Long time ago when I switched from Windows to Linux (for ideological reasons, not because it is a better OS) I found great help in the transition phase of getting familiar with Linux through using the Linux distro; Mint, because it was so similar in appearance to what I was used to. Having the option of a Linux that look similar to MacOS is great gift to the community and it surely can help ease the move for those who use Mac over to Linux. So in this case, the similarity is a feature. Seeing this "imperfection" (obviously it cannot be a copy) or "similarity" as ugly is probably more an indicator of the viewers mindset and not the OS itself.
Every major version of Mac OS X macOS has come with a new default wallpaper. As you can see, I have collected them all here. While great in their day, the early wallpapers are now quite small in the world of 5K and 6K displays.
Linux distributions very commonly have a number of gratuitous dependencies, such as exim4, pulseaudio, Thunar... each of these is a potential security hazard. The sad part is that there is zero necessity to make other desktop software dependent upon them. Thunar, in particular is very difficult to get rid-of.
Linux distributions very commonly have a number of gratuitous dependencies, such as exim4, pulseaudio, Thunar… each of these uses resources and is a potential security hazard. The sad part is that there is zero necessity to make other desktop software dependent upon them. Thunar, in particular is very difficult to get rid-of.
There should be very few distributions which have Thunar as a ""dependancy"". It's almost never installed by default unless that distro is focused on #xfce, and wants to provide a cohesive environment. I'd argue that #Thunar is one of the least intrusive gui file managers available.
... which actually proves that it is not a dependency, as nothing complains. If I simply moved the executable, I'd probably have some problems with updates and upgrades. I don't want to test that...
Details, please. Which package tool are you using to uninstall it? If you have a "desktop" package that includes Thunar as part of the desktop, of course this will also uninstall the "desktop" virtual package e.g. "xubuntu-desktop", but that will not uninstall any actual applications. It just means you are choosing to no longer have the "standard" set of XFCE desktop packages, which includes Thunar.
I agree with @ミ★ Confederate Space Force ★彡... When I choose Linux, I took it the way it is (was) and made it look to my own taste.
About Thunar, (FXCE MX-Linux from 17.x to 23.1) I see it as a dinosaur... but since I want to stick to Fxce and tried other main file manager, I prefer to keep it and accept it the way it is... 'till I find better.
If you have a “desktop” package that includes Thunar as part of the desktop, of course this will also uninstall the “desktop” virtual package
There is no good reason that the entire desktop should depend upon the installation of Thunar. It's completely superfluous and I have run many a system without it... This kind spurious dependency is not limited to Thunar, but it does illustrate how the Linux desktop has become more and more bloated. Remember also that Thunar runs as a daemon, so it's operation will affect the entire system.
This brings me to the importance of a 5th Freedom for Free Software: the freedom to be free of running those things you do not want. There are a number of reasons this is an important freedom, and "bloat" is lower on the list. "Performance" would be near the top, as would "Security".
You do have the freedom to not run the thing you do not want by simply choosing to not use it. Choosing to use something that does not afford you that choice, is not a valid argument for the lack of such freedom. If the distribution you choose to use does not by default work the way you want it to work, that is simply a failure in your ability configure it to your liking.
@tomgrzybow@societas.online When you choose a "desktop" virtual package, you are choosing the distribution's selection of standard applications they have included as part of that particular "desktop". The XFCE desktop generally includes Thunar. That doesn't mean the windowing system depends on it - the beauty of Linux is that you're free to make your own choices. If you don't like Thunar, nobody is forcing you to keep it. You just have to accept that you have made different choices than the upstream packagers, and therefore have to opt out of accepting their recommendations.
Debian and Ubuntu don't require you to use those "destop environment" virtual packages, and you can set up a system without ever installing them. Just pick X or Wayland, then a window manager, and the applications you want. You can have as minimal a system as you like. You can also safely uninstall the "desktop" package without any issues, as I explained earlier.
