity. I just edited a line to change splash quiet. It was like I was on a 300 baud connection (press a key, wait a second). WTF? We all go along with that like it's the new normal. But, title bars. Look out!

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:30 pm**

az2020 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:50 pm Why do we make so much out of seemingly trivial things (in retrospect, anyway) -- but, the Grub is accepted without complaint?

thankfully, sometimes these things turn out to be no big deal. i dont know if this is one of those, i think people had some valid complaints, but youll always have some people who are happy and some who are unhappy. often the reason for the change is actually unnecessary and avoidable-- even reasonably so. sometimes the intentions are good-- some changes really are almost indisputably excellent.

grub(2, i assume you mean) wasnt accepted without complaint though. they eventually shut us up, if only by giving us something else to dislike more. another thing is, if you really hate grub you can run mx from grub4dos instead, or even syslinux if you want to do some fancy footwork. you still have choices there-- if you have uefi, it may make a few of those for you though.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:11 pm**

What is wrong with CSD? Looks great! More modern. The only thing I would not loose is the whisker menu:-) This is, why I am on MX-Linux.
What are the pros and cons? Please no religious debate - like there is on systemd :-)

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:19 pm**

elementaryOX wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:11 pm What is wrong with CSD? Looks great! More modern. The only thing I would not loose is the whisker menu:-) This is, why I am on MX-Linux.
What are the pros and cons? Please no religious debate - like there is on systemd :-)

See:
viewtopic.php?f=93&t=56087&start=20#p558779

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:24 pm**

The 'normal' user is a strange spezies. He wants that things (MX-Linux and Xfce also) grew better everyday - but he dislikes changes :-)

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:17 pm**

elementaryOX wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:11 pm What is wrong with CSD? Looks great! More modern. The only thing I would not loose is the whisker menu:-) This is, why I am on MX-Linux.
What are the pros and cons? Please no religious debate - like there is on systemd :-)

What is wrong with CSD? It looks like Gnome. If I want Gnome I would use Gnome instead of Xfce. If CSD was optional it wouldn't be an issue because you then have a choice to use what you like.

figueroa wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:39 pm I'm appreciating all the comments, but I hear a lot of incessant whining about changes to things they use but neither develop or pay for. Why not just be a lot more appreciative for the developers who keep XFCE stable, compatible, and robust in a changing world. I like the snails pace development of XFCE, and how they have successfully avoided feature creep and change for the sake of change.

Likewise, I quite like the slower development pace of LXDE, and I think the rumors of its demise are not panning out. LXQt, on the other hand seems to be perennially unusable as a primary desktop.

Now that I know more, I'm not worried about changes to XFCE.

Your comments show the opposite of appreciating all the comments by showing lack of manners by attacking anyone that are not a developers or pay for Xfce and that people are not allowed to voice opinions on it thinking you are better than everyone else. It's not whining, it's people voicing their opinion of the idea of Xfce developers going with CSD by making it look like Gnome. Many people including myself appreciate the work that the Xfce developers have done so far, but many people including myself feel that changing to CSD is not a good idea by creating another Gnome. Only time will tell what the end result and hope that the Xfce developers will change their minds by not going with CSD. There are other alternatives if they go through with implementing CSD.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:43 pm**

Let’s all remain civil and stay on topic please.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:35 pm**

one of the reasons people use xfce (including me, when ive used it) is that they DONT want one of the fad-chasing desktops.

xfce is probably the most stable one. if they start changing, there are basically zero options for this particular feature-- xfce was the last option that regard.

i dont hate lxqt but i dont love it-- i liked lxde more. oh well.

xfce is reliable. this change could make it less reliable.

having to constantly explain why stability is a desired feature, to people who get bored and seek entertainment (rather than reliability, stability or familiarity) in their desktop design, is weird. you would think that isnt too hard a preference to understand, but other people want what they want. they dont understand why you would want what YOU want. you explain, and its still a mystery to them. go figure.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:12 pm**

freemedia2018 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:35 pm one of the reasons people use xfce (including me, when ive used it) is that they DONT want one of the fad-chasing desktops.

xfce is probably the most stable one. if they start changing, there are basically zero options for this particular feature-- xfce was the last option that regard.

Someone brought up Mate, which I had used once. I think it qualifies as having "won't chase fads" as part of its manifesto. I am tempted to try it out again, see if can get a dark theme that I like.

Right now, Xfce has a very nice combination of things I haven't had all at once before. The ability to customize titlebars and borders to my liking is still pretty common, especially among lighter weight WMs like fluxbox or icewm. But getting good consistent dark themes on those lighter WMs is hard - I haven't had much luck across the board. Closest on MX fluxbox, but still not as good as standard MX Xfce. I am also a big fan of the Papirus icon theme due to its lack of gradients and shadows (which reduce contrast) and simple but distinct coloration (which enhance contrast), yet still looks appealing. The combination of these helped attract me to MX, along with the awesome MX toolset, of course.

As for those "religious" critics of CSD: I am mostly afraid of creeping-Gnomism, where many other WM and DE dev teams move in the CSD direction for various reasons, and then drop the ability to disable it because why bother maintaining that. As the "religious" crowd has much larger numbers than the "please keep a high contrast GUI option that doesn't suck" crowd, they're right now my allies in the battle to prevent creeping-Gnomism from taking over.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:17 pm**

freemedia2018 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:35 pmi dont hate lxqt but i dont love it-- i liked lxde more. oh well.

I'm sorry, but your posts have much the same rude tone of some of the rants in the XFCE forums. That tone is not very consistent with what is usually read here in the MX forum. Even so, I'm glad for the thread here and all the posts here about the XFCE roadmap. I've learned things.

One can still use LXDE. I've been using LXDE with it's default WM OpenBox for about 10 years on my main desktop under Gentoo and I'm still loving it. But I'm also happy with MX and it's XFCE DE, and don't agree with those who are insisting that CSD will be the end of the world.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:29 pm**

Mauser wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:17 pmIt's not whining, it's people voicing their opinion of the idea of Xfce developers going with CSD by making it look like Gnome. Many people including myself appreciate the work that the Xfce developers have done so far, but many people including myself feel that changing to CSD is not a good idea by creating another Gnome.

You should surely be expressing those opinions over at the XFCE forums where they may be useful. I've learned a lot from reading this thread. The amount of anxiety expressed (which I depicted as whining) doesn't seem appropriate to whether CSD is or isn't in XFCE's future.

