[Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

Nick · 2012-12-07 07:05:12

This had been fixed in Thunar 1.6.0. This release of Thunar is feature-wise also on-par with pcmanfm and also faster in various scenarios.

ComputerBob · 2013-05-09 04:14:32

Well, it's been two years since I started this thread, and despite the fact that Jeromeg chose to edit my first post in this thread, to add two solutions to it and mark it as "Solved" a long, long time ago, the issue has never been solved for me. In fact, it was such an important problem that, two years ago, I ended up downgrading all of my systems back to Debian Squeeze with Xfce 4.6, mainly to get rid of this problem in Xfce 4.8.

I've waited for the past two years, hoping that this problem would finally be solved by the time Debian Wheezy became Debian Stable. Several days ago, Wheezy became Debian Stable, so I upgraded to it, only to discover that this problem still exists -- and after wasting several hours on Google searches, all I've really learned is that nearly everyone who has written about this serious issue seems to think that simply shifting the 30-second delay from the very first Thunar startup to the very first network access is "a great solution."

Well, it's not a solution for me, or for any other computer users who access network shares.

All of my systems run NFS to access my shared file storage, and they all need to be able to access those shared files immediately - so the "solution" described above that disables AutoMount is not solution for me at all - it simply makes me wait an incredibly long time the first time I try to access files on my NFS share, which is almost always immediately after boot.

And using Thunar 1.6.0 is not an option for me either -- currently Thunar 1.6.x is only available to me in the Debian Experimental repository -- not an option for those of us who are running Debian Stable (Wheezy). And even if someone were to backport Thunar 1.6.x, I still can't find any information to tell me if the 30-second delay problem has actually been SOLVED in Thunar 1.6.0, or if Thunar 1.6.0 simply includes the delay-shifting non-solution described above.

So, to try to "solve" the problem, I've installed PCManFM, which doesn't have the problem at all. It starts instantly every time and lets me access my NFS shares instantly, too - no delays at all, even though it's accessing my network each time. Unfortunately, PCManFM doesn't have Thunar's Custom Actions feature, AFAIK, but I can live with that inconvenience a lot easier than this one.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-05-09 12:06:59)

visnotjl · 2013-08-23 12:10:32

Hallo,
it might be that I am the lucky guy that has found really "the" solution:
The problem seemingly originates from thunar trying to identify network resources before ejecting windows to the screen.
Looking at how thunar behaves it seems not being able to have timely access to network names. This could be a consequence of how Thunar relies on names-resolution services.
After a fresh installation of Debian Wheezy I found the problem really annoying.
I changed some parameter into "/etc/nsswitch.conf".
Changes are as follows:

---------- before changes-------
hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns mdns4

---------- changed to ---------
hosts: files wins dns

After the change thunar comes up almost immediately with the "network" link working "out of the box".

No more need to switch to pcmanfm.

Hope it will be useful to you too.
Best regards.

Last edited by visnotjl (2013-08-25 13:05:13)

ComputerBob · 2013-08-23 15:34:30

visnotjl wrote:

Hallo,
it might be that I am the lucky guy that has found really "the" solution:
The problem seemingly originates from thunar trying to identify network resources before ejecting windows to the screen.
Looking at how thunar behaves it seems not being able to have timely access to network names. This could be a consequence of how Thunar relies on names-resolution services.
After a fresh installation of Debian Wheezy I found the problem really annoying.
I changed some parameter into "/etc/nsswitch.com".
Changes are as follows:
---------- before changes-------
hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns mdns4
---------- changed to ---------
hosts: files wins dns
After the change thunar comes up almost immediately with the "network" link working "out of the box".
No more need to switch to pcmanfm.
Hope it will be useful to you too.
Best regards.

Thanks for posting that information - I really do appreciate it.

However, I try to never make undocumented and unsupported changes to my system without understanding exactly why I'm doing it, and without understanding the possible unintended consequences that those changes might have on OTHER system functionality, security, etc.

Can you provide that information, and do you know of anyone else who's using your solution?

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-23 22:09:35)

visnotjl · 2013-08-25 12:58:43

I have been estending the solution to an internal network of 10 PC. No lack of functionality of any kind.
The solution does not alter system's behaviour in any other way than making the name resolution service looking into "wins" early.
Just add "wins" after "files" and before every other parameter. That could be, ie: "files wins dns mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] mdns4".
This is a change of parameters order that would not impair system from working in any way but makes thunar stop waiting for a "wins" network server that cannot be found.

just look into "xsession-errors" before and after.

Best regards.

N.B. I see that I have made a typo in the original message. The file to alter is "/etc/nsswitch.conf" (not "nsswitch.com") I apologize. (Correction made to the original post too).

Last edited by visnotjl (2013-08-25 13:05:57)

ComputerBob · 2013-08-26 03:08:43

Although it may appear to work well for you, it looks to me like the change and addition that you have done to your systems are undocumented, unsupported, and, AFAICT, not used by anyone but you.

So even though you seem very confident about what you've done, I wouldn't want to follow your instructions unless the Thunar/XFCE dev(s) "gave their blessing" to what you've suggested.

But I thank you and wish you well -- and I sincerely hope that the proper devs will study your suggestion and tell us for sure if it's going to be a real, documented/supported "solution" to the Thunar problem.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-26 03:10:28)

MountainDewManiac · 2013-08-26 04:55:05

I like Xfce a lot. But a lot of the things that one can do with/to it appear to be undocumented - or at least not readily apparent. So, while it might not be a viable solution... It just might be.

BtW, I just searched for "thunar name resolution wins" (sans quotation marks).

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=75853
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=111638
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=91129
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=99576
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=88146
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1301386
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=155075
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=153077
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=147565
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2130445
http://www.mail-archive.com/desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net/msg203792.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net/msg203734.html

and I get the impression that this isn't the first time that someone has had issues of this nature and utilized a similar - or, at least, related - solution.

It looks like the "wins" bit refers to a wins server that maintains some kind of list, that isn't set up by default. Or something about samba. Or... something, lol, but like they say in the military, "If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid." NOT calling it stupid, just saying that a solution doesn't necessarily have to be "by the book" to be the correct one. If it does what the person is trying to achieve, and without breakage, then I'd tend to consider it a viable solution. That isn't to say that it'll work for everyone else (or even for the person that posted it, in the future, if this bug(?) gets fixed by the developer). But he checked his logs, Thunar is apparently looking for a service(?) that, not being activated by default, isn't there/active, and he managed to solve the issue. Also, if something borks, you add an option, and the result is both that the thing is no longer borked and there are no longer errors added to the log... Yeah, that's a solution smile .

Regards,
MDM

MountainDewManiac · 2013-08-26 05:29:43

I was looking for something else and stumbled across the following:

Solving problem with slow cold start
Some people still have problems with Thunar taking a long time to start for the first time. This is due to gvfs checking the network, preventing Thunar from starting until gvfs finishes its operations. To change this behaviour, edit /usr/share/gvfs/mounts/network.mount and change AutoMount=true to AutoMount=false.

SOURCE:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Thunar

Regards,
MDM

ComputerBob · 2013-08-26 12:11:49

MountainDewManiac wrote:

I was looking for something else and stumbled across the following:
Solving problem with slow cold start
Some people still have problems with Thunar taking a long time to start for the first time. This is due to gvfs checking the network, preventing Thunar from starting until gvfs finishes its operations. To change this behaviour, edit /usr/share/gvfs/mounts/network.mount and change AutoMount=true to AutoMount=false.
SOURCE:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Thunar
Regards,
MDM

At the risk of appearing impatient, that "solution" is a non-solution, as I've already stated earlier in this thread.

ComputerBob · 2013-08-26 12:38:54

MountainDewManiac wrote:

I like Xfce a lot. But a lot of the things that one can do with/to it appear to be undocumented - or at least not readily apparent. So, while it might not be a viable solution... It just might be.
BtW, I just searched for "thunar name resolution wins" (sans quotation marks).
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=75853
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=111638
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=91129
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=99576
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=88146
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1301386
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=155075
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=153077
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=147565
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2130445
http://www.mail-archive.com/desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net/msg203792.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net/msg203734.html
and I get the impression that this isn't the first time that someone has had issues of this nature and utilized a similar - or, at least, related - solution.
It looks like the "wins" bit refers to a wins server that maintains some kind of list, that isn't set up by default. Or something about samba. Or... something, lol, but like they say in the military, "If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid." NOT calling it stupid, just saying that a solution doesn't necessarily have to be "by the book" to be the correct one. If it does what the person is trying to achieve, and without breakage, then I'd tend to consider it a viable solution. That isn't to say that it'll work for everyone else (or even for the person that posted it, in the future, if this bug(?) gets fixed by the developer). But he checked his logs, Thunar is apparently looking for a service(?) that, not being activated by default, isn't there/active, and he managed to solve the issue. Also, if something borks, you add an option, and the result is both that the thing is no longer borked and there are no longer errors added to the log... Yeah, that's a solution .
Regards,
MDM