Once again: windowing systems do not require the use of the "desktop environment" virtual packages. You can use any Linux windowing system of your choice without opting to follow someone else's recommendations. If you don't like other people's recommendations, don't follow them. Complaining about their recommendations not meeting your personal preferences rather than just doing things your own way is unhelpful.
That doesn’t mean the windowing system depends on it
This is missing the point. It depends upon it if you want to remove it! And you should want to remove it, as it is a negative to your system - or certainly can be judged that way.
That doesn’t mean the windowing system depends on it
This is missing the point. It depends upon it if you want to remove it! And you should want to remove it, as it is a negative to your system - or certainly can be judged that way. I see no reason that one should have to accept every element of a "package" in order to use some of it, no matter how arbitrary, intrusive, insecure, or resource-intensive they might be. Free Software should certainly seek freedom from that. Use what you need and leave the rest!
@tomgrzybow, I think maybe I don't understand what you're complaint is. The way I'd read it was; the collection of packages I chose to have installed on the distribution I chose to use, is forcing me to keep Thunar installed against my will. If this is not the case, please explain the situation more clearly/precisely so that others can help solve your problem. If I have read this correctly, please stop complaining about your choice being forced upon you by someone else.
Oh, and this is not about me, it is much more about Free Software, and how to protect and maximize our freedom here, where we are "provided" with things we cannot avoid.
You don't seem to be communicating effectively, because it sounds like you're asking other people to do things the way you personally want them. That's not how Free Software works. People have the freedom of choice to do things their own way. If you don't like the recommendation of Thunar, create your own "desktop" package that doesn't include it. People who agree with you can then choose to use your version.
Once again: nothing and nobody are "forcing" you to use Thunar. You don't have to keep it installed. Just uninstall it. You've been asked to explain why you can't or won't, and you didn't provide any details.
I see no reason that one should have to accept every element of a “package” in order to use some of it, no matter how arbitrary, intrusive, insecure, or resource-intensive they might be. Free Software should certainly seek freedom from that.
And I can elaborate on that: Thunar (specifically) can be seen as intrusive, as it runs in the background collecting substantial amounts of usage information, especially about the files on your system and your usage of them. (of course some people may want that, while others not).
Thunar, running as a deamon process, is potentially an avenue for exploits:
Thunar, uses both CPU and memory, things which in some computers is in short supply. Oddly, xfc4 claims to be a "slimmed-down" desktop. Well, here's some low-haning fruit right here...
The dependency of xfc4e installation and maintenance upon Thunar is arbitrary, as the desktop itself does not actually depend upon it functioning. I see no reasonable objection to making it an option.
People have the freedom of choice to do things their own way. If you don’t like the recommendation of Thunar, create your own “desktop” package that doesn’t include it. People who agree with you can then choose to use your version.
In fact, that is not how Free Software works, or not how it should work. "My way or the highway" is not very free. "Free" is a relative thing, and we want more free, not less.
Once again, you keep saying you "cannot" remove Thunar, and that xfce "depends on it". These are both factually incorrect. There is a difference between the XFCE desktop and the "xfce-desktop" virtual package. Perhaps that is where you are having difficulties. You are welcome to use the XFCE desktop without Thunar, and you should do so if that's what you prefer.
@tomgrzybow, would you mind explaining what you are doing after uninstalling thunar that makes it show up again? Maybe you could even go so far as to show us an example of how you are attempting to uninstall it?
You definitely can use another file manager instead of Thunar, and other people have posted about their success in doing so. Some suggestions include Caja, Nemo, Nautilus and PCManFM.
So, what I do, is I mv /usr/bin/thunar to /usr/bin/thunar.hold; then I create a dummy file /usr/bin/thunar, with essentially nothing in it. This allows me to upgrade my system without error. But if thunar is upgraded, well then I have to go through this again.
