On 21/01/16 21:03, 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.

the main reason I use it instead is that xfce-terminal depends on a desktop
session, dbus etc to function properly while roxterm does not.

The second advantage for me (since I use colours to indicate some tasks) is the
profile/theme configuration is easier to deal with and file based.

>
> 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.

Here it has defaults .... I think via the MIME system?? but maybe this depends
on something else being installed? There certainly should be defaults.

> - 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.

Very easy to add any that you wish, there is a folder of links for each file
type, and another that fills the 'send to..' menu for every file type.

"Customise Menu.." takes you there, and gives a brief explanation.

>
> 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.

configurable in 'Options'

>
> Didier
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng