Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Perfect Xfce desktop install

Share your HowTo, Documentation, Tips and Tricks. Not for support questions!.
Message
Author
User avatar
nopposan
Posts: 347
Joined: 2007-01-14 22:48

xfce automount

#21 Post by nopposan »

What application and/or configuration should I be using to automount usb devices such as memory sticks?

Thanks.
Don't Panic!

vlad59
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-04 06:38

#22 Post by vlad59 »

I also made an howto about that : http://blog.slucas.fr/en/debian/lenny-xfce-automount :wink:
Last edited by vlad59 on 2010-11-15 14:19, edited 1 time in total.
Pinky and the brain forever. Howtos about Lenny, XFCE, ...

User avatar
nopposan
Posts: 347
Joined: 2007-01-14 22:48

That worked!

#23 Post by nopposan »

Thank you!
Don't Panic!

khentiamentiu
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-08-21 05:21
Location: NASA, Mountain View, CA

Re: Perfect Xfce desktop install

#24 Post by khentiamentiu »

Wolven wrote:Perfect Xfce desktop install - version 0.1.4

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.



This guide will show you how to install the Xfce desktop environment on Debian (Etch) without getting GNOME in the process. It will also show you how to tweak the Xfce install to become a "perfect" desktop environment.
The guide will also suggest a list of applications to install in addition to Xfce, to make it a fully functional desktop install.
This is great if you have a working network interface, but let's suppose I'm starting with an old laptop and a 802.11g wireless pcmcia adapter with the atheros chipset. I've already found out that the debian etch and lenny xfce installation CDs can't get this wireless adapter working. My solution has been to install Simply Mepis with KDE, then use synaptic to install xfce. What I really was trying to do, though, was install a lightweight xfce/debian distro from scratch. Any suggestions, or should I just stick with Mepis? It's a nice distro, but this old Armada e500 laptop is a bit slow.

Thanks!

pcalvert
Posts: 1939
Joined: 2006-04-21 11:19
Location: Sol Sector
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

#25 Post by pcalvert »

Hi khentiamentiu,

I'd stick with MEPIS. It's based on and compatible with Debian, so I don't see any compelling reason to abandon it. However, if you are still using KDM to log in then I would change that right away. Configure the system so that it boots to a text login prompt or install a light display manager like SLiM. Using qingy is another option.

Phil
Freespoke is a new search engine that respects user privacy and does not engage in censorship.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#26 Post by julian67 »

If you want something very light with Xfce and you've found that Mepis installer and tools make your task easier I'd very strongly suggest getting yourself antiX
antiX is a fast, lightweight and easy to install linux live CD distribution based on MEPIS for Intel-AMD x86 compatible systems. antiX offers users the "Magic of Mepis" in an environment suitable for old computers. So don't throw away that old computer yet! The goal of antiX is to provide a light, but fully functional and flexible free operating system for both newcomers and experienced users of Linux. It should run on most computers, ranging from 64MB old PII 266 systems with pre-configured 128MB RAM to the latest powerful boxes. 128MB RAM is recommended for antiX. antiX can also be used as a fast-booting rescue cd.

antiX-M7 will not run (yet) on older processors such as Pentium I (it seems that PII is ok, but PII MMX may not boot), AMD K5, and AMD K6 as it uses an up to date i686 kernel. antiX-Spartacus should.

At the moment antiX comes as a full distro (less than 400MB) and as a base distro (c200MB). For those who wish to have control over the install, use antiX-base.

Present released version: antiX-M7.5 Toussaint Louverture
It contains all Mepis tools/customisations but without the weight of KDE.

I've run antiX in the past, it's incredibly fast and there is a great guide on adding Xfce to Mepis http://www.mepislovers.org/forums/showt ... hp?t=11077 which I used.

khentiamentiu
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-08-21 05:21
Location: NASA, Mountain View, CA

#27 Post by khentiamentiu »

julian67 wrote:If you want something very light with Xfce and you've found that Mepis installer and tools make your task easier I'd very strongly suggest getting yourself [url=http://antix.mepis.org/index.php
It contains all Mepis tools/customisations but without the weight of KDE.

I've run antiX in the past, it's incredibly fast and there is a great guide on adding Xfce to Mepis http://www.mepislovers.org/forums/showt ... hp?t=11077 which I used.
That's great advice. Thank you! I like Mepis, except for the speed, particularly the fact that it brought up the pcmcia wireless adapter up without my having to do anything but install the distro. I hope the installation procedure for XFCE is well integrated with the existing Mepis aps.

User avatar
teliparas
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-12-08 15:06

#28 Post by teliparas »

hi guys
i m a happy debian user for over a year and i have tasted all the DE (kde gnome xfce4)
personally i love gnome but i also can live with kde
i tried 2 times the xfce4 but i was disappointed
WHY?
because the xfce4 is light but not functional
if i try to add some functionallity then then it becomes heavy
WHAT I LOVED?
thunar
it s the perfet file-manager it can do anything , it s very fast and light
(i use it with e17)
on conclusion xfce4 it s a half gome (at least for me)

ps i think that this period it s the best for gnome because they devs mainly bugs-fixing it and became more and more mature .anyway i ll give to xfce4 a 3 try 8)

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#29 Post by julian67 »

I'm not sure what is supposed to be missing from Xfce. Thunar is fairly empty by default but pretty much any feature you like can be very simply integrated with custom actions, no scripting required.

The default browser is a definitely a work in progress but there's always Firefox/Iceweasel.
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
teliparas
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-12-08 15:06

#30 Post by teliparas »

julian67 wrote:I'm not sure what is supposed to be missing from Xfce. Thunar is fairly empty by default but pretty much any feature you like can be very simply integrated with custom actions, no scripting required.

The default browser is a definitely a work in progress but there's always Firefox/Iceweasel.
first of all i must declare that i agree with wolven that is good choice to use gtk apps with xfce because there are no need to run extra qt libs
on the other hand the use of kde as desktop enviroment resault to use only qt apps
i like this policy because leads to very light and intergrated enviroments

my previous post about missing fanctionallity in xfce4 aim to underline that
YES XFCE4 IS LIGHT BUT WHEN YOU ADD SOME NICE(+HEAVY) GTK APPS IT BECOME AS FAST AS GNOME
just try
#aptitude install firestarter
in gnome (=+1 dependency)
in xfce4(=+32 dependecies if remember right) :)
so if you try to add some other gtk apps the resalt will be a DE as slow as gnome
thats the reason i dislike xfce4
the only reason to use someone xfce is an old PC
and also he must choose carefully the apps (eg evince -> xpdf pidgin->amsn openoffice->abiword deluge->transmition and so go on) :D
the resalt will be a fast DE but with limited functionallity :D

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#31 Post by julian67 »

teliparas wrote:
julian67 wrote:I'm not sure what is supposed to be missing from Xfce. Thunar is fairly empty by default but pretty much any feature you like can be very simply integrated with custom actions, no scripting required.

The default browser is a definitely a work in progress but there's always Firefox/Iceweasel.
first of all i must declare that i agree with wolven that is good choice to use gtk apps with xfce because there are no need to run extra qt libs
on the other hand the use of kde as desktop enviroment resault to use only qt apps
i like this policy because leads to very light and intergrated enviroments

my previous post about missing fanctionallity in xfce4 aim to underline that
YES XFCE4 IS LIGHT BUT WHEN YOU ADD SOME NICE(+HEAVY) GTK APPS IT BECOME AS FAST AS GNOME
just try
#aptitude install firestarter
in gnome (=+1 dependency)
in xfce4(=+32 dependecies if remember right) :)
so if you try to add some other gtk apps the resalt will be a DE as slow as gnome
thats the reason i dislike xfce4
the only reason to use someone xfce is an old PC
and also he must choose carefully the apps (eg evince -> xpdf pidgin->amsn openoffice->abiword deluge->transmition and so go on) :D
the resalt will be a fast DE but with limited functionallity :D
Firestarter is a Gnome application, it depends on libbonobo2 and libgnome2. If you install some KDE application into Xfce it will pull in a big bunch of KDE dependencies. Surprise!