I hope you understand that some of us aren't willing to make undocumented/unsupported changes to our systems -- even if those changes have been highly recommended by an unknown stranger in an online forum. wink

The solution that visnotjl described *might* actually solve the problem, without any unintended consequences. But, if it does, then I wonder why the XFCE/Thunar devs haven't been recommending that solution to everyone for the past several years that the Thunar delay has existed. Did the devs use that solution when they reported finally "solved" the problem in Thunar 1.6.x? I don't know, and AFAIK, they haven't said.

YMMV, but personally, no hack is a viable solution for me unless and until the devs endorse and support it.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-26 12:46:46)

visnotjl · 2013-08-26 12:45:08

ComputerBob wrote:

Although it may appear to work well for you, it looks to me like the change and addition that you have done to your systems are undocumented, unsupported, and, AFAICT, not used by anyone but you.
So even though you seem very confident about what you've done, I wouldn't want to follow your instructions unless the Thunar/XFCE dev(s) "gave their blessing" to what you've suggested.
But I thank you and wish you well -- and I sincerely hope that the proper devs will study your suggestion and tell us for sure if it's going to be a real, documented/supported "solution" to the Thunar problem.

I beg your pardon. I have found documents about "nsswitch.conf" in: /usr/share/doc/samba-doc/htmldocs/Samba3-HOWTO/integrate-ms-networks.html#id431397

Should it be only a good workaround instead of a definitive solution, isn' t it worth a try ?

Best regards.

visnotjl · 2013-08-26 14:27:45

I have the uneasy feeling of having taken some kind of lecture. As the unknown stranger that I am, I thought I could contribute with my small bit. That's all.
Keep it for good or kick it away. As you please. I too long for a "real" solution from the XFCE team. Wish everybody well.

ComputerBob · 2013-08-26 19:33:48

As I've repeatedly stated, you're free to do whatever you want to your computers.

My computers must be up and running all the time, so, as I've said, I'm simply not comfortable making systemic changes to my computers, based on something that a stranger suggests in a forum, unless I know that the devs agree with those changes and are going to support them.

Unless/until the devs speak up about the changes that you suggested, I see no need for lectures or for repeatedly trying to convince each other of anything.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-26 19:42:55)

MountainDewManiac · 2013-08-26 21:32:56

Apologies, ComputerBob, for my part in stirring up a hornet's nest. One of the developers - Nick, in fact - has posted in this thread that the issue appears to be fixed in versions of Thunar that are closer to current than the one you seem to be having trouble with. I've got the impression - and I could be wrong about this - that you refuse to upgrade to it. If this issue is not present in Thunar 1.6.3 - or even in 1.6.0 - and you do not choose to use that version, I would think that the developers are not the ones at fault in the equation, lol.

But be that as it may, if I understand correctly, Nick also stated that this issue seems to appar - or not - on a per-system basis and that the way that Xfce gets installed has nothing to do with it. As it is clear that many who use Xfce do not have the issue, this makes sense to me and my suggestion would be that, to a lesser extent (a user insisting on using previous versions of Thunar, gvfs, samba, or some combination of the three would likely be at "greater fault" roll ), the creators/maintainers of the distro(s) that have this issue would be the ones to talk to. Especially in your case, since you use Debian, which seems at times to equate "old" with "stable" when this isn't always the case, and which also has been known to equate "experimental" with "not really all that new, either." Also, perhaps because they seem to place so much emphasis on "stable" being the only one that actually is, they may place less emphasis on actually trying to make the version of Debian which does have the newer components work with no issues. It was only a month or two ago, IIRC, that someone posted that they were using that branch of Debian and were having trouble with an Xfce component; I wondered why my non-Debian system wasn't experiencing that issue when I had the same version of that component... later in the thread I read that the release notes of the version of that component clearly stated that, in order to function correctly, a certain (new) version of another component must be used - which my system also had installed, as someone who prepares the packages in use on my system either the Mint developers or the Xfce developers (I've added the 4.10 and 4.12 Xfce PPAs to my sources list, and if I had to guess, I'd guess that the new versions of both files came from there) had actually taken the time to read the release notes (or they were the ones who wrote them?) and realized that the one would be non-functional without the other. Which - to me - appears to be nothing more than simple common sense, but at times I get the feeling that with the version of Debian that the Debian developers consider to be "bleeding edge," the attitude is, "We'll break that for you, no worries." I'm not saying that's a bad thing (although what, exactly, is good about it I couldn't say, either); if nothing else, such a strategy tends to keep more users on the old I mean Stable branch, where there is probably much less work for the maintainers to do.