Many users don't like change. I don't like change. But here I am using GRUB2 and a modern kernel having allowed myself to be dragged into the future, and looking back, most of it wasn't too bad. It was mostly on me. I had to learn how to cope with new things.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:17 pm**

figueroa wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:17 pm I'm sorry, but your posts have much the same rude tone of some of the rants in the XFCE forums. That tone is not very consistent with what is usually read here in the MX forum.

ive had enough of your personal insults and trolling, dont put hypocrisy and false accusations on top of it. on ignore you go.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:18 pm**

lets all be chill folks.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:23 pm**

Moderator Note:
Ad hominem comments are against Forum Rules. If this continues in this thread it will have to be locked. I do not want to do that so act accordingly.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:52 pm**

imschmeg wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:12 pm
Someone brought up Mate, which I had used once. I think it qualifies as having "won't chase fads" as part of its manifesto. I am tempted to try it out again, see if can get a dark theme that I like.

So far, MATE's Brisk menu still does not resize and so is less preferable than Whisker in my view.

MATE doesn't have as flexible a wallpaper changer as XFCE (can't set it to auto-change (randomly or sequentially) the wallpaper from a folder at set intervals).

Of course, that's all about aesthetics and user interface, but hey, that's why I prefer XFCE.

Right now, Xfce has a very nice combination of things I haven't had all at once before. The ability to customize titlebars and borders to my liking is still pretty common, especially among lighter weight WMs like fluxbox or icewm. But getting good consistent dark themes on those lighter WMs is hard - I haven't had much luck across the board. Closest on MX fluxbox, but still not as good as standard MX Xfce. ...

As for those "religious" critics of CSD: I am mostly afraid of creeping-Gnomism, where many other WM and DE dev teams move in the CSD direction for various reasons, and then drop the ability to disable it because why bother maintaining that. As the "religious" crowd has much larger numbers than the "please keep a high contrast GUI option that doesn't suck" crowd, they're right now my allies in the battle to prevent creeping-Gnomism from taking over.

You said previously that you have issues with sufficient contrast/difference in the active and inactive windows for CSD apps, and I said it might be dependent on the theme used. Went back to have a check.

Using oomox, I have noted that mods of the numix theme allow the most elements to be modded, and one should be able to find [or make] one with sufficient contrast. Here's one I had made in the past, based on the colour of red tea with and without milk (really!):

non-csd app = active, csd app is inactive:
There is a clear contrast between active and inactive, in the top bar.

https://imgur.com/6q3G0w5

csd app is active, non-csd is inactive:
You can see that this is the main issue because the non-csd app does not turn to the inactive colour with a CSD app in front of it. But if you choose one with a high contrast border outline on the active window (say I changed my outline to bright yellow instead of just bright pink), the active app can be identified.

https://imgur.com/L5s8IiE

When both windows are either all CSD, or all non-CSD, the contrast of active and inactive is fine.

The following theme has really high contrast (neon blue) outlines for the active window, even though the colour of the top bar does not change between active and inactive.
Neon Knights (blue) theme:
gtk theme:
https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1301852/

neon knight's xfwm theme (extract and save into the neon knights theme folder)
https://www.pling.com/p/1322236/

non-csd=active, csd=inactive

https://imgur.com/pcVDrfW

csd=active, non-csd=inactive

https://imgur.com/DrKiLr1

For the purposes of the screenshots and comparisons, I used Thunar (non-csd gtk3) and Nautilus (Files) (csd gtk3).
The screenshots were taken in Manjaro XFCE, as I was installing the latest updates.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:19 am**

@asqwerth

Thanks for the research!

I am right now installing a debian-sid-mate VM to have a look at fairly recent mate (1.22, not the most recent 1.24). I will also take a look at oomox.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:36 am**

@asqwerth: do you still have that red tea theme? I really like it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:32 am**

I do. I'll post a download link to it when I get home tonight.

Or if you have oomox (I use the flatpak version on MX) I can send you the colour config file so you can generate it yourself.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:55 am**

asqwerth wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:32 am I do. I'll post a download link to it when I get home tonight.

Or if you have oomox (I use the flatpak version on MX) I can send you the colour config file so you can generate it yourself.

Great! A DL link would be cool. Thanks. I'm looking forward to trying it on my system.

I installed oomox from the stable repo this afternoon and played with it a bit but I don't really know what I'm doing.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:30 am**

JayM wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:55 am
...I installed oomox from the stable repo this afternoon and played with it a bit but I don't really know what I'm doing.

It's all trial and error!

Just go through the pre-existing templates given, esp the numix/pop ones, clone a candidate and rename it, and just experiment.

Generate a test theme, and if it's horrible, delete from ~/.themes

Rinse and repeat until happy. Save that colour config setting for future use when gtk3 version is upgraded.

[SORRY, won't derail thread further]

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:18 pm**

figuera wrote:

"Many users don't like change. I don't like change. But here I am using GRUB2 and a modern kernel having allowed"

We wouldn't go back to to the times without grafical desktop, would we? There were great changes indeed! And today we will not miss them. So let us be a little bit optimistic, that future changes would be of the same kind. Its evolution. Well, and like in evolution the the wrong changes will not survive. It is that easy. No complain necessary :-)

As far as I can see, next Xfce will be more modern, more beautiful. If so, it will not hurt me, if it will look like Gnome a little bit more. :-) From ElementaryOS, Deepin, and some other oses is said they are beautiful, modern desktops, this is not said about Xfce :-) I had a look on them, but they did not have something like whisker menu out of the box. Therefore MX Linux is the one and only operating system on my desktop after 30 years of MS Windows - and I do not miss MS at all.

I am thankful and I appreciate the work of all the developers - and I have pity with them: They cannot make it all right for everybody.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:26 pm**

As far as I can see, next Xfce will be more modern, more beautiful.

What does more modern and more beautiful actually mean to the user?

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:42 pm**

anticapitalista wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:26 pm
As far as I can see, next Xfce will be more modern, more beautiful.
What does more modern and more beautiful actually mean to the user?

Desktop icons quit moving around every startup.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:48 pm**

anticapitalista wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:26 pm
As far as I can see, next Xfce will be more modern, more beautiful.
What does more modern and more beautiful actually mean to the user?

If it ain't broken, fix it until it is?!?

