Talk:LXDE

License Contradiction

• Actually this project includes code that is licensed in GPL (about 90%) and LGPL (about 10%). You can check with code search applications. So there is no license contradiction. Mario Behling (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

• I removed clean up button as the article has shrinked substantially over the last weeks, I believe the clean up is done. Mario Behling (talk)

SliTaz

I've made this to prevent an edit war from happening in advance.

It's quite clear that SliTaz does use LXDE, just the older version does not. To say that it hasn't been included yet (as it was said on the history page) is just misleading, as the stable version was released way back in march. SliTaz cooking is a complete overhaul from the last one, interface wise, and I don't see why this should be ignored just because it's been deemed not done yet... For the last 6 months, with three binary releases in the mean time. It's hardly an obscure developer release.

Out of interest, is Debian treated the same with its stable versions? Surely stable != current version in every case?--217.155.206.150 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reference that says it is included then by all means put it in! See WP:V - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I've edited some of the citations that were missing. Specifically for Myas OS & VectorLinux. --0imagination (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the GNU/Linux naming controversy

Apropos this revert], we should reword the mention of GKT+ to say "Unix-like" rather than invoking the the GNU/Linux naming controversy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spurious citations

The claims in the introduction need proper citations. Pages containing similar uncited claims, especially from biased sources, is not adequate. I also have to take issue with some of the broad claims, in general. “LXDE is energy efficient and fast compared to other desktops,” doesn't specify which desktops, or even whether it refers to a majority or minority of desktops. To support such claims, you need a source containing actually benchmark and power consumption data, and you further need a proper definition of fast. The claim should be reworded, and proper sources should be provided, if they exist. Bsdaemon (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I think "energy efficient" is not what is literally intended. I think something like "resource effective" is more like it. The text is written onehandedly and may need some polish. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Availability list

After some attempts to clean it up I have removed the rather long and ungainly availability list and replaced it with the Template:LXDE nav box found at the bottom of the article instead. This is not only simpler and neater but adds the the information that LXDE is available for these distros to the distro articles themselves as well. This is similar to what has been done some time ago with Template:Xfce. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Official website

As of 2 May 2011 the LXDE website domain seems to have expired and been replaced with a placeholder page. I am presuming that they will get around to renewing it soon, but since this has now gone on for almost two weeks, in the meantime I think we need to provide at least a minimal explanation to readers as to why when the click on the website they don't find what they are looking for there. This can all be removed when the domain is renewed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed mention of this from 3 places in the article, as the domain and website hare now been renewed. --75.121.234.104 (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Super, thanks for taking care of that. I figured they would renew it sooner or later! - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

GTK+ and Qt ports

I put this article into Category:Software that was ported from GTK to Qt though it seams like BOTH versions are going to be maintained. Since the current version of LXQt (0.7) is only a port of the available code from GTK+ 2 to Qt (4 or 5) and no new features, it seems ok that LXQt is merely a redirect to this article here. Its the same software, but on top of Qt instead of GTK+. User:ScotXW^t@lk 22:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to disagree with the following claim, for Lxqt should have its own wikipage. 1.) Technically, Lxqt is a fork of Lxde, kinda like MATE and GNOME, but they are classified as seperate. 2.) Ever since 0.9, they have been working on and making their own Software/Applcations. 3.) Its a different Desktop Environment, and all of them are classified as their own. I agree to your claim however that the software is just on Qt, but since its their own version, it should have its own page. Thanks. AwlsomeAlex (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lxqt and Lxde Separation

After Lxqt being released, it has always been noted as a qt port of Lxde, sharing the same wikipage. I believe that it should have its own WikiPage separated from the Lxde, but sill be referenced from being a Qt port. If anyone else agrees to this, I will be willing to create that page. Thanks. :) AwlsomeAlex (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of text or refs here right now to make much of an article on LXqt. Perhaps you would like to start a proposed split article in your sandbox and we can see how it looks? - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will create one, and see if I can get a split proposal. AwlsomeAlex (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal that some older version of a program gets long term support. Personally, while I don't object an article split, I don't think it makes much sense unless both individual articles are long enough. A short LXQt article may attract some article-deletion-because-relevance guy. I'm not sure if LXQt on its own is relevant enough. Lubuntu 15.10 will still stick to LXDE. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LXDE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014105420/http://lxde.org/lxde to http://lxde.org/lxde

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LXDE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120114901/http://lxde.org/lxde/ to http://lxde.org/lxde/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Current Release vs Final Release

https://sourceforge.net/p/lxde/mailman/lxde-list/?viewmonth=202008

Per messages on the LXDE mailing list (link above), LXDE is still being developed, so the text showing "Final Release" needs to be changed to "Current Release". Thank you.

2601:18D:57F:1CD0:0:0:0:5EF8 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

What that says is The issue is that the current version of the LXDE Wikipedia page states 0.99.2 is the FINAL release.

If this is not the case and LXDE is still being developed, then the Wikipedia page needs to be corrected. What I haven't seen, is a post from one of the LXDE developers either confirming or denying whether LXDE is still being officially developed. If it is, then the information provided could be used on the Talk page.

If it's not, then the Wikipedia page can be deemed correct, as is. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pointless redirect from Picom (software)

Picom (software) redirects to this article, but Picom is not mentioned anywhere at all.

I'm not exactly an established user so I'm not sure how this is supposed to be resolved, but either Picom should be explained on this page or the redirect should be removed.

BnaVBt9a (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. It seems that Picom is "A lightweight compositor for X11", so it really does not make any sense to redirect it here. It probably makes more sense to redirect it to Compositing window manager, so I will do that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

GTK 3 port

I have no evidence of the whole DE has a stable/devel version using GTK 3, but sure LXTerminal depend on GTK 3, at least on my Debian 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efa (talk • contribs)

You must have read this somewhere, though? Where is the ref? - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The sentence "there was an experimental GTK 3 port" was already in the article and was not written by me, so the citation need is appropriate. I only added the affirmation about LXTerminal, as it is marked dependent on libgtk-3-0 (>=3.3.16) on my system.--Efa (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

See https://packages.debian.org/buster/lxterminal--Efa (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, while https://packages.debian.org/buster/lxde does not show GTK 3. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A rapid search in github sources for LXTerminal show this: https://github.com/lxde/lxterminal/blob/master/NEWS while googling found this for LXDE: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/LXDE

--Efa (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the experimental port to gtk 3 need another dedicated subchapter after Current development--Efa (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if there are refs to actually fill in at least a few details. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

what do you think of the last modification?--Efa (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a good start, but we just need a ref for it. Where did your list of ported components come from? Can we use that as a ref? - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

if you go to the link: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/LXDE and follow the link 'lxde-gtk3' that point to https://archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/lxde-gtk3/ you can see the component list current status--Efa (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that is definitive enough to use as a ref, although we still need one more ref for the last sentence there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

sorry for the last sentence, was already in the article, I simply moved from the first chapter to here, the 'citation need' can remain. BTW: To me seems reasonable that a FM is more usable with a compositor like SWAY that use tiling windows--Efa (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)