Terminal desktop file name

[Kevin Fenzi]

Greetings. 

What do folks think about: 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835

I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for
clarity... 

what do others think?

kevin

[Martin Sourada]

Hi Kevin,

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:32:11 -0600 
Kevin Fenzi wrote:

>  Greetings. 
>  
>  What do folks think about: 
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
>  
>  I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for
>  clarity... 
>  
>  what do others think?
>   
+1 from me.

Martin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
>  Greetings. 
>  
>  What do folks think about: 
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
>  
>  I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for
>  clarity... 
>  
>  what do others think? 
-1.

What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like
terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO
use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Christoph

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
>  > Greetings. 
>  > 
>  > What do folks think about: 
>  > 
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
>  > 
>  > I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for
>  > clarity... 
>  > 
>  > what do others think?
>  
>  -1.
>  
>  What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like
>  terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO
>  use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment. 
Because if you have several installed, they ALL show up as 'Terminal'
in the menu and you have no idea which one you are picking? 

I think there are legit reasons to have several installed. Perhaps you
use Xfce, but prefer gnome-terminal, or you want them both installed in
case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?

Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal and
be done with it. 

kevin

[Adam Miller]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 08:55:05AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
<SNIP>
>  Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal
> and
>  be done with it.  
<SNIP>

If that is the case, then I will +1 it ... but as long as the project
name and the name of the installed executable is in fact "Terminal" I
think it would add confusion to change it.

My $0.02

-AdamM

[Martin Sourada]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200 
Christoph Wickert wrote:

>  What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For
> things like
>  terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO
>  use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
>   
Well, sometimes people want to use other desktop's terminal /
calculator / address book / whatever. But well, your proposal is still
better than current situation.

One important question though: who will decide which apps get same
name and use OnlyShowIn and which not?

Martin

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 16:59 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>  On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200 
>  Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  
>  > What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like
>  > terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO
>  > use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
>  > 
>  Well, sometimes people want to use other desktop's terminal /
>  calculator / address book / whatever. But well, your proposal is still
>  better than current situation. 
I agree: OnlyShowIn is also an improvement on the current situation, but
I think a rename is still a bit better. As others have said, you might
want to use Terminal in GNOME, or gnome-terminal in Xfce. I've used
Terminal in GNOME before, when gnome-terminal was broken (though I wound
up on lxterminal because Terminal leaked memory at the time...)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Vitezslav Humpa]

>  Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal
> and
>  be done with it. 
Hi Kevin,

Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that?
That would be great.

--
Vita Humpa
Fedora QA

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:54:02 -0400 (EDT)
Vitezslav Humpa <vhumpa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  > Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to
> xfce4-terminal
>  > and be done with it.
>  
>  Hi Kevin,
>  
>  Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that?
>  That would be great. 
Yes. 

See: 

http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/2011-June/028921.html

Seems like the idea is moving forward upstream. 

kevin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:55 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
>  On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:39 +0200
>  Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > Am Dienstag, den 21.06.2011, 08:32 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
>  > > Greetings. 
>  > > 
>  > > What do folks think about: 
>  > > 
>  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714835
>  > > 
>  > > I'm ok with just changing/adding to the desktop name here for
>  > > clarity... 
>  > > 
>  > > what do others think?
>  > 
>  > -1.
>  > 
>  > What is so bad in having a "Terminal" on each desktop? For things like
>  > terminals, file managers, calculators or address books we should IHMO
>  > use "OnlyShowIn" and only show them in their native environment.
>  
>  Because if you have several installed, they ALL show up as 'Terminal'
>  in the menu and you have no idea which one you are picking? 
>  
>  I think there are legit reasons to have several installed. Perhaps you
>  use Xfce, but prefer gnome-terminal,  
We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which one
you choose as long as you only have one installed.

>  or you want them both installed in
>  case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work? 
I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in
case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install another
terminal. But you cannot just install another email client, you need to
configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't have your mail
available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt that anybody has
installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.

>  Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal
> and
>  be done with it. 
In that case we should rename the package and the binary, too.