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:57 pm**

One practical issue with some CSD apps is there isn't a lot of empty space in the combination top window bar cum tool bar to grab hold of, when you want to move it with your mouse.

That's because for some apps that whole top strip could be filled with menu buttons, filepath window, min/max/close buttons, etc.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:29 pm**

MX_GRD wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:42 pm
anticapitalista wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:26 pm
As far as I can see, next Xfce will be more modern, more beautiful.
What does more modern and more beautiful actually mean to the user?
Desktop icons quit moving around every startup.

That was developed to assist users with hand - eye coordination and increase brain motor function.

I think it is a STEM initiative of some sort.... just kidding couldn't resist.

But seriously, did you post a thread on this, I thought I saw one.... I guess a solution wasn't found.... off to check on that.

Posted: **Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:04 pm**

I have set up a poll on CSD here on https://forum.xfce.org. Please vote to show the Xfce developers what we think of the CSD idea. https://www.survey-maker.com/poll2745169xa68C4851-80

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:59 am**

As you can see they first wanted the poll moved and then they finally removed the poll. It looks like we received an answer that the Xfce developers don't care about what their user base has to say about it and CSD is coming to Xfce if we like it or not.

Luckily there are other desktop environments to choose from.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:28 am**

the poll is still there mauser ... but the link is hidden in the thread

i did not vote because i use KDE and have no dog in the fight ... interesting discussion though

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:46 am**

I posted over at the Xfce forum on the CSD thread:
https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?pid=56728#p56728

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:47 am**

Looky here, especially the Before and After screenshots near the bottom: https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.16/roadm ... ral_ui/csd. I for one like the new look! And as it's still using GTK theming, imschmeg's requirements for his vision impairment issues can still be met by using an appropriate GTK theme.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:00 am**

Looky here, especially the Before and After screenshots near the bottom: https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.16/roadm ... ral_ui/csd.

I cannot use any of those themes shown in that posting - the non-csd or the csd ones. But, at least I can change a non-csd one to a theme I can use. That is the difference.

There are other ways to remove the wasted space. Why not a auto-hiding and pinnable titlebar as an option, but still with server-side decorations?

But I still would need the titlebar and borders to be visible at all times (unless the window is fullscreen).

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:13 am**

You can still change GTK themes. You'll just have to accomplish what you need via a different method, i.e. having a different-color frame around active windows rather than a different-color titlebar. You'll figure something out.

I suggest that after Xfce 4.16 is released later this year, you install MX-19 in a VirtualBox VM then install Xfce 4.16 on it and play with it to see what you can figure out. I plan to do the same if I'm able to. Or, rumor has it that Xubuntu 20.04, due in a few months, will have Xfce 4.16. You could install it in VirtualBox and check out its theming possibilities.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:21 am**

JayM wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:13 am You can still change GTK themes.

Correct, there are themes which already "slim" areas down and adjust sections quite a bit.

Anyone can look at many of the Gnome themes that do this for reference.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:04 am**

junoluna wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:28 am the poll is still there mauser ... but the link is hidden in the thread

i did not vote because i use KDE and have no dog in the fight ... interesting discussion though

That's O.K. and understandable. When the time comes when Xfce gets ruined I will probably go with KDE.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:05 am**

imschmeg wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:33 pm Dearest Xfce Devs,

We like your product more than Gnome. We're sorry that you have a problem with this.

Love (for now),
non-CSDers

I like it more like KDE, but the fact is it's an XFCE edition and there is nothing wrong with that.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:21 am**

imschmeg wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:46 am I posted over at the Xfce forum on the CSD thread:
https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?pid=56728#p56728

Thanks, looks like it's back. First the moderator wanted it moved which I did. Then the moderator made it vanish. After some complaints from other members of the moderators actions it looks like it was put back up. The moderators stating it's getting confusing while the moderator is making it confusing playing hackysac with my poll. I guess my meme was too much to grasp of what can happen when the user-base is ignored. It looks like maybe the is some hope since my poll is back. It's all yet to be seen.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:51 am**

Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm From what I understand if I understand correctly is the Whisker menu is built with the Gtk tool kit while LXQt & KDE are both built with the Qt tool kit which that difference doesn't look good for the Whisker menu being added to either LXQt or KDE. From what I understand the Whisker menu would have to be rebuilt using the Qt tool kit in order to work on KDE.

Interesting...

I recently took Devuan for a spin (ascii_2.1) and Xfce displays no Whisker menu but something akin to the LXDE menu. Without rebooting and looking at it again I'd say it resembles LXDE more than LXQt even, not that there's a lot of difference anyway. My guess is Whisker can be enabled somewhere but this default setting did strike me as rather odd .

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:58 am**

LU344928 wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:51 am
Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm From what I understand if I understand correctly is the Whisker menu is built with the Gtk tool kit while LXQt & KDE are both built with the Qt tool kit which that difference doesn't look good for the Whisker menu being added to either LXQt or KDE. From what I understand the Whisker menu would have to be rebuilt using the Qt tool kit in order to work on KDE.
Interesting...

I recently took Devuan for a spin (ascii_2.1) and Xfce displays no Whisker menu but something akin to the LXDE menu. Without rebooting and looking at it again I'd say it resembles LXDE more than LXQt even, not that there's a lot of difference anyway. My guess is Whisker can be enabled somewhere but this default setting did strike me as rather odd .

That means that Devuan doesn't have the Whisker menu installed. You can install the Whisker menu and remove the LXDE style menu from the panel.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:06 am**

Whisker is a panel plugin, so right click on the panel and go to Panel Preferences. If not there, install it and then add to panel.

The old school menu is the original one that came with XFCE, before Graeme Gott created Whisker.
https://gottcode.org/xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin/

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:21 am**

SwampRabbit wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:29 pm...But seriously, did you post a thread on this, I thought I saw one.... I guess a solution wasn't found.... off to check on that.

I did come across that thread, and tried the save/restore desktop script, but got an error message on restore.
I also would have to go back to that thread for follow up.
Meanwhile, I open Desktop Folder and view as icons; works as well.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:39 pm**

I am installing a Fedora 31 VM right now to experiment with the latest Gnome. If anyone with Gnome experience can give me pointers on what to install and try to see if I can get a theme that does brightly colored title/borders on focused windows and not on unfocused ones, I am very willing to give that a try. If I am able to find such a theme, that would address much but not all of my criticism of CSD. What would be left is the fact that client applications have complete control over how they look, including how they obey the theme. With the possibility that an application might disobey (intentionally or accidentally) the focus/unfocus window differences I selected.

