:: Re: [DNG] Does dunst require dbus?
Etusivu
Poista viesti
Vastaa
Lähettäjä: Didier Kryn
Päiväys:  
Vastaanottaja: dng@lists.dyne.org
Aihe: Re: [DNG] Does dunst require dbus?
Le 21/01/2016 05:57, Simon Wise a écrit :
> On 19/01/16 04:59, Steve Litt wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:31:43 +1100
>> Simon Wise<simonzwise@???> wrote:
>>
>>> But recently discovered that xfce4-terminal loses critical
>>> functionality without a session dbus running (it no longer connects
>>> to the cut buffer and clipboard ... which really destroys its
>>> functionality). I dropped it in favour of roxterminal which is very
>>> similar, based on the same engine I believe, but it does the cut
>>> buffer and clipboard etc directly, as it should.
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Thanks to your recommendation, I just started using roxterm. What a
>> breath of fresh air! Tabbed. Multiple profiles mean all sorts of
>> different terminals for different needs. No unholy union to a "desktop
>> environment" other than the rox filemanager system.
>
> they are independent, I think ... though perhaps some D&D might be a
> bit cleaner between them??? they both just interact with X and allow
> extensive file-based configuration if you want to use it. Last time I
> tried both worked fine just in X alone, no other management.
>
>
>> I need several different types of terminal emulators for several
>> different types of jobs. From now on I'm using roxterm instead of
>> xfce4-terminal for all new construction.
>
> "profiles" can easily be invoked on CL if you want distinctive
> appearance to indicate different tasks.
>
>
> Simon


     I installed roxterm and rox-filer. Both are just nice behaving. 
roxterm doesn't seem to differ in apearence, configurability or 
behaviour, from xfce4-terminal or gnome-terminal.


     rox-filer is nice looking, but it needs some configuration. Here 
are the two waek points I noticed


     - there is absolutely no application defined by default for any 
file type; you must define them all - this is a miss in the packaging.
     - there isn't a menu of possible applications for a given file 
type. I like to be able to open an image with either a simple viewer or 
with Gimp to edit it.


     And here are some features I like:


     - If you left-click with the shift key pressed, you always open the 
file with the application you have defined for raw text. This allows to 
edit an html file instead of browsing it.


     - files are open on single click (double click in Thunar), though 
this is a personal preference.


     Didier