<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Please vote for the future of PCManFM.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.lxde.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352</link>
	<description>blog.lxde.org</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 15:31:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Micia</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1168</link>
		<dc:creator>Micia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1168</guid>
		<description>I think that LXDE should remain lightweight and minimal, depending over Gnome or XFCE seems to me like a bad move.

It is not because they are slow or something, but because of the tons of daemons running in background and wasting memory. LXDE, as of now, has daemons only when necessary, and does just what it is supposed to do.

I&#039;d say to implement something just for LXDE or leave it as it is.
Just my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that LXDE should remain lightweight and minimal, depending over Gnome or XFCE seems to me like a bad move.</p>
<p>It is not because they are slow or something, but because of the tons of daemons running in background and wasting memory. LXDE, as of now, has daemons only when necessary, and does just what it is supposed to do.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d say to implement something just for LXDE or leave it as it is.<br />
Just my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VeGeek</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1044</link>
		<dc:creator>VeGeek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1044</guid>
		<description>Only GIO/GVFS. Remote filesystem support is quietly required, even with cost of being less lightweight. Also, it would be a good chance to use it with gnome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only GIO/GVFS. Remote filesystem support is quietly required, even with cost of being less lightweight. Also, it would be a good chance to use it with gnome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrien Nader</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1042</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrien Nader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1042</guid>
		<description>Please, please, do not depend on gnome. That would be a very bad move. I&#039;ve been using pcmanfm happily for a long time now and I wouldn&#039;t be able to use it anymore if it depended on gnome. I&#039;m using slackware which does not ship gnome and to get gnome on slackware, some solutions involve replacing many system libraries.
LXDE depending on gnome would be a no-go for 95% of slackware users.
Gnome is really annoying for being invasive.

And how could pcmanfm stay light if it required half of the gnome libs ? It may be nearly light in memory but it wouldn&#039;t be light on the disk (think livecd systems).

Actually, I wouldn&#039;t mind not having volume management, but that&#039;s a very personal thing. A ./configure --disable-volume-management switch would probably be nice to have, no matter the decision that is taken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please, please, do not depend on gnome. That would be a very bad move. I&#8217;ve been using pcmanfm happily for a long time now and I wouldn&#8217;t be able to use it anymore if it depended on gnome. I&#8217;m using slackware which does not ship gnome and to get gnome on slackware, some solutions involve replacing many system libraries.<br />
LXDE depending on gnome would be a no-go for 95% of slackware users.<br />
Gnome is really annoying for being invasive.</p>
<p>And how could pcmanfm stay light if it required half of the gnome libs ? It may be nearly light in memory but it wouldn&#8217;t be light on the disk (think livecd systems).</p>
<p>Actually, I wouldn&#8217;t mind not having volume management, but that&#8217;s a very personal thing. A ./configure &#8211;disable-volume-management switch would probably be nice to have, no matter the decision that is taken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vit</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1039</link>
		<dc:creator>vit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:11:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1039</guid>
		<description>How is it difficult to make speed tests for thunar-vfs and gnome gio??
Probably 5% thunar-vfs&#039;s speed over gnome isn&#039;t worth maintaining code...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is it difficult to make speed tests for thunar-vfs and gnome gio??<br />
Probably 5% thunar-vfs&#8217;s speed over gnome isn&#8217;t worth maintaining code&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SZERVÁC Attila</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1034</link>
		<dc:creator>SZERVÁC Attila</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 15:13:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1034</guid>
		<description>My op:

Consult w/ Dear Xfce folks, GIO folks, FreeDesltop folks, everybody finding the best solution (i feel: fork thunar-vfs :-)))</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My op:</p>
<p>Consult w/ Dear Xfce folks, GIO folks, FreeDesltop folks, everybody finding the best solution (i feel: fork thunar-vfs <img src='http://blog.lxde.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> ))</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1033</link>
		<dc:creator>m</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 14:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1033</guid>
		<description>Go with thunar-vfs.  Fork it, especially if XFCE is going to drop it (which is foolish.)  +1 to rafael&#039;s reasoning.

m a r</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go with thunar-vfs.  Fork it, especially if XFCE is going to drop it (which is foolish.)  +1 to rafael&#8217;s reasoning.</p>
<p>m a r</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1028</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 15:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1028</guid>
		<description>I really hope you will go with gio/gvfs and get all the *great* work already done (and being done in the future) for free!

I realize there are a lot of people who don&#039;t really like GNOME in the lxde community. But keep in mind that you already use technology primarily shaped by GNOME (glib, gtk) and that gio/gvfs are proven and well-maintained extensions to those. Also, using gio in LXDE means better integration of GNOME- and GNOME-tech-using apps on LXDE.

Instead of reinventing the wheel you should use what &quot;GNOME&quot; provides and contribute to it (speed/memory fixes always welcome I guess!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really hope you will go with gio/gvfs and get all the *great* work already done (and being done in the future) for free!</p>
<p>I realize there are a lot of people who don&#8217;t really like GNOME in the lxde community. But keep in mind that you already use technology primarily shaped by GNOME (glib, gtk) and that gio/gvfs are proven and well-maintained extensions to those. Also, using gio in LXDE means better integration of GNOME- and GNOME-tech-using apps on LXDE.</p>
<p>Instead of reinventing the wheel you should use what &#8220;GNOME&#8221; provides and contribute to it (speed/memory fixes always welcome I guess!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1023</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 13:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1023</guid>
		<description>Gnome is platform development by infection. So you have to avoid the infection but I agree with your pragmatism on the low level stuff. LXDE solves the Gnome infection culture bug.