I have already tried the High Contrast setting under Accessibility. A big problem with it is that it contrasts foreground vs. background by using black on white, while at the same time removing other colors. This actually reduces my ability to distinguish elements on the screen vs. using multiple bright colors. Also, I find that dark themes (white foreground, black background) have better contrast all around, except for the fact that window shadows don't work well in dark themes, while they do enhance contrast in light themes. BTW - aren't window shadows non-CSD? Because they're drawn on windows other than that belonging to the client (those under the client's window), so isn't the server involved?

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:07 pm**

I found a Gnome CSD theme combo that is pretty good (after installing all that I could find from the Fedora repo). I would still like to modify it - change the border color from white to something else, and change the titlebar color. But I note that there are themes that do this, just no direct way to do it myself. [Note, setting the Image Adjustment to None is how one gets a solid background - but no way to change the color. Fortunately, not a bad sole color choice.]

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:06 am**

Mauser wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:58 am
LU344928 wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:51 am
Mauser wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:29 pm From what I understand if I understand correctly is the Whisker menu is built with the Gtk tool kit while LXQt & KDE are both built with the Qt tool kit which that difference doesn't look good for the Whisker menu being added to either LXQt or KDE. From what I understand the Whisker menu would have to be rebuilt using the Qt tool kit in order to work on KDE.
Interesting...

I recently took Devuan for a spin (ascii_2.1) and Xfce displays no Whisker menu but something akin to the LXDE menu. Without rebooting and looking at it again I'd say it resembles LXDE more than LXQt even, not that there's a lot of difference anyway. My guess is Whisker can be enabled somewhere but this default setting did strike me as rather odd .
That means that Devuan doesn't have the Whisker menu installed. You can install the Whisker menu and remove the LXDE style menu from the panel.

Good to know, thanks for that.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:19 am**

asqwerth wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:06 am Whisker is a panel plugin, so right click on the panel and go to Panel Preferences. If not there, install it and then add to panel.

It's not there, so I'll have to install it.

The old school menu is the original one that came with XFCE, before Graeme Gott created Whisker.
https://gottcode.org/xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin/

Yes, as seen here, same as on mine:

Thanks for that.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:15 pm**

If thy CSDs offend thee, can't you just cut them off and use Compiz or another window manager in XFCE 4.16?

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:31 pm**

To remove client side decorations from all GTK3+ packages simply install the gtk3-nocsd package. Problem solved :-)

EDIT: oops, imschmeg mentioned this on the first page. Sorry...

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:17 pm**

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:31 pm To remove client side decorations from all GTK3+ packages simply install the gtk3-nocsd package. Problem solved :-)

EDIT: oops, imschmeg mentioned this on the first page. Sorry...

Yes, and it works well at the moment, if you don't mind duplication of title and icon. But that might only be because Xfce isn't yet skewed towards CSD. I wonder how it would work in Gnome. I should try it...

Also, for my fellow tin-foil hat wearers: note that the gtk3-nocsd package needs setuid privs.

Here's file-roller with (bottom window) and without CSD:

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:51 pm**

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:31 pm To remove client side decorations from all GTK3+ packages simply install the gtk3-nocsd package. Problem solved :-)

EDIT: oops, imschmeg mentioned this on the first page. Sorry...

That's an even better way to chop them off!

What's all the fuss about, then? Sorry, this thread was tl;dr...

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:08 pm**

What's all the fuss about, then?

I suspect that in a CSD WM/DE, it won't be possible to use a hack like gtk3-nocsd. Because the WM/DE won't have a clue how to add its own SSDs once the client signals that it doesn't do CSDs, which is all that gtk3-nocsd does, I think. A clue to this - the gtk3-nocsd isn't installable in Fedora - a very Gnomish distro, so what I take as a model of future CSD-centric desktops like Xfce-to-be. I will try looking in some other Fedora repos, and then try building gtk3-nocsd from its git source (https://github.com/PCMan/gtk3-nocsd). I don't anticipate success.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:10 pm**

it will probably still have some ability to theme windows that aren't gtk3....Qt, gtk2, heck even electron might still need window decorations.

all xfce is talking about is their own apps, IIRC.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:52 pm**

I was thinking that there might be a way of getting around CSD is by installing Kwin or Kvantum. Only time will tell if this would work. What say you?

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:57 pm**

I don't anticipate success.

And that's what I got - a lack of success. I can build gtk3-nocsd in a fully up-to-date Fedora 31 VM with Gnome 3.34.4, but it doesn't do anything. Clients run with it still use CSD. This used to work in earlier Fedoras/Gnomes (note the git repo README gives dependency instructions for Fedora), but no more.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:42 pm**

Stevo wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:51 pm What's all the fuss about, then? Sorry, this thread was tl;dr...

Look at the screenshot imschmeg posted. Not exactly an elegant solution. Imagine it was Thunar... Might as well use CSD, instead of having two titlebars. Or install Caja which I have already done. It works well (after a few tweaks) both for normal user and via mx-pkexec for manipulating files owned by root. gtk3-nocsd is a hack (words by developer) to let the wm stay in charge, but how long will that hack be possible? One thing that the Linux desktop doesn't need is more hacks. The fuss is about Xfce going down the wrong path, becoming Gnome and probably pulling in a lot of Gnome dependencies in the process.

PS On a more positive note MX-19 is pretty awesome so personally I'm good until 2024. Can't really wish for more...

imschmeg wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:17 pm Yes, and it works well at the moment, if you don't mind duplication of title and icon. But that might only be because Xfce isn't yet skewed towards CSD. I wonder how it would work in Gnome. I should try it...

Developer description:

A hack to disable gtk+ 3 client side decoration

gtk3-nocsd is a small module used to disable the client side decoration of Gtk+ 3.

##Introduction: Since Gtk+ 3.10, its developers added a so-called header bar or custom title bar. With this and the client-side decoration, the original title bar and window border provided by the window manager are disabled by Gtk+. This makes all Gtk+ 3 programs look alike. Even worse, this may break some window manager or compositors.

Unfortunately, the Gtk+ developers decided to be against the existing standards and provide "no option" to turn it off.