But you can add gnome apps to Xfce and still the performance is the same. Unless you have used all your RAM Thunar will not get slower because some unrelated application has loaded 10 MB of Gnome libraries, nor will mousepad or the panel applets or anything else. You will see a little more RAM used and that's it. Meanwhile the Gnome applications will launch faster than they do in Gnome, because they are not hindered by metacity managing the windows and nautilus managing the desktop.

You express a belief that installing a lot of dependencies causes a slow down. This is a false assumption. What it causes is a very small amount more volatile memory to be used (sometimes). If you run a system with very limited resources such that you frequently exhaust all your physical RAM then of course this might be a problem, but otherwise it's irrelevant. If you want to see Gnome perform well you can install openbox. This will demonstrate that the biggest factors in Gnome's rather poor responsiveness are its window manager and its use of nautilus to manage the desktop, not some mysterious effect of libbonobo or libgnome.
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
teliparas
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-12-08 15:06

#32 Post by teliparas »

i think that gnome apps load faster in gnome than xfce4 because some libs are already loaded so
as DE gnome is more heavy but gnome apps load faster
generally speaking xfce4 are more faster than gnome but can t handle heavy apps as elegance as lightweight one

on conclusion the user needs the apps not the DE
the DE supply the land for apps and a way to handle them
generally speeking
good apps =heavy apps = many dependencies

ps on a system with 512mb ram believe it s issue
only with e17 and *box i have seen my system on a good performance mode

friendly :D

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#33 Post by julian67 »

teliparas wrote:i think that gnome apps load faster in gnome than xfce4 because some libs are already loaded
That doesn't make any sense, not even a little :lol: In Gnome the Gnome libraries will already be loaded and by your reasoning this should mean that Gnome apps load fastest in Gnome DE. But in fact they load faster in Xfce (even without enabling the option to load Gnome libs at log-in), or when using Gnome but with a different window manager.

Instead of postuling "I think this/I think that" to understand the difference you could instead look at what in fact does happen.
as DE gnome is more heavy but gnome apps load faster
generally speaking xfce4 are more faster than gnome but can t handle heavy apps as elegance as lightweight one
This is meaningless, nonsense. What does heavy mean, or elegance, when referring to how quickly an application loads???? What is handling a heavy app? How might a person recognise a heavy app and once recognised how can one judge the way it's "handled"?
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
teliparas
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-12-08 15:06

#34 Post by teliparas »

ok technically you are right
this thread about xfce make me to give a third try to xfce :)
i made a fresh installation via a bussinesscard on my old pc (amd semprom 2800+ , 512 ram)
i have install the base system and nothing else (sid)
reboot
#aptitude install xorg xfce4 xfce4-goodies xdm alsa-base alsa-oss alsa-utils module-assistant build-essential linux-headers-2.6.26-1-686 linux-source-2.6.26 gspca-module-2.6.26-1-686
xfce4-xkb-plugin
firestarter
network-config
gpicview
iceweasel flashplugin-nonfree
deluge-torrent
pidgin
ekiga
xine-ui
exaile
brasero gstreamer0.10-fluendo-mp3
abiword aspell-el aspell-en
evince
xarchiver rar unrar zip unzip
(+nvidia)
thats my perfect desktop nothing more nothing less that i need
so this one is almost as fast as gnome
am i doing something wrong?
why i can t feel the speed and response on my pc?
(i don t find it faster than my precious gnome)
any help are welcome
i dont try to blame xfce
i try to make a better(=faster in thiw case workstation)
the matter of speed is something so i mast say that only using WM i manage to make my system faster (e17 *box )
not to forget lxde which is fast enought to feel the deference
thanks for your time