If you mean the “xfce4” package, I’ve already explained several times that it is just the distribution packaging team’s list of what they have selected for a recommended XFCE desktop experience. Which includes Thunar, because that’s what they recommend. That package is not the “XFCE desktop”, and uninstalling it will not prevent you from having an XFCE desktop environment. So you shouldn’t be messing around with the dummy file, just go ahead and allow the “xfce4” package to be uninstalled. You have decided you don’t want to follow their recommendations, so you don’t want that package.
From the package description:
“If you intend to use Xfce4 and want the full experience then installing this package and the packages it Recommends is a great place to start. If you just want to pick and choose the core components then feel free to remove this package.”
If you mean the “xfce4” package, I’ve already explained several times that it is just the distribution packaging team’s list of what they have selected for a recommended XFCE desktop experience. Which includes Thunar, because that’s what they recommend. That package is not the “XFCE desktop”, and uninstalling it will not prevent you from having an XFCE desktop environment. So you shouldn’t be messing around with the dummy file, just go ahead and allow the “xfce4” package to be uninstalled. You have decided you don’t want to follow their recommendations, so you don’t want that package.
From the package description:
“If you intend to use Xfce4 and want the full experience then installing this package and the packages it Recommends is a great place to start. If you just want to pick and choose the core components then feel free to remove this package.”
I don't understand your definition of "freedom". Do you want to set up your system the way you like? Because you are free to do so. Do you want to dictate what other people can recommend in their distribution? Because that is not "freedom", that is you enforcing your opinions on other people. Who are unpaid volunteers.
_Do you want to set up your system the way you like? Because you are free to do so. _
Obviously, i would like to use xfce4. For them to take the attitude "my way or no way", is contrary to the ideals of Free Software. It's not my opinion. You may have to steep yourself in the struggle which has taken place to fully understand. They (the xfce4 folks) may call their software "Free", but it is heading in the wrong direction. Of course nothing is black and white, but if they wanted it to be Free, they would give you more freedom and not impose unnecessary and sometimes unwanted software to run in the background on your system. All I'm asking for is a choice in the matter. Choice is freedom. Why is this so difficult to understand?
What is also irritating me is that I was ( a long time ago) a fan of the MATE desktop, until they ceased listening to their users. So, I switched to xfce4. Now I see some of the very same dynamic repeating...
The freedom for you to dictate what other people can do on their systems is not what "software freedom" means. You are welcome to use Xfce4 without Thunar. "The xfce folks" you are referring to are the Debian and Devuan Xfce maintainers, who have chosen to recommend Thunar because most people want it. They have clearly spelled out in the "xfce4" virtual package description that it's just a recommendation and if you don't want it, don't install that package. You will still have an Xfce desktop when the "xfce4" package is not installed. You have a choice to run whatever you want, to run Xfce with or without Thunar, and it's been explained to you how to do so.
You can't have it both ways. Either you want to follow the Debian and Devuan recommentations or you don't. If you disagree, you're welcome to set up your system your way. Everything will still work fine, and you can still use the package management system to update all your packages. You can also create your own Debian and Devuan virtual packages that contain your own recommendations for an "Xfce desktop" that contains a
... show more
The freedom for you to dictate what other people can do on their systems is not what "software freedom" means. You are welcome to use Xfce4 without Thunar. "The xfce folks" you are referring to are the Debian and Devuan Xfce maintainers, who have chosen to recommend Thunar because most people want it. They have clearly spelled out in the "xfce4" virtual package description that it's just a recommendation and if you don't want it, don't install that package. You will still have an Xfce desktop when the "xfce4" package is not installed. You have a choice to run whatever you want, to run Xfce with or without Thunar, and it's been explained to you how to do so.
You can't have it both ways. Either you want to follow the Debian and Devuan recommentations or you don't. If you disagree, you're welcome to set up your system your way. Everything will still work fine, and you can still use the package management system to update all your packages. You can also create your own Debian and Devuan virtual packages that contain your own recommendations for an "Xfce desktop" that contains a different file manager as a replacement for Thunar, or none at all, and submit that to become part of Debian and/or Devuan for other users who may share your opinions on Thunar.