Luckily, with gtk3-nocsd, we still have a way to (partially) turn it off. Window manager (title bar and window border) can be re-enabled.

dolphin_oracle wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:10 pm it will probably still have some ability to theme windows that aren't gtk3....Qt, gtk2, heck even electron might still need window decorations.

all xfce is talking about is their own apps, IIRC.

The MX team is always working, never complaining and that's why you are so successful. On the other hand even if nothing was achieved it was important to let Xfce developers know that the majority of Xfce users are against CSDs. They can decide whatever they want, but threads on Xfce forum, here, on Reddit and other places show that many people use Xfce because it's NOT Gnome. The GTK3 port has already pulled Xfce closer to Gnome.

Of course you are right that xfwm will still be there. But for Xfce it's a big shift. All settings windows, all preferences windows for panel plugins and eventually everything including Thunar. Not everything will happen for Xfce 4.16, but in a year or two I think Xfce will be fully CSD. That might be the biggest change to Xfce since 1996... I can't say the developers are wrong, they are eyeing Wayland compatibility etc. Although someone mentioned that it's now possible to use GTK on Wayland with SSDs.

Ultimately, I think it's just a bad decision. It takes away xfwm theming which has always been popular among users. It takes away some wm functionality. Buggy applications can make the entire window unresponsive. It's bad design. Maybe I have missed something, but I can't remember anything positive about CSDs. The space argument isn't necessarily true. CSD/headerbar isn't always smaller than titlebar/toolbar.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:17 pm**

dreamer wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:42 pm It takes away xfwm theming which has always been popular among users. It takes away some wm functionality. Buggy applications can make the entire window unresponsive. It's bad design.

weighing pros and cons is important. people weighing the problems often get put on the defensive, constantly being told they have to like everything, "take it or leave it."

thats a very different tone and philosophy from the beginning of the gnu/linux world, when not everybody was polite and not everyone was happy about everything-- and people had plenty of choices. im glad we can still talk about the good as well as the bad here. most people are pretty chill and understanding about it, and that encourages more intelligent and thoughtful (but not always positive) discussion. constantly being told youre wrong and just reacting, just doesnt do that. but theres thankfully very little of that here.

its very nice that someone made a hack to help with this, but sometimes newer developers arent very thoughtful about these things. which is why the hack is a third party tool, instead of a native option which would make perfect sense. imagine the options people would have, if even having options in the first place was still a welcomed idea? of course im referring to upstream, not mx.

often people pretend that those complaining are lazy do-nothings who only complain and dont contribute. theres no way to prove thats true, but often there is evidence that people are actually working quite hard to preserve options, like some of the developers in this thread. the truth is that people who preserve options and defend the user are not always welcome-- nor is the flexibility they provide us. they arent simply unsung heroes-- they are actually smeared by their philosophical opponents. people may find this thread boring or tedious, but its a thread where practically everybody did the best possible thing for the future of xfce. thats worth some consideration.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:21 pm**

The space argument isn't necessarily true. CSD/headerbar isn't always smaller than titlebar/toolbar.

The default Gnome handlebar size is huge. Also, those that argue about screen space neglect other solutions that would save even more, such as auto-hiding the titlebar+widgets. I really like the VirtualBox fullscreen where it allows you to autohide the menubar or pin it. That would be a great option for an SSD WM. Mouse over the top border, and down scrolls a titlebar and widgets.

I think I've said this before - I don't fear the immediate future, but the eventual future. I've shown that the latest Gnome doesn't support gtk-nocsd at all, so one wonders if other DE/WMs that are itching to go CSD will go as fully that way as Gnome has. Also, I've read that Wayland has a built-in preference for CSD, and I'm trying to find a non-CSD WM that works on Wayland to see how bad things are there. My experiment with Fedora/Gnome was to find a CSD theme I could use - and I did, but it's ugly as sin, and I haven't figured out how to modify it. I may have to learn how to, and then spend time constructing my own CSD theme from scratch. But the fact that it is CSD still makes me fear the evolution of apps that decide not to obey the theme precisely, because their devs have their own idea of what looks cool.

Posted: **Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:06 pm**

imschmeg wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:21 pm The space argument isn't necessarily true. CSD/headerbar isn't always smaller than titlebar/toolbar.

Yep.

And on the other hand, a CSD title bar+widgets can be so crammed that there's no space to grab onto when trying to move the window. E.g Nautilus.

...
I've shown that the latest Gnome doesn't support gtk-nocsd at all,

That may be true , as in you can't easily convert a CSD app to no-csd when running in Gnome. But you can still have a gtk3 app that is made to be non-csd, running in Gnome the way it was meant to be.

I use Nemo and pcmanfm mainly in my Fedora Gnome install. And geany.

All gtk3 non-csd apps.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:21 am**

If users only want to use CSD for Xfce's settings dialogs but not the rest you can use the corresponding xsetting to disable CSD in the toolkit's native dialogs:
xfconf-query -c xsettings -p /Gtk/DialogsUseHeader -s false

From here - https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375#c2

Not sure what that means, whether it can be done easily by users or not?

Interesting reading nonetheless.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:27 am**

imschmeg wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:21 pm I've shown that the latest Gnome doesn't support gtk-nocsd at all

The gtk3-nocsd package forces the applications to use the window manager's own decorations but the GNOME window manager doesn't provide native decorations because they've gone full CSD.

If the Xfce devs go the same way then it should still be possible to replace the Xfce window manager (xfwm) with, for example, openbox by running this command:

Code: Select all

xfconf-query --channel xfce4-session --property /sessions/Failsafe/Client0_Command --set openbox --force-array

Then openbox would provide the traditional decorations for GTK3+ applications.

It's not a perfect solution (openbox only provides XBM-based decorations and it can't do transparency-while-dragging) but it should remove the CSD eyesore for those who find them so objectionable.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:54 am**

Is another option to provide a fork of XFCE based on the prior GTK2-only releases? I have been comparing icewm and fluxbox and lxde and thinking to myself that as long as I have an operable whisker menu plus dockbarx plus core xfce functions that haven't changed in years then i am happy.