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#35 Post by julian67 »

In this case I would simply use Gnome and not worry about it.
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

User avatar
teliparas
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-12-08 15:06

#36 Post by teliparas »

julian67 wrote:In this case I would simply use Gnome and not worry about it.
i really want to give a try to xfce
can you post your xfce desktop (=something like my previous post)
thanks :D

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#37 Post by julian67 »

teliparas wrote:
julian67 wrote:In this case I would simply use Gnome and not worry about it.
i really want to give a try to xfce
can you post your xfce desktop (=something like my previous post)
thanks :D
It wouldn't mean much. I use Lenny, not Sid (except Sid for debian-multimedia repo), I don't have a bittorrent client on my desktop as that task is done by a modified network storage device and I don't use a GUI music player (preferring MOC). I let my router take care of the firewall. I don't use pidgin or ekiga or similar. My hardware is very different to yours as well.

Running a bittorrent client, or any application that is constantly reading and writing, is the obvious performance hit in your description. There are memory hungry clients like Azureus and so-called lightweight clients like rtorrent and transmission but imo anything that's constantly writing to your hard disk is not lightweight. Combine that with default options in fstab and a lower end CPU with tiny cache, and probably hard disk with tiny cache, and you have a recipe for lousy performance.

I suggest you have a look at this thread http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php? ... highlight= and particularly the sections on noatime, preload and modifying sysctl.conf. These will probably make more difference than your choice of applications, though that's something you can also experiment with and I'll offer my thoughts:

I'd have a look at squeeze instead of xarchive/xarchiver (for convenience more than any performance gain). I would dump gpicview, it claims to be "extremely lightweight" but this claim is simply fantasy. You'll be better off using Geeqie or gqview or even gthumb, all of which are more functional and at least as lightweight. You can't really have a lightweight image viewer unless your images are tiny and you only want to view one at a time because those images have to be loaded into memory to be viewed, so it's best to use a viewer which makes good use of thumbnails and which you can configure easily. I think xine-ui is an excellent choice for video. You could probably replace Brasero with xfburn which is very good now. I would probably dump firestarter in favour of firehol but you might prefer a gui tool. If you're behind a router you don't need a firewall on your computer at all.

If you use bittorrent a lot it's definitely worth getting something like a Linksys NSLU2 (quite cheap if you look around, £35 in UK) which is used with a USB drive. It uses less power than a lightbulb, can run Debian and can take a heavy networking load off your main PC. Typically people run rtorrent on them for bittorrent. There are lots of other great things you can do as well.
Wisdom from my inbox: "do not mock at your pottenocy"

vmclark
Posts: 187
Joined: 2008-07-30 15:16
Has thanked: 1 time

#38 Post by vmclark »

For some reason, I simply can not get sound to work using this Xfce4 setup. I googled and tried every output know to man and nothing works. I have a build in Intel sound card. Works perfect under most Gnome/KDE installs. I went through the "alsaconf" several times.I found my card. "alsamixer" is turned on. Just can't figure it out. Any clues?

tsa the III
Posts: 1
Joined: 2023-03-20 07:31

Re: Perfect Xfce desktop install

#39 Post by tsa the III »

This post was 2008 and many comments from that time, this still valid for debian 11 ? I dont want many software in my installation I follow this but not work for me, removing mirror found sudo not found on tty1 many commands fails.

User avatar
sunrat
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6412
Joined: 2006-08-29 09:12
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Perfect Xfce desktop install

#40 Post by sunrat »

tsa the III wrote: 2023-03-20 08:07 This post was 2008 and many comments from that time, this still valid for debian 11 ? I dont want many software in my installation I follow this but not work for me, removing mirror found sudo not found on tty1 many commands fails.
You should start a new topic explaining what issues you are having. It is unlikely everything here will still be valid.
“ computer users can be divided into 2 categories:
Those who have lost data
...and those who have not lost data YET ”
Remember to BACKUP!

Post Reply