Finally, I would not expect the Xfce developers, as talented as they are, to expend a great deal of effort in chasing down viable workarounds for a solution to an issue that is present in non-current versions of their software (or in any other developers' software, for that matter) when they have already taken the most sensible step of producing newer versions. If, for no other reason, because, AfaIK, they aren't getting paid for their work like the developers and technical support staff at Microsoft - who would, methinks, also tell you that the solution is to upgrade to the newest versions of all the relevant files, lol.

Respectfully,
MDM

PS If you try running the current - not your downgraded versions, nor even the somewhat less than current versions that Debian, err... Stable uses, but current - versions of these files and can still document the issue, then that's different. But if you do, the next step would appear to be to report which versions of all relevant files - not just Thunar - you have tried.

Last edited by MountainDewManiac (2013-08-26 21:35:20)

ComputerBob · 2013-08-27 02:57:27

MountainDewManiac wrote:

...One of the developers - Nick, in fact - has posted in this thread that the issue appears to be fixed in versions of Thunar that are closer to current than the one you seem to be having trouble with. I've got the impression - and I could be wrong about this - that you refuse to upgrade to it. If this issue is not present in Thunar 1.6.3 - or even in 1.6.0 - and you do not choose to use that version...

You obviously haven't read post #27 above, in which I specifically address that issue.

I can't discuss this with you if you don't even read my side of the discussion.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-27 16:06:42)

MountainDewManiac · 2013-08-27 16:29:25

ComputerBob wrote:

You obviously haven't read post #27 above, in which I specifically address that issue.

"Obviously," lol? Nay, fear not, loyal Debian-Old champion, for I have read your posts - including post #27 in which you stated that, to attempt to solve an issue that you found in a component - Thunar - of Xfce 4.8, instead of upgrading to 4.10, you chose to downgrade to 4.6 .

While I'm a great fan of personal choice, and that generally applies to a person's choice of distro as well, I do realize that the choices we make mean we must, at times, accept the blame for the problems which arise from those choices. And you have chosen to use a distro whose maintainers have decreed that its users will use an older version of Thunar, one which obviously has an issue in it.

ComputerBob wrote:

I can't discuss this issue with someone who doesn't even read my side of the discussion.

I cannot hope to help solve an issue for someone who insists on using a distro whose maintainers feel that the wheel is an invention that will require much further study before they decide whether or not it is safe enough to not cause their users to go into convulsions. The current stable version of Xfce was released 14 months ago tomorrow - yet Debian's maintainers (according to the search engine at packages.debian.org) only allow version 4.8.3 into their Stable branch and require the Debian users who wish to use version 4.10 to use either the Testing or Unstable branch; in a week, the current stable version of Thunar will have been out for seven months - Debian has allowed version 1.2.3 into Stable and users wishing to use version 1.6.3 must choose either the Testing or Unstable branch. (Although it is irrelevant to this thread, I find myself wondering if the Debian maintainers have switched the electrical systems in their automobiles - powered, no doubt, by flathead Ford V8s - from 6-volt to 12-volt yet.)

Ordinarily, my suggestion to someone who insists on using an older, buggy version of an app and who also complains about the bug(s) would be that the person grab the source code of both the older and newer versions, compare them line-by-line, figure out which of the changes that were made in the newer version pertain to the bug(s) in question, make those changes to the older version (, make the additional changes which would be required to get that modified code to play nice with the unmodified code), and compile their own custom-patched version. But I viewed the bug-page that Nick linked to (yes, I have read his - and everyone else's - posts in this thread, too), and his comment (#28) there states, "Its implemented in a bunch of commits and nearly impossible to backport to 1.4." (Add to that the fact that - apparently - Debian Stable uses an even older version of Thunar, lol...). So I very much doubt that this would be an easy task. And, since you value system stability, I cannot really suggest that you use Debian Testing or Unstable. Therefore, if I were you, I would seriously consider switching to a different distro altogether. I normally recommend Mint, but since you like Debian and Mint's LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition) is known to be... breakable, why not give SolydX a try?