What is it you actually want, Tom? Do you want things your way, or do you want everyone else to do things your way? That's only freedom for you.
I'm going to explain it one more time. Steps to install Xfce without Thunar:
Install the "xfce4" package or the "task-xfce-desktop" package which includes that plus extra applications.
Uninstall the "thunar" package, since you don't want it. This will uninstall the "xfce4" package, which is fine. It's done its job and installed all the recommended packages. They will stay installed and get updated just fine without the virtual package that initially installed them.
Why do you want to keep the "xfce4" package if you disagree with it? Why do you want to tell other people they can't use Thunar?
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •iBuntu: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil…
MacOS 11: cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/P3Uehz…
Pretty much identical!
File:IBuntu 2.1 default desktop - English.png - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.orgFortuitous
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Having the option of a Linux that look similar to MacOS is great gift to the community and it surely can help ease the move for those who use Mac over to Linux.
So in this case, the similarity is a feature. Seeing this "imperfection" (obviously it cannot be a copy) or "similarity" as ugly is probably more an indicator of the viewers mindset and not the OS itself.
Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •mc
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •That is an easy call.
Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •That actually is the default background for MacOS 11 Big Sur:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Bi…
17th major version of the macOS operating system
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •kinda garish. Not like the Apple I know...
I've worked with "Tiger" (circa 2004), but not much since then.
Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Yes Tiger had a blue background: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X…
Here is the whole wallpaper history: 512pixels.net/projects/default…
Every Default macOS Wallpaper – in Glorious 6K Resolution
512 PixelsTom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •??? How about exim4?
I also do away with any of the audio stuff...
Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •eshep
in reply to Tom Grzybow • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Thunar is one of the least intrusive gui file managers available.
Then why is it almost impossible to get rid-of? This is paradoxical.
eshep
in reply to Tom Grzybow • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •@Adam Hunt
OK, the iBuntu desktop may be something worth trying-out...
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Maybe it’s a lack of understanding for how to remove it from that particular distro/install.
No, you cannot. I have resorted to moving the executable and replacing it with a dummy file.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •eshep
in reply to Tom Grzybow • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •redj 18
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •I agree with @ミ★ Confederate Space Force ★彡...
When I choose Linux, I took it the way it is (was) and made it look to my own taste.
About Thunar, (FXCE MX-Linux from 17.x to 23.1) I see it as a dinosaur... but since I want to stick to Fxce and tried other main file manager, I prefer to keep it and accept it the way it is... 'till I find better.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •If you have a “desktop” package that includes Thunar as part of the desktop, of course this will also uninstall the “desktop” virtual package
There is no good reason that the entire desktop should depend upon the installation of Thunar. It's completely superfluous and I have run many a system without it... This kind spurious dependency is not limited to Thunar, but it does illustrate how the Linux desktop has become more and more bloated. Remember also that Thunar runs as a daemon, so it's operation will affect the entire system.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •eshep
in reply to Tom Grzybow • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •@tomgrzybow@societas.online When you choose a "desktop" virtual package, you are choosing the distribution's selection of standard applications they have included as part of that particular "desktop". The XFCE desktop generally includes Thunar. That doesn't mean the windowing system depends on it - the beauty of Linux is that you're free to make your own choices. If you don't like Thunar, nobody is forcing you to keep it. You just have to accept that you have made different choices than the upstream packagers, and therefore have to opt out of accepting their recommendations.
Debian and Ubuntu don't require you to use those "destop environment" virtual packages, and you can set up a system without ever installing them. Just pick X or Wayland, then a window manager, and the applications you want. You can have as minimal a system as you like. You can also safely uninstall the "desktop" package without any issues, as I explained earlier.
Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •eshep likes this.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •That doesn’t mean the windowing system depends on it
This is missing the point. It depends upon it if you want to remove it! And you should want to remove it, as it is a negative to your system - or certainly can be judged that way.
Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •That doesn’t mean the windowing system depends on it
This is missing the point. It depends upon it if you want to remove it! And you should want to remove it, as it is a negative to your system - or certainly can be judged that way. I see no reason that one should have to accept every element of a "package" in order to use some of it, no matter how arbitrary, intrusive, insecure, or resource-intensive they might be. Free Software should certainly seek freedom from that. Use what you need and leave the rest!
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Debian and Ubuntu don’t require you to use those “dekstop environment”
Absolutely missing the point here.
;-(
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •I don’t think you understand how either packages or Linux distributions work
Of course I do. And I understand the concept of dependencies. An arbitrary dependency is something to be avoided...
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •You do have the freedom to not run the thing you do not want by simply choosing to not use it.
People insist upon misunderstanding. I don't know why.
eshep
in reply to Adam Hunt • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •is forcing me to keep Thunar installed against my will
For no apparent reason. But, I have several good reasons why it should be an option.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •eshep likes this.
Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •you’re asking other people to do things the way you personally want them.
I said quite distinctly that this is not about me. Please.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •I see no reason that one should have to accept every element of a “package” in order to use some of it, no matter how arbitrary, intrusive, insecure, or resource-intensive they might be. Free Software should certainly seek freedom from that.
And I can elaborate on that: Thunar (specifically) can be seen as intrusive, as it runs in the background collecting substantial amounts of usage information, especially about the files on your system and your usage of them. (of course some people may want that, while others not).
Thunar, running as a deamon process, is potentially an avenue for exploits:
vulmon.com/searchpage?q=thunar
Thunar, uses both CPU and memory, things which in some computers is in short supply. Oddly, xfc4 claims to be a "slimmed-down" desktop. Well, here's some low-haning fruit right here...
The dependency of xfc4e installation and maintenance upon Thunar is arbitrary, as the desktop itself does not actually depend upon it functioning. I see no reasonable objection to making it an option.
https://vulmon.com/searchpage?q=thunar
vulmon.comTom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •People have the freedom of choice to do things their own way. If you don’t like the recommendation of Thunar, create your own “desktop” package that doesn’t include it. People who agree with you can then choose to use your version.
In fact, that is not how Free Software works, or not how it should work. "My way or the highway" is not very free. "Free" is a relative thing, and we want more free, not less.
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Oh one more reason - one may want to use another file manager instead, which would imply being able to remove Thunar -- except you cannot.
forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic…
replace thunar as standard file manager - Linux Mint Forums
forums.linuxmint.comAndrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Adam Hunt
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Salinger 3 likes this.
Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •eshep
in reply to Adam Hunt • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •You definitely can use another file manager instead of Thunar
Again not the point. Sure you can use other software, but Thunar is not going away!
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •would you mind explaining what you are doing after uninstalling thunar that makes it show up again?
I'm using Debian and Devuan, and find I cannot uninstall Thunar without uninstalling the xfce4 desktop itself!
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •If you mean the “xfce4” package, I’ve already explained several times that it is just the distribution packaging team’s list of what they have selected for a recommended XFCE desktop experience. Which includes Thunar, because that’s what they recommend. That package is not the “XFCE desktop”, and uninstalling it will not prevent you from having an XFCE desktop environment. So you shouldn’t be messing around with the dummy file, just go ahead and allow the “xfce4” package to be uninstalled. You have decided you don’t want to follow their recommendations, so you don’t want that package.
