You are not logged in.
I have used Xfce for years in Linux Xubuntu and now I use it in Mint.
However I am still not sure how much is included in Xfce and how much is not so I might need a little help with the borders.
I noticed in Xubuntu there were some features available directly for the panel but in Mint I had to find them in a deposit.
I guess if I want more Xfce goddies in Mint it can't help to ask for it here, or can it.?
Xfce is among other things precious because it is slim so it helps older computers to run better.
I am thinking "slim" in at least two ways:
1) Not putting too much load on the CPU
2) Not taking up too much space on the harddisk.
I think 1 is vital but I sense 2 is often overvalued.
If someone can tell me something about how 1 and 2 are balanced in different distros I will find it very interesting.
Thanks.
Last edited by Jakob77 (2022-11-03 13:56:51)
Offline
Every (Xfce) distro puts out a presentation of Xfce that is tailored to what they think their user base wants. Xubuntu and Mint both add on to Xfce with non-Xfce components/apps/configurations to help deliver this presentation (which will also increase their disk usage requirements). Some will see this as a more functional (realistic) presentation of an O/S. Core Xfce components can be found by viewing its gitlab instance. Its also quite possible that the distro may pre-package some components, leave some uninstalled, or not package them at all. That is a choice of the distro.
Some distros, and this leads to your second set of questions, aim to provide as close to upstream as possible implementation. I'll mention Vanilla Arch and Gentoo here (there are probably more that I can't think of right now). These distros only install what you tell them to install and the default packaging of Xfce groups only include what is available upstream. This allows you to create a "slim" install - but some may find the lack of functionality (as compared to Mint/Xubuntu) a challenge.
So to answer your question about a slim install that doesn't put too much strain on your CPU, consider using a distro that only installs as close to upstream as possible. Be prepared for some "missing pieces" - especially if you are accustomed to them from other distros, and stay away from browsers like chrome and firefox (just kidding, but only a little bit - they are probably the biggest drain on your CPU - along with graphics processing and games.
Please remember to mark your thread [SOLVED] to make it easier for others to find
--- How To Ask For Help | FAQ | Developer Wiki | Community | Contribute ---
Offline
Offline
Thank you. I am impressed.
I imagine a distro for instance can choose to include these two items for direct install or not:
https://gitlab.xfce.org/panel-plugins/x … aph-plugin
https://gitlab.xfce.org/panel-plugins/x … oad-plugin
If they choose not can it be for other good reasons than to save disk space.
Does it also make life easier for the CPU even if they are not installed.?
Offline
https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?pid=69548#p69548
Jakob77 wrote:I don't know for sure but it seems to me that your question is about a very specific technical problem that has nothing to do with this subject
I thought it might have something to do with the way this distro had setup Xfce which would have been very much on topic.
I see, and I say thank you.
You are right it is on topic here how much the distro people are allowed to mess with the software.
I want to know more about their borders but I don't know how to ask the best questions.
I just went through some problems with Thunderbird where it was very relevant for me to think about it.
It turned out to be a lack of update and no real mess from distro programmers was reviled. On the other hand people was not standing up in line to bring any guarantee that it could not be a compatibility problem made by a distro.
I know Thunderbird is Mozilla and not Xfce but I believe it helps to explain the issue of doubt.
I also found this that can build up some serious doubts about what is compatible these days and what is not:
https://linuxmint-user-guide.readthedoc … /snap.html
Offline
allow me to intrude on this topic
but as newbie, can anyone tell then which distro includes most (or full) xfce components ?
Offline
allow me to intrude on this topic
but as newbie, can anyone tell then which distro includes most (or full) xfce components ?
Yes that is a good question.
And if something is missing is it safe to install it from somewhere else.?
I don't know if Mint is leaner than Xubuntu I just found a couple of indications in the panel.
For instance the CPU surveillance I linked to was just to be taken from the panel menu in Xubuntu.