Regards,
Christoph

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:54 -0400 schrieb Vitezslav Humpa: 
>  > Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to
> xfce4-terminal and
>  > be done with it.
>  
>  Hi Kevin,
>  
>  Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that?
>  That would be great. 
Do you  really think it is great from a user's POV to have

KDE Address book
KDE Archive Manager
KDE Calculator
KDE File Manager
KDE Terminal
GNOME Address book
GNOME Archive Manager
GNOME Calculator
GNOME File Manager
GNOME Terminal
LXDE Address book
LXDE Archive Manager
LXDE Calculator
LXDE File Manager
LXDE Terminal
Xfce Address book
Xfce Archive Manager
Xfce Calculator
Xfce File Manager
Xfce Terminal

This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different
terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and
what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu
entries.

Regards,
Christoph

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:54 -0400 schrieb Vitezslav Humpa: 
>  > > Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to xfce4-terminal
>  > > and be done with it.
>  > 
>  > Hi Kevin,
>  > 
>  > Do you have any info that the upstream is willing to do that?
>  > That would be great.
>  
>  Do you  really think it is great from a user's POV to have
>  
>  KDE Address book
>  KDE Archive Manager
>  KDE Calculator
>  KDE File Manager
>  KDE Terminal
>  GNOME Address book
>  GNOME Archive Manager
>  GNOME Calculator
>  GNOME File Manager
>  GNOME Terminal
>  LXDE Address book
>  LXDE Archive Manager
>  LXDE Calculator
>  LXDE File Manager
>  LXDE Terminal
>  Xfce Address book
>  Xfce Archive Manager
>  Xfce Calculator
>  Xfce File Manager
>  Xfce Terminal 
Yes, I do think that is better than: 

Address book
Address book
Address book
Address book
...
Terminal
Terminal
Terminal

>  This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have
> different
>  terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority
>  and what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of
>  ugly menu entries. 
What solution do you propose then? 

I think we can just drop this discussion now since upstream looks to
want to move Terminal to xfce-terminal and that should fix this case. 

kevin

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 18:48 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:

>  Xfce Address book
>  Xfce Archive Manager
>  Xfce Calculator
>  Xfce File Manager
>  Xfce Terminal
>  
>  This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different
>  terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and
>  what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu
>  entries. 
I don't think it's really that simple. There is a specific problem here:
Xfce's terminal application is *actually called Terminal*, it's not just
listed as that in the menus. It's a bad name for the application, quite
simply.

There are approaches that can be used in the case of apps that perform
the same purpose and may want to be listed under their purpose and not
their name in the system menus; the Name and GenericName fields exist to
help with this. But if the name of the app *is* its generic purpose,
that's a more serious issue. I don't think you can lump Terminal in with
all those others.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  
>  We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which
>  one you choose as long as you only have one installed. 
Why restrict people to only installing one?

>  > or you want them both installed in
>  > case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
>  
>  I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in
>  case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install
>  another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client,
>  you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't
>  have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt
>  that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case. 
Sure. I agree the case moves further away from reality in apps that are
complex and need setup. But for example web browsers, people may need
several installed to test how a site they are desiging looks in webkit,
etc. 

>  > Sounds like upstream might just rename Terminal to
> xfce4-terminal
>  > and be done with it.
>  
>  In that case we should rename the package and the binary, too. 
Absolutely. 

kevin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:00 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
>  On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200
>  Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > Do you  really think it is great from a user's POV to have
>  > 
>  > KDE Address book
>  > KDE Archive Manager
>  > KDE Calculator
>  > KDE File Manager
>  > KDE Terminal
>  > GNOME Address book
>  > GNOME Archive Manager
>  > GNOME Calculator
>  > GNOME File Manager
>  > GNOME Terminal
>  > LXDE Address book
>  > LXDE Archive Manager
>  > LXDE Calculator
>  > LXDE File Manager
>  > LXDE Terminal
>  > Xfce Address book
>  > Xfce Archive Manager
>  > Xfce Calculator
>  > Xfce File Manager
>  > Xfce Terminal
>  
>  Yes, I do think that is better than: 
>  
>  Address book
>  Address book
>  Address book
>  Address book
>  ...
>  Terminal
>  Terminal
>  Terminal 
Well, most people will just have

Address book
...
Terminal

Instead they get
KDE Address Book
...
KDE Terminal

>  What solution do you propose then? 
1. Don't do anything because it is just a corner case
2. Use OnlyShowIn where it makes sense.