From the package description:
“If you intend to use Xfce4 and want the full experience then installing this package and the packages it Recommends is a great place to start. If you just want to pick and choose the core components then feel free to remove this package.”
packages.debian.org/bookworm/x…
... show moreIf you mean the “xfce4” package, I’ve already explained several times that it is just the distribution packaging team’s list of what they have selected for a recommended XFCE desktop experience. Which includes Thunar, because that’s what they recommend. That package is not the “XFCE desktop”, and uninstalling it will not prevent you from having an XFCE desktop environment. So you shouldn’t be messing around with the dummy file, just go ahead and allow the “xfce4” package to be uninstalled. You have decided you don’t want to follow their recommendations, so you don’t want that package.
From the package description:
“If you intend to use Xfce4 and want the full experience then installing this package and the packages it Recommends is a great place to start. If you just want to pick and choose the core components then feel free to remove this package.”
packages.debian.org/bookworm/x…
Debian -- Details of package xfce4 in bookworm
packages.debian.orgTom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •just go ahead and allow the “xfce4” package to be uninstalled.
Obviously we are talking past each other, as I have also repeatedly explained that this is not freedom. So I'll cease wasting my time here.
Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •_Do you want to set up your system the way you like? Because you are free to do so. _
Obviously, i would like to use xfce4. For them to take the attitude "my way or no way", is contrary to the ideals of Free Software. It's not my opinion. You may have to steep yourself in the struggle which has taken place to fully understand. They (the xfce4 folks) may call their software "Free", but it is heading in the wrong direction. Of course nothing is black and white, but if they wanted it to be Free, they would give you more freedom and not impose unnecessary and sometimes unwanted software to run in the background on your system. All I'm asking for is a choice in the matter. Choice is freedom. Why is this so difficult to understand?
What is also irritating me is that I was ( a long time ago) a fan of the MATE desktop, until they ceased listening to their users. So, I switched to xfce4. Now I see some of the very same dynamic repeating...
Tom Grzybow
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •The freedom for you to dictate what other people can do on their systems is not what "software freedom" means. You are welcome to use Xfce4 without Thunar. "The xfce folks" you are referring to are the Debian and Devuan Xfce maintainers, who have chosen to recommend Thunar because most people want it. They have clearly spelled out in the "xfce4" virtual package description that it's just a recommendation and if you don't want it, don't install that package. You will still have an Xfce desktop when the "xfce4" package is not installed. You have a choice to run whatever you want, to run Xfce with or without Thunar, and it's been explained to you how to do so.
You can't have it both ways. Either you want to follow the Debian and Devuan recommentations or you don't. If you disagree, you're welcome to set up your system your way. Everything will still work fine, and you can still use the package management system to update all your packages. You can also create your own Debian and Devuan virtual packages that contain your own recommendations for an "Xfce desktop" that contains a
... show moreThe freedom for you to dictate what other people can do on their systems is not what "software freedom" means. You are welcome to use Xfce4 without Thunar. "The xfce folks" you are referring to are the Debian and Devuan Xfce maintainers, who have chosen to recommend Thunar because most people want it. They have clearly spelled out in the "xfce4" virtual package description that it's just a recommendation and if you don't want it, don't install that package. You will still have an Xfce desktop when the "xfce4" package is not installed. You have a choice to run whatever you want, to run Xfce with or without Thunar, and it's been explained to you how to do so.
You can't have it both ways. Either you want to follow the Debian and Devuan recommentations or you don't. If you disagree, you're welcome to set up your system your way. Everything will still work fine, and you can still use the package management system to update all your packages. You can also create your own Debian and Devuan virtual packages that contain your own recommendations for an "Xfce desktop" that contains a different file manager as a replacement for Thunar, or none at all, and submit that to become part of Debian and/or Devuan for other users who may share your opinions on Thunar.
What is it you actually want, Tom? Do you want things your way, or do you want everyone else to do things your way? That's only freedom for you.
Andrew Pam
in reply to Adam Hunt • • •I'm going to explain it one more time. Steps to install Xfce without Thunar:
Why do you want to keep the "xfce4" package if you disagree with it? Why do you want to tell other people they can't use Thunar?