For my uses xfce has only been getting heavier and slower and generally going backward. I find Spacefm to be just as fast and tremendously more configurable than thunar so I wouldn't care about the slow development that has taken place in recent versions of thunar/xfce at all. Older versions of XFCE would compare favorably, it seems to me, to the other "low resource" desktop options. When I think back and look back at my mx14/15 installation I don't see anything missing in xfce compared to today's version that seems slower and is mutating into gnome.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:13 pm**

nathan2423 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:54 amFor my uses xfce has only been getting heavier and slower and generally going backward.

bloat is a real issue, i use icewm even with an i5 and im very happy with it. but its gtk2 and at some point, hopefully years from now, ill have to find an alternative.

i dont think gtk2 is getting forked, so forks relying on gtk2 will only buy time. that doesnt answer your question but it certainly provides context. im still very sad that leafpad (gtk2) was dropped from debian recently. but when you rely on gnome for anything, theyre going to leave you disappointed, if only because ultimately youll be looking for a fork or alternative. im not even a huge qt fan. its pretty much the only alternative (no disrespect to any fltk fans, i suppose this is really their time to shine.) if im wrong and gtk2 has another 15 years it, thats the best free software news this year.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:34 pm**

freemedia2018 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:13 pm im not even a huge qt fan. its pretty much the only alternative (no disrespect to any fltk fans, i suppose this is really their time to shine.)

About a year ago I installed a dozen distros to compare mem usage (both in a virtual box and installed on real hardware). I was surprised how KDE was almost in the lightweight (MX, Peppermint, Lubuntu) range. Especially when you go into the "appearance" settings and disable the eye-candy animations, get rid of the image background, etc.

I just did that exercise again a month ago with 20 distros. Again, KDE was down in that lighter-weight range. Manjaro Xfce was among the heaviest. I thought that was odd because Xfce is known for being lightweight.

I can post the tables if anyone wants to see the comparisons. (I posted the latest one once somewhere on this forum. I don't recall where.).

I just bought a new laptop and it doesn't play well with MX. I switched to Kubuntu 19.10 and liking it. I don't like the start menu as much. KDE has a lot of settings that seem tedious. But, I'm averse to change. I'm sure I won't care about these things after awhile.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:11 pm**

az2020 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:34 pm I can post the tables if anyone wants to see the comparisons. (I posted the latest one once somewhere on this forum. I don't recall where.).

I remember the comparison table well - post #5 from the "memory usage" thread (7 Feb 20) viewtopic.php?p=558314#p558314.

Nice job.

Posted: **Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:54 pm**

Stuart_M wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:11 pm
az2020 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:34 pm I can post the tables if anyone wants to see the comparisons. (I posted the latest one once somewhere on this forum. I don't recall where.).
I remember the comparison table well - post #5 from the "memory usage" thread (7 Feb 20) viewtopic.php?p=558314#p558314.

Nice job.

I'm glad you liked it enough to remember where it was! Here's the one I mentioned from last April/May 2019:

Click for larger
[For notes & more info, see the original PDF or spreadsheet.]

This one is a little different than the recent comparison (which you linked to in another thread).

I didn't install to real hardware last time (only VirtualBox).
I sorted the columns different, which makes it hard to visually compare. (The original spreadsheets can be downloaded and sorted differently.).
The first time, I tried to turn off some eye-candy features to see how skinny a distro can be. (I didn't do that this time because it's probably not a fair comparison. I didn't spend much time looking for space-saving opportunities in any distro. But, that first comparison illustrates how a distro can be minimized. There's probably more things, like turning off samba. Most people don't use that. Someone on the Peppermint forum said brtfs(?) file system support takes a lot of memory. This thread isn't really about memory use though. I'm just saying that the first compare shows that they can be made smaller, and KDE comes in pretty close the stock lighterweight distros.).

The VirtualBox sessions are probably more comparable to each other. But, they aren't comparable to real usage (on real hardware). The real hardware sessions are interesting in terms of seeing how much more real drivers add to the memory use. But... I don't think they're comparable to each other because different distros may have better/worse support for nwe hardware (like the Ryzen 3 3200u/Vega 3 I used). So, you have to weigh those different tests for what they represent.

Anyway, I always thought KDE was large. I was surprised that it's so close to the midrange & lightweight distros (especially if you turn off the animations and fancy stuff.). Freemedia2018 mentioned qt. I thought I'd mention KDE since it uses qt. (I'm wondering why the lxqt guys didn't create a slimmed down version of KDE instead of recreating LXDE with qt. I used LXDE for 3-4 years. Originally, I thought they intended to make a direct look-alike with the qt framework. But, to me it's becoming something else. At which point, I wonder why it wouldn't have been easier to use KDE. Minimize it into a lightweight version of itself. It looks like it could have come out the same way. I see people on the Peppermint forum style Peppermint into a WIndows XP lookalike. :) Why couldn't KDE be styled into a LXDE lookalike? I think the memory use would have come out the same.).

Posted: **Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:33 pm**

Can we do anything about the menu entry for Clementine saying "Plays music and Last.fm streams" even though last.fm support has been removed?

Posted: **Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:56 pm**

SDS wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:33 pm Can we do anything about the menu entry for Clementine saying "Plays music and Last.fm streams" even though last.fm support has been removed?

There's some other probably better places you can post this.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:00 am**

The primary appeal of XFCE is that it is very lightweight. This is also one of the big selling points of MX Linux: it uses a very lightweight desktop environment. However, people with a strong preference for lightweight DEs tend to favor LXDE / LXQt, because it's even lighter. So, just switch to LXDE / LXQt and be done with it. People who want something heaver can download and install something heavier if they want.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:21 am**

Xfce's other selling points are ease of use and configuration.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:33 am**

and modularity

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:43 am**

Really mid-weight.

MX Linux is a cooperative venture between the antiX and former MEPIS communities, using the best tools and talents from each distro. It is a midweight OS designed to combine an elegant and efficient desktop with simple configuration, high stability, solid performance and medium-sized footprint.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:52 am**

richb wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:43 am Really mid-weight.

MX Linux is a cooperative venture between the antiX and former MEPIS communities, using the best tools and talents from each distro. It is a midweight OS designed to combine an elegant and efficient desktop with simple configuration, high stability, solid performance and medium-sized footprint.

That may be the goal, but among all the distros I looked at that could be considered even remotely user-friendly, MX-19 was the third lightest, behind only Bodhi and LXLE.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:03 am**

Katie Boundary wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:52 amMX-19 was the third lightest, behind only Bodhi and LXLE.

But it's already said: "mid-weight" , "medium-sized footprint". Not "lightest".