BTW: We are already using OnlyShowIn in quite a few places. If we
started renaming things depending on the desktop we should also stop
using OnlyShowIn and rename these apps, too. Then we would see the whole
extent and how ugly this is.

>  I think we can just drop this discussion now since upstream looks to
>  want to move Terminal to xfce-terminal and that should fix this case.  
While I agree with upstream that both the package and the binary should
be named xfce4-terminal I think the menu entry should remain "Terminal"
rather than "Xfce4 Terminal".

Regards,
Christoph

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 10:04 -0700 schrieb Adam Williamson: 
>  On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 18:48 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  
>  > Xfce Address book
>  > Xfce Archive Manager
>  > Xfce Calculator
>  > Xfce File Manager
>  > Xfce Terminal
>  > 
>  > This is what it's going to be in long run. People who have different
>  > terminals/calculators/whatever installed are definitely the minority and
>  > what we are starting here will make the majority have lots of ugly menu
>  > entries.
>  
>  I don't think it's really that simple. There is a specific problem here:
>  Xfce's terminal application is *actually called Terminal*, it's not just
>  listed as that in the menus. It's a bad name for the application, quite
>  simply. 
I fully agree and I am all for renaming the package and the binary. But
not the menu entry.

>  There are approaches that can be used in the case of apps that
> perform
>  the same purpose and may want to be listed under their purpose and not
>  their name in the system menus; the Name and GenericName fields exist to
>  help with this. 
But there is no way to mix Name and GenericName.

>  But if the name of the app *is* its generic purpose,
>  that's a more serious issue. I don't think you can lump Terminal in with
>  all those others. 
I think a terminal is the most generic thing there is. While file
managers or address books can be pretty different, terminals are looking
all the same and have pretty similar capabilities because they all just
run bash.

Terminals are *very* generic, thus they should be allowed to have a
generic name in the menu.

Regards,
Christoph

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:04 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: 
>  On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200
>  Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > 
>  > We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which
>  > one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
>  
>  Why restrict people to only installing one? 
I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only
have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very
generic items. IMHO this is restriction.

>  > > or you want them both installed in
>  > > case one has a bug that prevents you from doing work?
>  > 
>  > I doubt average users really have two different programs installed in
>  > case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install
>  > another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client,
>  > you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't
>  > have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt
>  > that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case.
>  
>  Sure. I agree the case moves further away from reality in apps that are
>  complex and need setup. But for example web browsers, people may need
>  several installed to test how a site they are desiging looks in webkit,
>  etc. 
I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit or
gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same
rendering engine.

Terminals on the other hand are way more generic. They just run bash.

Anyway, I am going to stop arguing here, I will (have to) live with
upstream's decision.

Regards,
Christoph

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:

>  I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit
> or
>  gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same
>  rendering engine. 
I have two based on Webkit installed right now...=)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Martin Sourada]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200 
Christoph Wickert wrote:

>  Do you  really think it is great from a user's POV to have
>  
>  KDE Address book
>  KDE Archive Manager
>  KDE Calculator
>  KDE File Manager
>  KDE Terminal
>  GNOME Address book
>  GNOME Archive Manager
>  GNOME Calculator
>  GNOME File Manager
>  GNOME Terminal
>  LXDE Address book
>  LXDE Archive Manager
>  LXDE Calculator
>  LXDE File Manager
>  LXDE Terminal
>  Xfce Address book
>  Xfce Archive Manager
>  Xfce Calculator
>  Xfce File Manager
>  Xfce Terminal
>   
Well, the best solution is to have "<Name> <Generic Name>"
or something
like that, sans the problem cases where generic name is part of name.

It's bad to have:
Mail Client
Mail Client
Web Browser
Web Browser
Terminal
Terminal
Terminal
Archive Manager
Archive Manager
...

But IMHO it's good to have:
Claws Mail Client
Thunderbird Mail Client
Midori Web Browser
Firefox Web Browser
Gnome Terminal Emulator
XFCE Terminal Emulator
XTerm Terminal Emulator
Ark Archive Manager
Xarchiver Archive Manager
...

1. There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop
   default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and
   it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who use
   different shells)
2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another
   GNOME and yet another XFCE

How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal?
ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result
in menu with two or more Terminals in there...