&quot;In the long run I think this is more constructive than fixing old bugs and broken compatibility all the time. I believed that judicious use of gio/gvfs can still make things lightweight and fast “enough”. “Enough” means, it won’t be the fastest, but it will be acceptible by the users.&quot;

LXDE is about to become number 3. An enterprise ready fast desktop environment for the masses which delivers what Gnome can&#039;t, while KDE slowly eliminates the bugs for his next generation to win back its 3.5 users. LXDE has no toolkit nazi attitude, in fact it is totally modular and low risk. Concentrate on running code and simplicity, outsource the common cruft to others. Linux desktops together have less than 2% market share, so we don&#039;t compete with the allmighty Gnome which is just another dwarf. LXDE = the LinuX Desktop done right, focused on responsiveness and less performance/memory taxation. VFS is on a lower level. It is a bit like to ask whether to take ubuntu, red hat linux, freebsd or opensolaris. If thunar throws away thunar-vfs it would be a total waste and it looks to me that thunar itself is getting very little attention.

thunar-vfs is a pretty bad name. It is a pragmatic aspect to use the gnome stuff and later to a joint project with thunar developers and others based on the thunar stuff as a replacement to get rid off this gnome library. It depends on the developer community to grow first. Immature solutions here would block broad LXDE adoption.

Pragmatism and running code over ideology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gnome is platform development by infection. So you have to avoid the infection but I agree with your pragmatism on the low level stuff. LXDE solves the Gnome infection culture bug.</p>
<p>&#8220;In the long run I think this is more constructive than fixing old bugs and broken compatibility all the time. I believed that judicious use of gio/gvfs can still make things lightweight and fast “enough”. “Enough” means, it won’t be the fastest, but it will be acceptible by the users.&#8221;</p>
<p>LXDE is about to become number 3. An enterprise ready fast desktop environment for the masses which delivers what Gnome can&#8217;t, while KDE slowly eliminates the bugs for his next generation to win back its 3.5 users. LXDE has no toolkit nazi attitude, in fact it is totally modular and low risk. Concentrate on running code and simplicity, outsource the common cruft to others. Linux desktops together have less than 2% market share, so we don&#8217;t compete with the allmighty Gnome which is just another dwarf. LXDE = the LinuX Desktop done right, focused on responsiveness and less performance/memory taxation. VFS is on a lower level. It is a bit like to ask whether to take ubuntu, red hat linux, freebsd or opensolaris. If thunar throws away thunar-vfs it would be a total waste and it looks to me that thunar itself is getting very little attention.</p>
<p>thunar-vfs is a pretty bad name. It is a pragmatic aspect to use the gnome stuff and later to a joint project with thunar developers and others based on the thunar stuff as a replacement to get rid off this gnome library. It depends on the developer community to grow first. Immature solutions here would block broad LXDE adoption.</p>
<p>Pragmatism and running code over ideology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rafael</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1021</link>
		<dc:creator>rafael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 08:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1021</guid>
		<description>Please look at the lxde design guidelines:

&quot;- If only several simple APIs of another big library are needed, try to extract them and add them to your program instead of depending on the whole library whenever possible. (Beware of license)

- Only use libraries from other desktops when they are small or efficient enough and have few dependencies.

- Only create a daemon if there is a really good reason. 

- Try to keep maximal compatibility with lower gtk+ versions (gtk+ 2.6 is preferred). Try to make features requiring higher gtk+ versions optional with proper conditional compilation and compatibility macros.&quot;

In this sentiment, pcmanfm should have less dependencies, not more. The added funtionality of handling remote volumes isn&#039;t worth sacrificing speed, or having few dependencies (thus occupying less space on the harddrive), or the modularity which defined lxde in the first place.

My take: Fork thunar-vfs (or whatever code base that suits your purpose best). Fork it not as part of the pcmanfm codebase, but as an standalone project. Give it a new name, make it as lightweight possible providing just the funcionality that you need. Look out for developers to work on this and keep it as a separated project (but coordinating efforts) from the development of pcmanfm.

Please, keep lxde lightweight.

Regards,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please look at the lxde design guidelines:</p>
<p>&#8220;- If only several simple APIs of another big library are needed, try to extract them and add them to your program instead of depending on the whole library whenever possible. (Beware of license)</p>
<p>- Only use libraries from other desktops when they are small or efficient enough and have few dependencies.</p>
<p>- Only create a daemon if there is a really good reason. </p>
<p>- Try to keep maximal compatibility with lower gtk+ versions (gtk+ 2.6 is preferred). Try to make features requiring higher gtk+ versions optional with proper conditional compilation and compatibility macros.&#8221;</p>
<p>In this sentiment, pcmanfm should have less dependencies, not more. The added funtionality of handling remote volumes isn&#8217;t worth sacrificing speed, or having few dependencies (thus occupying less space on the harddrive), or the modularity which defined lxde in the first place.</p>
<p>My take: Fork thunar-vfs (or whatever code base that suits your purpose best). Fork it not as part of the pcmanfm codebase, but as an standalone project. Give it a new name, make it as lightweight possible providing just the funcionality that you need. Look out for developers to work on this and keep it as a separated project (but coordinating efforts) from the development of pcmanfm.</p>
<p>Please, keep lxde lightweight.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ajay</title>
		<link>http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352&#038;cpage=1#comment-1020</link>
		<dc:creator>Ajay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 07:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=352#comment-1020</guid>
		<description>My vote goes for thunar-vfs. 

thunar-vfs being picked up by you guys may even spur its further development.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My vote goes for thunar-vfs. </p>
<p>thunar-vfs being picked up by you guys may even spur its further development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
