On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:03:18AM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> 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.
>
So I tried installing it, and found that it recommended zeroinstall-injector.
Anyone know what this is? It seems to be a "platform-independent
package manager". What does this mean in relation to rox-filer. And
how does it relate to apt and aptitude.
Might it alleviate some of the above complaints?
-- hendrik
::
Re: [DNG] Does dunst require dbus?
