Re: Clairification - was [Re: Desktop Background Bites the Dust]
On Sat 27 May 2017 at 19:13:25 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 27 May 2017 at 09:52:45 -0500, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Sat 27 May 2017 at 12:32:06 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 26 May 2017 at 17:57:40 -0500, Michael Milliman wrote:
> > >
> > > > And actually, the --no-xinerama flag is not needed, at least on my
> > > > system. I use feh --bg-fill ... and it works just fine. Of course,
> > > > that is a very limited (and safe) usage of feh. I don't think it wise
> > > > to use it for anything much more (IMHO).
> > >
> > > Surprising after all these years that feh is now revealed as an unsafe
> > > image viewer.
> >
> > Wow, I didn't realise I'd participated in a revelation.
>
> It happens all the time on -user. :)
Fancy another one?
There are legitimate concerns about aspects of feh's behaviour, not
sufficient as yet to prevent my recommending it, but the topic prompted
a bit of exploring. So I took a look at Debian's sxiv in Stretch.
sxiv is somewhat similar to feh. It has an installed size a third of
feh's (an advantage?) and is fast at rendering and responsive. Nothing
scientific, but thumbnails (without caching) seem to render quicker than
feh does it. One can easily switch between thumbnail view and picture
display. The upstream developer is also active, which is never a bad
thing.
Downsides? Definitely. But this post is an advocacy one for those Debian
users who just want to view their pictures without installing tons of
GNOME dependencies or like to be able to configure things for their
particular use case.
I am now torn between feh and sxiv. That is the problem with threads
like this, which promote delving into available packages and having to
make a choice. :)
--
Brian.
Reply to: