|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LXDE article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:36, 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:ScotXWt@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)
- 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)
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.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.