SolydXK wrote:

SolydX and SolydK are Debian based distributions with the Xfce and KDE desktop.SolydXK aims to be simple to use, providing an environment that is both stable and secure.
SolydXK is an open source alternative for small businesses, non-profit organizations and home users.

http://solydxk.com/

Or, failing that, contact the folks who work on maintaining the Xfce DE for Debian and tell them to stop being a bunch of moldering old corpses (lol) and to scrape the cobwebs off and switch to the current stable version of Xfce and its components. Here is the homepage of those maintainers, where you can undoubtedly find contact information:

http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-xfce/

Regardless of whether you choose one of these options or stick with the option of using a distro whose maintainers insist upon using older versions (and then complaining about the results that you get from that option roll ), I don't see where your issue with something that is in an old version of Thunar is really Nick's (or any other Xfce developer's) problem - after all, he fixed the issue. The. Fix. Is. To. Upgrade. To. A. Newer. Version! Simple as that. Nick was entirely correct in marking this thread [Solved].

Regards,
MDM

PS Hey Nick, if you've run out of, err, other things to do with your time and happen to be reading this message: I assume that the bulk of your (Xfce) time is spent on fixing any bugs that may appear in 4.10 and in developing 4.12, but are you still actively working on bugfixes for Xfce 4.8.3? Thunar 1.2.3? Or, if someone finds a bug in one of them - especially a bug that has been fixed in a more recent version - do you advise them to upgrade their version(s)? I had always assumed the latter, but from ComputerBob's words, I am starting to wonder if I've been incorrect.

ComputerBob · 2013-08-27 16:53:59

MountainDewManiac wrote:

ComputerBob wrote:
You obviously haven't read post #27 above, in which I specifically address that issue.
"Obviously," lol? Nay, fear not, loyal Debian-Old champion, for I have read your posts - including post #27 in which you stated that, to attempt to solve an issue that you found in a component - Thunar - of Xfce 4.8, instead of upgrading to 4.10, you chose to downgrade to 4.6 http://www.d2l.net/smf/Smileys/Bali/lau … imated.gif .

Again, that was the point where I stopped reading your reply, because you have demonstrated that your reading comprehension level is the root of our lack of communication.

If you had actually understood my post #27, above, you would know that, way back when I downgraded back to XFCE 4.6, it was because 4.8 had the problem that this thread is all about, and that Thunar 1.6.x was not, at the time -- AND IS STILL NOT -- an option for users of Debian Stable, which is what I've stated that I use. The fact that you would ridicule me -- a Debian stable user -- for not "upgrading" to Debian experimental shows that you lack a basic understanding of the purposes of the various Debian branches.

You may have noticed that I started this thread over two years ago. A few months ago, I upgraded all of my computers to XFCE 4.8, which STILL had the problem that I described in the first message of this thread. That's why I installed PCManFM, to replace Thunar on all of my computers, because, with PCManFM, I've never experienced any delay on startup.

It's clear to me that your last few posts were based on your lack of either knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of the complete ramifications of facts that had been previously presented in this thread.

So I'm tired of this -- I don't have the time, patience, or desire to say what I want to say, and then have to keep explaining it all over again, in detail, to you, afterward.

Please give it a rest. wink

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-27 18:19:14)

MountainDewManiac · 2013-08-27 20:25:35

Bob, for someone who has mentioned reading comprehension multiple times, you sure are showing a distressing lack of it. Also distressing is the fact that you reply to people's posts when you, yourself, admit that you have not read the entire posts. Simple human courtesy dictates that when people are communicating with each other, each party listens to - or reads - what the other party has to say. Unfortunately, the lack of this ability is something that I have observed from time to time when dealing with people who insist that their version of reality is the same thing as reality, so I do have enough experience to realize that you are not likely to receive help with the topic that you posted or even the topic that you are actually wishing help with (to wit, "I insist on using a distro that uses an older version of an app which has a bug and refuse to switch to one of the countless distros that use newer versions which that bug has been removed from. I will only consider a solution that has been either submitted or vetted by the developer of this app. How can I resolve the issue?" My guess is that the answer would either be, "You can't under such a narrow set of requirement - deal with it." Of course, you do have the option of continuing to b*tch and moan about it until some point in time after Spring of 2015 which is when I'd expect Debian to add the current-as-of-2013 versions of Xfce/Thunar/GVFS/et cetera to their "stable" repository.