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:21 am**

FWIW ... The thing I have noted (proved to myself) is that most DE's and WM's (Desktop Environments and Window Managers) seem to run plus/minus about 20% of each other on the same distro/ hardware. There are larger differences cross different distros. For example xfce and openbox and hlwm, dwm, and bspwm all run at just under 1GB on MX Linux (on the same laptop, by my tests). They each run about 30% lighter than a manjaro setup ( again on the same laptop again). On MX I run:
bspwm
openbox
hlwm
dwm
xfce
budgie
gnome

... at between 900MB and 1.1 GB at idle.

Given that most folks have PCs with 4GB+ and decent hard drives or SSDs, I think you are reasonably safe on MX and antiX in choosing whatever style desktop you like.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:26 am**

manyroads, are all those different DEs and WMs installed on the same MX installation/partition?

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:38 am**

Right now I have have bspwm, dwm, hlwm, openbox, xfce on the same partition sharing the same keybindings (using sxhkd and .xsessionsrc) and datafiles. I change environments from the LightDM screen. This older Dell idles at about 700-800MB (no matter the desktop) with DropBox running. I have experienced no stability (cross desktop) issues (over the last several months). Given I also run the same setup on a second laptop (Intel i5 gen 10), I currently prefer to use MX (I run ahs) over manjaro.

I'll publish something on the setup and my learning(s) sometime fairly soon.

btw. my current favorite desktops are dwm & OpenBox. But I'm fickle... they change...

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:27 pm**

Huckleberry Finn wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:03 am
Katie Boundary wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:52 amMX-19 was the third lightest, behind only Bodhi and LXLE.
But it's already said: "mid-weight" , "medium-sized footprint". Not "lightest".

You seem to have missed my point: being lightweight is a major part of MX's appeal regardless of what weight class it's aiming for.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:35 pm**

Of course the term light weight is mushy. What does it mean, small ISO, low CPU, low memory. all of the above? You can have a distro with a huge ISO that installs many packages and is still "light" on CPU and memory usage.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:39 pm**

Installing Many Roads MX 18.3 minimal convinced me that 'minimal' is the only way to go' relative to meeting my office needs, but for MX-19 requires lots of time eliminating MX pkgs we don't need.

Using antiX-19 core, I was able to build a Fluxbox / spaceFM based desktop, then added the other pkgs our office staff regularly use.
... The AntiX-19 build does not have all the 'bells and whistles' that an MX /Fluxbox install has, but it's highly functional relative to meeting our day-to-day needs, and saves me lots of time managing several other boxes in my office environment. Snapshot backup on each box is very fast and multiple snapshots + home folder backups for each box easily fit on a USB stick.

IMHO MX would be greatly improved if it adopted a 'minimal build' philosophy that allows users to install whatever pkgs they want/need using MXPI.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:44 pm**

Are we still discussing the future of XFCE in this thread? Looks to be going off topic.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:48 pm**

In years past I have whittled away Xfce installs on an i386 and managed to get one to run using 90mb of RAM and another later release used 109mb of RAM (this with Xfce4 terminal in dropdown and conky running).
If you want much lighter you probably need to run a Window Manager like Fluxbox or JWM.

Each release uses more resources than previous releases, this is true with any software though.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:50 pm**

asqwerth wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:44 pm Are we still discussing the future of XFCE in this thread? Looks to be going off topic.

You are absolutely right. Let's get back on topic.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:24 pm**

i am happy and pleased with mx 19 and xfce.

manyroads. does manyde's/wm's running on one partition bog down vs having only i at a time? I apoligize for the stupid question. And no - not trying to srgue - just asking per asqwerth's question.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:40 am**

longbottom leaf wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:24 pm i am happy and pleased with mx 19 and xfce.

manyroads. does manyde's/wm's running on one partition bog down vs having only i at a time? I apoligize for the stupid question. And no - not trying to srgue - just asking per asqwerth's question.

Yes, it does, because more services will be added to boot and login. After installing a DE it's good to look at startup applications in Xfce and see what has been added. I have never seen Xfce use 900 MB after boot, but it's of course possible with many services running. Add proprietary GFX, wifi and newer firmware packages and then it's almost like Windows (OK, not quite, since it's still Xfce).

Xfce (just the DE) probably uses 200-300 MB, but the GTK3 version will use more because of mandatory accessibility. Someone claims he runs Gentoo with "almost full" MATE DE with less than 100 MB RAM and that includes his custom kernel!

So I think any RAM numbers should be taken with two hands of salt!

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:31 am**

dreamer wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:40 am
longbottom leaf wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:24 pm i am happy and pleased with mx 19 and xfce.

manyroads. does manyde's/wm's running on one partition bog down vs having only i at a time? I apoligize for the stupid question. And no - not trying to srgue - just asking per asqwerth's question.
Yes, it does, because more services will be added to boot and login. After installing a DE it's good to look at startup applications in Xfce and see what has been added. I have never seen Xfce use 900 MB after boot, but it's of course possible with many services running. Add proprietary GFX, wifi and newer firmware packages and then it's almost like Windows (OK, not quite, since it's still Xfce).

Xfce (just the DE) probably uses 200-300 MB, but the GTK3 version will use more because of mandatory accessibility. Someone claims he runs Gentoo with "almost full" MATE DE with less than 100 MB RAM and that includes his custom kernel!

So I think any RAM numbers should be taken with two hands of salt!

That's what I suspect about manyroads' system as well. Although he is choosing just 1 DE or WM to log into, I suspect some of the applications or services from some of his other WMs might be running even if he is logged into XFCE. There may be tons of stuff being autostarted, that isn't default. I don't really know as I don't use pure WM without DE nowadays.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:28 am**

thanks - that is what i thought. However, not knowing what all of you people do - i was wondering.

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm**

https://linuxreviews.org/Xfce_Classic_B ... NOME_Light

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:27 pm**

Awesome, I vote for Xfce Classic

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:34 am**

After having spent the last 8 months with MX and really enjoying the speed and traditional interface of the XFCE environment, I am disturbed that soon it seems XFCE will abandon what makes it special. I test the other distros but nothing comes close. The CSD interface is just an ugly mess with no redeming features and Mate, KDE, Cinnamon either too restrictive, ugly, bloated, or overly complicated. The whole thing about fixing XFCE grip-ability is a joke too. All that is required is a properly designed window decoration theme with borders 5 px or more wide.

