2010 e17 final - probs with file manager pcman (and thunar)

[vc]

Dolphin seems to perform properly in Enlightenment - why not make use of that, instead?

Just an update:  I am trying lxde which looks a lot more promising than e17 but when I look at installing Dolphin, it says this can only be done by installing task-kde4-minimal.  This would entail installing getting on for another 50-60 packages.  Surely this might slow my speedy light-weight DT?

Yes, it may at that - although whether by a significant degree or not, I could not say.  My approach so far has been to install the 2010 KDE Minime release, and then select an environment from that point.  I find this approach most suited to my purposes, as I tend to favour a number of KDE applications - and generally wish to make use of same in other environments as well.  This is one of the strong points of using PCLinuxOS, in my opinion, as it allows one to easily 'mix-and-match' various applications and environments, including those commonly perceived as being 'specific' somehow.

Many seem to regard file management as being something along the lines of a 'necessary evil', and tend to open their file managers only when required.  I approach them differently:  on all of my installs, a file manager is set to auto-open onto desktop 2 during bootup - it is always maximised or 'full-screened', and I perform nearly all of my application launchings from that file manager; as my thinking and usage patterns are quite file-oriented, this method makes the most sense to me.  This is why I still miss Konqueror 3... no other file manager, including either Dolphin or Konqueror 4, is yet even its equal, let alone surpassing.

[arjay]

I needed some KDE packages, so I did the install. I've not seen any differences, though I've only used the apps I needed and have not started any others or logged into KDE.

Thanks for the tip - I'll give it a try t5omorrow.  After all a re-install only takes 5 minutes

[arjay]

Yes, it may at that - although whether by a significant degree or not, I could not say.  My approach so far has been to install the 2010 KDE Minime release, and then select an environment from that point.  

I have always been a straightforward full KDE DT user until I started playing around with lightweight versions for a friend whose HP Pavilion is starting to show its age and needs something a bit easier on resources.

I must say I am getting rather confused at the number of variants - Minime, openbox, e17, xfce, lxde,  fluxbox  blah blah blah.  I am not at all sure what the differences are as such.  I will hunt around in google for the next few days but it would be useful if there was a straightforward RECENT comparison of them all.

I am far from convinced, as there seem to be some significant weaknesses - at least OOB.  For example, no way to browse samba shares, CDs/DVDs not detected and mounted, just for starters.  Lightweight is good but not at the expense of basic functionality, surely?

RJ

[Neal ManBear]

Most lightweight DEs are not as 'full-functioned' as the bigger ones. They are not as easy to use, on some levels. They are lightweight and have room to make changes. It can take some searching to learn what you need to know in order to make the changes you want. That is, in part, what using a lightweight DE is about.

[vc]

I have always been a straightforward full KDE DT user until I started playing around with lightweight versions for a friend whose HP Pavilion is starting to show its age and needs something a bit easier on resources.

Same for myself, as well - except my search for 'alternative' environments is founded upon different reasons:  there is a background disk write problem with some desktop environments, and also, the demise of KDE3.

I must say I am getting rather confused at the number of variants - Minime, openbox, e17, xfce, lxde,  fluxbox  blah blah blah.  I am not at all sure what the differences are as such.  I will hunt around in google for the next few days but it would be useful if there was a straightforward RECENT comparison of them all.

May I suggest you to do as I did recently, and simply evaluate them directly?  That is one of the greatest features of PCLinuxOS - one is able to install a wide range of different desktop environments so easily, and then compare them directly.

"Minime", on the other hand, is a PCLinuxOS term - it is used to describe releases which contain fewer packages by default than the "full" releases do, thus allowing for a greater range of user choice (as it is generally easier to install any required packages than it is to remove undesired ones.).

I am far from convinced, as there seem to be some significant weaknesses - at least OOB.  For example, no way to browse samba shares, CDs/DVDs not detected and mounted, just for starters.  Lightweight is good but not at the expense of basic functionality, surely?

The functionality is there; however, it is usually present in forms that you may not be immediately aware of or used to.  Best to keep an open mind, it seems - and of course, search through and make good use of this forum.

It reminds me of the popular misperception that linux is "no good for gaming".  That particular notion is probably best countered not only by the assortment of functional (and fairly challenging) games that are already available for linux, but also by the fact that with linux, the computer is the game.

[arjay]

May I suggest you to do as I did recently, and simply evaluate them directly?  That is one of the greatest features of PCLinuxOS - one is able to install a wide range of different desktop environments so easily, and then compare them directly.

I'll do m'best but am pushed for time at the moment.  Also I promised a win xp user friend of mine I'd put a linux distro on his aging notebook for him to try.  I've had it for quite a while, waiting for  the finals of PCLOS to come out.  I think I'll stick with lxde for the moment as it seems promising and, as you guys say, do a bit more research into the different functions.

Cheers for all your help

[vc]

Cheers for all your help

You're welcome.  I found Enlightenment to be initially the most difficult to deal with, yet it is an awarding environment once the basics have been grasped.  Similar could be said of the others also; however, that is merely due to the initial lack of familiarity - they are actually simple and fairly straightforward, when examined a bit further.  The '~box' environments (Blackbox; Fluxbox; Openbox, et al) are particularly configurable, and some of the many themes available for them are truly beautiful as well.