Talk:Recommended applications

From Gentoo Wiki
Jump to:navigation Jump to:search
Before creating a discussion or leaving a comment, please read about using talk pages. To create a new discussion, click here. Comments on an existing discussion should be signed using ~~~~:
A comment [[User:Larry|Larry]] 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
: A reply [[User:Sally|Sally]] 00:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:: Your reply ~~~~


Talk status
This discussion is done.

I see net-im/utox as recommended chat client, but I cannot find it in portage..--Wintermann (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

uTox is not available in the main Gentoo repository. Please see here for a list of overlays you can install it from. Fturco (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

Why do we recommend Midori? It is buggy and crashes a lot. It's a long time ago a version was stabilized.

Hasufell (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Midori is not currently listed as a recommended application. More than 5 years have passed, so maybe Midori is no longer buggy. I don't know that personally because I don't use it. Please reopen if that's still a problem. Fturco (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Midori is not anymore in the portage. Octavsly (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2023 (CET)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

Please only add descriptions that are clarifying (e.g. toolkit or usage related), that would help people make a choice. For example, the FVWM description from the ebuild doesn't tell us anything useful (IMO). — yngwin (wiki admin) (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben de Groot (Yngwin) is now retired, but the point is well taken. No reason for this discussion to be open any longer. --Maffblaster (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

Also, I removed xterm, because I can't think of any reason why it would be recommended over rxvt-unicode (which is faster, prettier, and does unicode out-of-the-box). But feel free to make your case and we can add it back in. — yngwin (wiki admin) (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Xterm has been around since years, its code is still maintained until now, it has unicode and the ability to change fonts. It's personal preference too, I use on all of my systems that is the reason why it has been added. It is a suckles alternative compared to konsole. Xterm is ugly if not configured properly, it is from some perspective not as flexible and good looking compared to other terminals out there, but it is stable, and what could matter more. While I have the minimalistic and functional approach ,other users may have the visual approach, even other users have the feature rich approach to chose recommended applications. We eventually should define why this list recommends certain applications and why does it not recommend other applications, it would help users to maintain the list. Needle 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

Please keep the qtcurve packages together under Cross-toolkit themes, because they are a set. — yngwin (wiki admin) (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben de Groot (Yngwin) is now retired, but the point is well taken. No reason for this discussion to be open any longer. --Maffblaster (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

I'm new to Gentoo, so I may be misunderstanding the situation, but I believe the audacious package is in testing. Seems inappropriate to recommend packages that are in testing. Should it be removed or have a note added next to it (and any others in the same situation)? CandyAngel (talk)

An explanation about how to install software from the testing branch has been added. I think that excluding all software out of testing could preclude otherwise useful and still very stable software. Advising to selectively install testing packages when appropriate and explaining how to do it correctly may be a good thing (tm). I'm also considering that these are desktop, user-facing packages and not system or server software for example. I agree that testing packages should not be preferred and should be suggested only if they can be considered e.g. particularly useful or with few alternatives. Ris (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ris. In some instances, software will likely never be truly stable due to its use-cases. In such cases it may be necessary to recommend something that's at least had some use in a live environment. In which case, the recommended application becomes the most suitable application for the use-case given that other applications may be a poor installation candidate. --Stonespheres (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing left to discuss here. P.Fox (Ris) and Stonespheres , please be bold and close discussions if you've made an effort to close them (in this case you have). The more discussions we can close the better for documentation maintenance. Thank you! --Maffblaster (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

The link to Ninja-ide is broken. Garbanzo (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed by bug #620816 --Cronolio (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done.

The link to trojita (mail-client) is broken. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by DenisRV (talkcontribs) 2023-01-15T17:32:10‎

Thanks! Trojita has been removed from the repo, it's been last rited. I'll fix it in the article. -- Ris (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


Talk status
This discussion is done as of 2023-01-31.

dillo is masked and is going to be removed : --Octavsly (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2023 (CET)

I removed it from that page. You are welcome to make edits directly on articles in the future. Thank you. --Maffblaster (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Page length

Talk status
This discussion is done as of 2023-04-29.

I've trimmed the page down to the point that it doesn't seem particularly long to me anymore. It seems that using the {{Link}} template, it still triggers the "pages with too many expensive parser function calls" warning though.

It looks like the page can be much larger without tripping any warnings if the {{Link}} template is not used - User:Ris/tmp/tmptst.

Frustrated face :/.

-- Ris (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a good finding, P.Fox (Ris) ! It is certainly an unintended consequence of using the Link template instead of typical MediaWiki-style linking. I'm not quickly finding a simple solution to adjust the threshold of 'expensive calls'. I was thinking we could raise the bar on the back-end in order to avoid some of the warnings, but your solution of shorting pages / reducing the amount of template calls works as well. Something similar to this occurred to me on some pages in my userspace that were using the {{See also}} template a bunch. Upstream has Manual:$wgExpensiveParserFunctionLimit and Expensive parser functions available, but they are not really giving me what I want to know. --Maffblaster (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Credit to Brian Evans (grknight) for noticing the issue. If increasing limits can be a solution, cool - the page certainly doesn't seem to load particularly slowly, even when selecting "refresh" from the menu.
There is a difference with {{See also}} though: we can always avoid using many of those templates, not as easy to avoid making links...
I don't know if shortening pages will always be an obvious solution... Here it was a no-brainer, because this page had redundant sections, and I'd actually been planning on doing something about that for some time.
I wonder how "expensive" a link template actually is. {{See also}} has to look up "[[Article description::", but the link template is just string concatenation... Aren't these things cached somehow in any case?
-- Ris (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)