I hope that, if XFCE does indeed go down this pathway, that MX can find a way to keep CSD out of its implementation and retain the speed and simplicity it is loved for.

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:20 pm**

richb wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:35 pm Of course the term light weight is mushy. What does it mean, small ISO, low CPU, low memory. all of the above? You can have a distro with a huge ISO that installs many packages and is still "light" on CPU and memory usage.

I agree. I've done some comparisons of distros' mem usage. KDE comes out surprisingly small (when it's always been known as a heavy desktop). I ran a KDE distro (Kubuntu 19.10) as my daily desktop the past 6 months and it felt large, sluggish. Even on an above-average power/resource laptop (Ryzen 5/Vega 8 with 32g mem & SSD drive). I think KDE is doing more dynamic loading of libraries which makes it appear to be low-mem usage when idle. I think there's more granular loading of libraries (or whatever), which adds to what I perceived as heavy/slow'ish. I even disabled much of the eye candy animations and it still felt like a large distro.

I just came back to MX (19.2 ahs, yesterday) after 19.1 didn't work with that laptop. MX is noticeably more snappy, responsive. But, based on the memory usage comparisons, KDE distros (Neon, Kubuntu) are about the same mid-weight size as MX. So, there's something else going on. (I should try MX's KDE variant to see how it compares. I don't know if my experience was KDE or the specific distro I used.).

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:44 pm**

I ran Kubuntu for a while, latest LTS version. I did not find it slow or sluggish at all. The machine it ran on is not a powerhouse. It also has integrated graphics in the processor. Perception I suppose.

Code: Select all

 Topology: Quad Core model: AMD A8-7600 Radeon R7 10 Compute Cores 4C+6G bits: 64 
  type: MCP L2 cache: 2048 KiB 
  Speed: 1689 MHz min/max: 1400/3100 MHz Core speeds (MHz): 1: 1547 2: 1416 3: 2292 
  4: 1767

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:45 pm**

With the rapid development at XFCE it will take a while until I have to think about it, although I'm currently using Fluxbox almost exclusively anyway

Personally I am not too interested in the RAM demand in idle mode. So 50mb more or less.

Current Mint /Cinnamon e.g. had 750mb, but I didn't investigate further, on the disk is now the KDE beta.

Just compared, my xfc has less than 600mb after startup, the KDE beta (where there have been some updates) is also less than 600mb.

If you want less, you have to use Fluxbox, because after what I "hide" there I get below 350mb.

I find the behaviour under heavy load more interesting
I recently wrote something about it on Facebook, but my focus was not on ram requirements, but was related to thread load and thermal behavior of the very first version.
The subject was settled, but while I was at it, I still did my stress test:

Current handbrake from the test repo, freshly installed, identical settings, format conversion of a camera video with 1920x1080/120frames/sec to 1920x1080/30 frames, (vfr, rf21, preset:placebo)
Original file 800mb (sony a7III video, losless)
target file resulted in a size of 43,4mb each time

averaged from 3 runs each
fluxbox 53,16 frames/sec
xfce 52.82 frames/sec
kde 50,14 frames/sec
And all 3 versions oscillated from 1:30 min between 93-95 degrees celsius and cooled down to 45 degrees within one minute after completion.

I repeated the experiment today under more realistic conditions.
More realistic means, in addition Firefox with 2 open tabs, file manager open and QMPLay2 working on its playlist (I almost always listen to music on the PC).
The two pictures actually say enough

KDE Beta

fullscreen
https://web57.ws/test/kde2.png

MX-Fluxbox

fullscreen
https://web57.ws/test/flux2.png

The minimum speed advantage of Fluxbox this time was 1.5 frames/sec (2,5%)

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:43 pm**

imschmeg wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:04 pm https://linuxreviews.org/Xfce_Classic_B ... NOME_Light

Excellent news.

I am happy to see the Xfce developer's come to their senses by offering "Xfce Classic" I hope the official release of "Xfce Classic" will be real and not gossip.

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:56 pm**

Is he a XFCE dev though? Or just a third party?

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:32 pm**

asqwerth wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:56 pm Is he a XFCE dev though? Or just a third party?

It's a third party.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:00 pm**

richb wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:44 pm I ran Kubuntu for a while, latest LTS version. I did not find it slow or sluggish at all. The machine it ran on is not a powerhouse. It also has integrated graphics in the processor. Perception I suppose.

It seems quite perceptible to me. I serve torrents on a different laptop (on 24x7). I have NFS setup to access that from my daily driver laptop (which was Kubuntu 19.10 for the past six months. I didn't upgrade to LTS when it was released 20.04.). I just copied an ISO across NFS to my new MX 19.2, and it was zippy fast. When I did that same operation on that KDE install, it took a long time. I remember thinking "I thought my network was faster than this. I'm on wireless AC. This is like wireless G."

I just did it with MX 19.2 and it was noticeably faster.

My entire experience with Kubuntu 19.10 was not good, that way. It felt large, slow in a similarly perceptable manner. I'll try to keep an open mind and try a different KDE someday.

FWIW: I have two if the same Acer 515-43 (Ryzen 5/Vega 3) laptops. I installed MX 19.2 to the one which wasn't being used. I just installed Linux Lite 5.0 (released about month ago, and among my top 2-3 favorites with MX). I turned off various things to minimize mem use (compositor, Conky, samba, background image). I tried to do what I could on both. MX is actually running about 3% less memory. I get 534mb idle used on MX. I get 539mb idle used on Linux Lite.

Same laptops. I don't know how meaningful that is. In the past I have done this with 20 distros and it seemed relatively meaningful. I did it installed both to real hardware and VirtualBox. So, comparing distros and real vs virtual seemed useful. I thought it told a story. But, as I said before: KDE came out looking relatively light in those comparisons. But, in usage the past 6 months, I think they're doing something like dynamic loading of libraries which makes it look lighter than it really is. Which would make idle mem comparions flimsy.

Be that as it may: in the past, Linux Lite was 10-20% less mem usage than MX, So, either MX got smaller or Linux Lite got larger. They're about the same now. (I'd have to install all the others and see how everything shakes out now to have a better idea of that ranking. As I said, I'm not sure that's a useful activity. It's interesting. But, may not really mean anything either.).

MX Linux Forum

The future of Xfce

The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce

Re: The future of Xfce