In Mint I had to install it from the Program Manager first. It is no big deal if you know it.
However.. will it be updated just as well and did Mint maybe leave it out because of a security risk or doubts about compatibility or speed or just space.
That is for Mint to answer but maybe there is also something to be said about it here on a higher level.
Offline
Do we perhaps have a page that gives a good fast overview about what Xfce uses RAM for.?
Offline
Exactly what are you hoping to see on this page? What information are you looking for regarding RAM usage?
Please note that Xfce RAM usage will vary from distro to distro based on what the distro implements.
Please remember to mark your thread [SOLVED] to make it easier for others to find
--- How To Ask For Help | FAQ | Developer Wiki | Community | Contribute ---
Offline
Thank you. You got a point.
I hope to see more about that also. Is it not something you know a lot about from distro feedback.?
A bar diagram covering some years would be really good.
I was also thinking that you had defined some kind of a minimum installation for a functional Xfce desktop and that could deliver the data for a Xfce diagram.
Each diagram bar in a lot of different colors and when you hit a color with the mouse there will pop up a messages that tells you exactly what that part of the RAM is used for.
If a diagram like that goes back some years with a bar for each update it might be easy for the users to see what is going on if they suddenly begin to use too much RAM and maybe more important if Xfce is even responsible for it.
Offline
I don't think something like that exists. Would be an interesting project though.
Please remember to mark your thread [SOLVED] to make it easier for others to find
--- How To Ask For Help | FAQ | Developer Wiki | Community | Contribute ---
Offline
Yes, you can imagine it.!
That is already a very good beginning.
About a defined minimum Xfce installation I coincidentally saw in Mint 21 Xfce that "Mintstick" is installed and not to be removed.
Is that revealing a border between software that Xfce has to have and what the distro can just reject and play with, or how can it be.?
Offline
I am unfamiliar with Mint. However, with Arch Linux, if you install the base system and then the "xfce4" and "xfce4-goodies" packages, you will get a pretty basic install that is as close as possible to upstream. This install uses about 240MB or RAM on startup and login.
Please remember to mark your thread [SOLVED] to make it easier for others to find
--- How To Ask For Help | FAQ | Developer Wiki | Community | Contribute ---
Offline
Thank you.
If you find it uneasy to be familiar with Mint you are not the only one.
My work gathering Xfce users for a development discussion in their forum has been shut down brutally by the administration. So I am out now beginning to think the Mint leadership wants Cinnamon only. And as far as I can see non of their desktops are really being built for older computers anymore. Mint is now more like a compromise in between.
Maybe it is a bit typical when a distro is getting popular it will also grow bigger and demand newer and faster computers.
If we go all the way to that end of the distro spectrum where they don't care much about CPU, Ram or disk space, they just make Xfce as great an easy to use as possible, what top of the pop distros do you want to mention.?
Maybe Xubuntu.? I have known Xubuntu for some years, so if you can use Xubuntu as some kind of reference point it will be nice.
Offline
Hello) I here with same topic question.
I am on old PC - c2q Q6600, gf9800gtx(340.108), 4gb ram, hdd
And i have 3 linux distros with XFCE - Artix, Arch, Devuan Ceres
The fasted XFCE runs at Artix, bit slowly at Arch and most slow at Devuan.
My question, how can i get speed of XFCE on Arch and Devuan like on Artix?
Is there secret tuning ways? Or its all dependence from how distro assemble the XFCE and no way speed up it? Thanks.
Last edited by deepforest (2022-11-18 22:43:54)
Offline
Hello) I here with same topic question.
I am on old PC - c2q Q6600, gf9800gtx(340.108), 4gb ram, hdd
And i have 3 linux distros with XFCE - Artix, Arch, Devuan Ceres
The fasted XFCE runs at Artix, bit slowly at Arch and most slow at Devuan.
My question, how can i get speed of XFCE on Arch and Devuan like on Artix?