Cheers,
Martin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 21:24 +0200 schrieb Martin Sourada: 
>  
>  1. There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop
>     default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and
>     it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who use
>     different shells)
>  2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another
>     GNOME and yet another XFCE
>  
>  How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal?
>  ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result
>  in menu with two or more Terminals in there... 
1 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can
install and run what they like
2 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can run
any terminal in any environment and they can configure their menu.

There only is a problem when 1 and 2 are combined: In a multi-user
install where users are using different desktops and do not want to use
the default terminal of that environment. This is 3 conditions combined
and I consider this a negligible cornercase that is not worth the
hassle.

Regards,
Christoph

[Martin Sourada]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:28:42 +0200 
Christoph Wickert wrote:

>  Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 21:24 +0200 schrieb Martin Sourada: 
>  > 
>  > 1. There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop
>  >    default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and
>  >    it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who
>  > use different shells)
>  > 2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE,
>  > another GNOME and yet another XFCE
>  > 
>  > How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for
>  > terminal? ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving
>  > Terminal will result in menu with two or more Terminals in there...
>  
>  1 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can
>  install and run what they like
>  2 is not a problem as long as we don't change anything. People can run
>  any terminal in any environment and they can configure their menu.
>   
Well, when the configuration utility also displays 2 optically
identical entries, it's still hit and miss. But to be fair, I wouldn't
probably argue this so long (after all, the only problematic are AFAIK
gnome and xfce's terminal emulators, the rest have
different names in menus) if it hadn't hit me personally during my
switch from Gnome to XFCE...

>  There only is a problem when 1 and 2 are combined: In a multi-user
>  install where users are using different desktops and do not want to
>  use the default terminal of that environment. This is 3 conditions
>  combined and I consider this a negligible cornercase that is not
>  worth the hassle.
>   
Cannot argue on this front -- I don't have any data concerning the
actual percentage of installations fulfilling both 1 and 2 conditions.

Cheers,
Martin

[Miro Hrončok]

Hi,
I have been watching this quite a while and I think I found an usable
but arduous solution. A mechanism is needed to be developed,
recognizing whenever there are 2 or more menuitems with the same
Generic name (Terminal) and in that case use DE name (Xfce Terminal).

Miro Hrončok

Jabber: miro(a)hroncok.cz
Telefon: [phone]



2011/6/23 Martin Sourada <martin.sourada(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:48:33 +0200
>  Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> > Do you  really think it is great from a user's POV to have
> >
> > KDE Address book
> > KDE Archive Manager
> > KDE Calculator
> > KDE File Manager
> > KDE Terminal
> > GNOME Address book
> > GNOME Archive Manager
> > GNOME Calculator
> > GNOME File Manager
> > GNOME Terminal
> > LXDE Address book
> > LXDE Archive Manager
> > LXDE Calculator
> > LXDE File Manager
> > LXDE Terminal
> > Xfce Address book
> > Xfce Archive Manager
> > Xfce Calculator
> > Xfce File Manager
> > Xfce Terminal
> >
>  Well, the best solution is to have "<Name> <Generic Name>" or
> something
>  like that, sans the problem cases where generic name is part of name.
>
>  It's bad to have:
>  Mail Client
>  Mail Client
>  Web Browser
>  Web Browser
>  Terminal
>  Terminal
>  Terminal
>  Archive Manager
>  Archive Manager
>  ...
>
>  But IMHO it's good to have:
>  Claws Mail Client
>  Thunderbird Mail Client
>  Midori Web Browser
>  Firefox Web Browser
>  Gnome Terminal Emulator
>  XFCE Terminal Emulator
>  XTerm Terminal Emulator
>  Ark Archive Manager
>  Xarchiver Archive Manager
>  ...
>
>  1. There are people who wish to use different terminal than desktop
>    default (it's not "just running xterm in a window with tabs" and
>    it's certainly not running bash everywhere. There are people who use
>    different shells)
>  2. There are multi-user installations where one user uses KDE, another
>    GNOME and yet another XFCE
>
>  How are you going to show both of them sensible menu entry for terminal?
>  ShowOnlyIn will block the first use case, leaving Terminal will result
>  in menu with two or more Terminals in there...
>
>  Cheers,
>  Martin
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  xfce mailing list
>  xfce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
>

[Todd And Margo Chester]

My 2 cents (remember what you paid to read it):

I would like to be able to run the following command

        rpm -qa xfce\*

and see every Xfce application.  Nothing left off.  I want
to know what is part of Xfce and what is not.

So, put me down as a positive vote for the proposal.  Every
Xfce app should have an "xfce" in from of its name.

Many thanks,
-T

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:58, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 11:04 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:39:53 +0200
> > Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We could leave everyhing as it is now then. It doesn't matter which
> > > one you choose as long as you only have one installed.
> >
> > Why restrict people to only installing one?
>
>  I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only
>  have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very
>  generic items. IMHO this is restriction.
>  
Currently I have several showing up in my menu's even though I didn't
mean to install them (I installed Xfce, and Gnome via the DVD which
has given me 2 Terminals). I also ran into people asking me this at
SELF last week when they were getting away from Gnome but ending up
with multiple Terminals.

I do not know what the solution is..
a) Make an xfce-menu package with the xfce items all showing up there.
b) In the grand tradition of Unix jokes make xfce Terminal show up as terminal
c) Put in a qualifier xfce-Terminal

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren

[Piscium]

On 23 June 2011 18:58, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

[snip]

>  I am not restricting anybody, I just said that most people will only
>  have one and we will force them to have specific menu entries for very
>  generic items. IMHO this is restriction. 
[snip]

> > > I doubt average users really have two different programs
> installed in
> > > case one breaks. And if something breaks, you can easily install
> > > another terminal. But you cannot just install another email client,
> > > you need to configure it and if you are not using IMAP, you won't
> > > have your mail available. So this is much more critical - but I doubt
> > > that anybody has installed two mail clients for that unlikely case. 
[snip]

>  I think web browsers are not generic. If they just embedded webkit
> or
>  gecko, nobody would install two different browsers based on the same
>  rendering engine. 
My two cents: some people like choice.

Example: On Linux I use three browsers: Firefox, SeaMonkey and Opera
(the first two based on the same rendering engine). There are several
reasons. Firefox is the one I use most, but I configured it with the
most restrictive settings, such as ad blocker, flash blocker, cookie
blocker, and white-list JavaScript blocker. I configured SeaMonkey to
be somewhat more permissive. The other reason for these two browsers
is that on Firefox I use one Yahoo account, and on SeaMonkey a
different one. This is not possible with a single browser.  Also I use
Gmail with SeaMonkey but Google with Firefox, for a bit of privacy. I
use Opera mostly because I found it somewhat better with my Hotmail
account, and I have no extension or plugins for it, for those cases
where I need even less restrictions.

And I have about a dozen terminals installed, though I use four or
five on a regular basis. XFCE terminal is for my root shell, with a
particular background colour, so that my eyes are conditioned that I
know I am root just by the colour. Gnome-terminal is for general
purpose uses. LxTerminal is because that is the default for LxPanel,
although I don't have a compelling reason to use it. For top/htop I
use xterm or aterm as they are faster and configured for smaller size.

At the moment I use only one email client (Thunderbird), but in the
past on Windows I used two (Outlook and Thunderbird), each configured
to fetch mail from different accounts, and I may still use two clients
on Linux, as I am thinking of trying Claws.

With alacarte I modified some of the entries on the menu, such as
"Terminal (Gnome)" and  "Terminal (XFCE)".

I even use two panels on my desktop (Lx and XFCE) and two monitors
(Conky and GkrellM).

I love choice!

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:24:24 -0700
Todd And Margo Chester <toddandmargo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  My 2 cents (remember what you paid to read it):
>  
>  I would like to be able to run the following command
>  
>          rpm -qa xfce\*
>  
>  and see every Xfce application.  Nothing left off.  I want
>  to know what is part of Xfce and what is not.
>  
>  So, put me down as a positive vote for the proposal.  Every
>  Xfce app should have an "xfce" in from of its name. 
Thats unlikely to ever really happen. ;) 

There's a number of packages in the collection that don't start with
xfce4, and I suspect upstream is unlikely to rename them all (Thunar,
xfdesktop, parole, midori, xfburn, etc). 

kevin