Is there secret tuning ways? Or its all dependence from how distro assemble the XFCE and no way speed up it? Thanks.
Thank you for your information and questions.
I am sorry I don't have a good answer.
I am just a bit curious to know why you want to go that way.
If you want speed and Artix is the fastest why not just use Artix.?
Offline
Hi Thanks for reply!
Well. I am some addicted IT nerd too like eight.bit.al
https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?pid=69522#p69522
i am curious what causes different responsiveness of xfce on different distros?
and can I increase the response through the settings without upgrading hardware?
Last edited by deepforest (2022-11-19 22:02:15)
Offline
deepforest
Okay I see a need for both ways then.
Actually in a way I have been there once myself but in the end it was 99% Firefox and hardly Xfce that killed the computer.
We're being a bit harsh when we demand that thrifty Xfce pay the price for Firefox gluttony.
However I imagine some kind of an ideal distro that is born very lean but easily can be upgraded to all kinds of levels.
Maybe the upgrading could be done with scripts and for each script there is also made a downgrade script so the user can go both ways.
I am looking for that kind of distros and a good explanation why they are not all built like that.
Maybe you or eight.bit.al has some knowledge that can help calibrating those imaginations to real life.?
Offline
Remember to edit the subject of your topic to include the [SOLVED] tag once you're satisfied with the answers or have found a solution (in which case, don't forget to share it as well), so that other members of the community can quickly refer to it and save their time. Pretty please!
Offline
KBar
Oops.. I didn't think the "only 1 specific problem per subject rule" was to be used in the general discussion.
I want to be accommodating I just don't know exactly what to do now. I guess I better just stop.
What do you mean by 'sharing', do you have some kind of a defined procedure for it.?
The truth is there is likely still a long way before I am satisfied.
If I am not alone I can maybe keep on discussing it much longer and pick up bit by bit to make me and hopefully others wiser.
How many 'heureka's' or solved problems it could give to spread out to others is too early for me to say. As you know we have more than 80 distros with Xfce.
I send my thanks to all writers that joined in.
Offline
What is the point of solving these mysteries in general?
Even if every distro did supply exactly the same set of xfce, I guess nearly everyone would differ from the other because of installing a different set of additional software. And then we have different hardware with different needs taking into account.
Choose the distro which gives you(!) the greatest freedom to install components you want to try or deinstall those you think you don't need. So you will get the best out of you PC.
I doubt that the same set of software running with the same set of hardware achieved from another distro will make any difference at all.
Offline
"nice" suggestion "thanks" for helpul info
may be better - own DE from scratch, or own browser, or even build own World from scratch!?
Last edited by deepforest (2022-11-20 16:31:00)
Offline
So, main topic question "why xfce have different performance on different distros" not answerd
Offline
So, main topic question "why xfce have different performance on different distros" not answerd
is performance the only consideration?
distributions are different in so many ways. not just the kernel affects performance. and even the kernel can be compiled in different ways for different distribution. perhaps "distribution" is the wrong word to describe this level of classification. maybe a better word is "arrangement". every part of a Linux system is flexible. but not everyone is knowledgeable enough to make even what is best for them. so, many of those who can, make arrangements for certain goals and offer them for others to try.
or do you ask like "why is Xfce slow on this other system where everything else is fast?"?
Offline
is performance the only consideration?
For me yes, performance at first place
distributions are different in so many ways. not just the kernel affects performance. and even the kernel can be compiled in different ways for different distribution. perhaps "distribution" is the wrong word to describe this level of classification. maybe a better word is "arrangement". every part of a Linux system is flexible. but not everyone is knowledgeable enough to make even what is best for them. so, many of those who can, make arrangements for certain goals and offer them for others to try.
or do you ask like "why is Xfce slow on this other system where everything else is fast?"?
reason for poor performance xfce on Devuan its Devuan itself? not xfce?
Offline
[ Generated in 0.013 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 664.67 KiB (Peak: 697.95 KiB) ]