Yes, again, I read - and comprehended, FFS - that you tried Xfce 4.8. And - also, again - my suggestion was that you try the current version. I've also now read yet again that Thunar 1.6 is not available to people who use Debian "Stable."

With all due respect - and I fear I'll have to leave it to wiser heads than mine to determine the actual value of that variable - what part of "Upgrade to current versions of the relevant files" do you not understand? Because 4.8 isn't it. Neither is the version of Thunar that you insist on using. The facts that they aren't, that you stubbornly refuse to upgrade to a distro that does not automatically equate stable/working with old - when your own issue is an obvious reminder that this is not always the case - regardless of the consequences of such a strategy to its users, that you won't use a workaround that has been shown to be both viable and without issues of its own by many people, and that you have proven yourself to be incapable - or worse, unwilling - to care enough about the issue to read the complete text of all posts in this thread are sufficient evidence that you wish to continue to have this issue for the express purpose of having something to complain about. In short, you don't actually want help with your computer's issue, and I am not sufficiently qualified in the mental health field to help you with your issue.

This is literally a dead issue to everyone who is willing to use current versions. To use a non-computer example in hopes that you will at least be able to comprehend it: I have an uncle who lives off-grid. He does his cooking on a wood-fired stove that is over 100 years old. He admitted to me once that he sometimes wished that he had the option of throwing a meal into it, pushing a few buttons, and pulling out a plate of hot, ready-to-eat food three minutes later. But he also then stated that the only person that was to blame for the fact that he did not have that option... was himself. Do you take my meaning?

I'd bet a hundred dollar bill against your nickel that you haven't even bothered to contact Lionel Le Folgoc, Yves-Alexis Perez, Evgeni Golov, Mike Massonnet, or Jackson Doak. (Although you may not have allowed yourself to see my earlier suggestion to that you do so, since you will not read my entire posts, I would think that you would have enough common sense to figure that out on your own or - if you lack even that much - one of your children could. The neighbor boy that walked up to my window and asked me why I was muttering out loud about people who can't seem to... anyway, the little neighbor boy thought that doing so would be a great - and obvious - idea, and he's twelve years old roll .) Since they are the Debian maintainers who specifically maintain the Xfce desktop environment and its related components for the Debian distribution - and, therefore, are the only people on the planet who have the power to place a version of Thunar that is new enough to not have this issue into the Debian "Stable" repository... Yeah, you don't want a solution, you want a reason to complain.

One thing that you are correct about, lol, is that I certainly cannot help you. I've found it true enough times to believe that it's a universal truth that one person cannot help another if they refuse to be helped. Therefore, to save myself the wasted effort and to avoid annoying either the other users or the staff of this web-forum (who are undoubtedly all shaking their heads at my having continued to make the attempt up to this point), I will stop trying... now.

Have a day,
MDM

ComputerBob · 2013-08-28 03:15:18

The versions of XFCE and Thunar that I'm using ARE the current versions of them. The fact that newer versions EXIST in the Debian Experimental repository does not make those newer versions the CURRENT versions. The fact that you keep insisting that what I'm using are not the current versions just underlines the fact that you lack any knowledge/understanding of the different Debian branches, as I've previously pointed out.

Your lack of knowledge and/or understanding has caused you to repeatedly clutter this thread with misinformation, misunderstanding and confusion -- muddying the waters, obfuscating the truth, and making it a whole lot more difficult for anyone else who stumble onto this thread in the future to figure out what to believe.

This thread isn't about you or how well you can argue with me.

It's about a easy to understand problem with Thunar that I described over two years ago, that has since been confirmed by many, many other Thunar users. And it's been about the lack of a documented/supported solution to that problem for those of us who use Debian Stable. And its about the fact that the same problem continues to this day, for those of us who use Debian Stable, despite your seemingly unending onslaught of misinformation to the contrary.

So yes, I think it would be best if you keep your promise and stop posting in this thread. Thank you.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-08-28 19:30:09)

ComputerBob · 2013-09-03 18:31:30

UPDATE: Last night, I installed SpaceFM (from its developer's PPA), because it has a lot more features than PCManFM. Then I confirmed that -- just like PCManFM -- SpaceFM doesn't suffer from the Thunar delay described in this thread. Then I completely uninstalled PCManFM and configured SpaceFM to be my default file manager.

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-09-03 22:19:41)

jochen · 2013-10-14 15:17:10

I have the same problem on my Debian Wheezy 7.2. Opening the first Thunar window takes 10 seconds. It makes no difference if Thunar daemon is running or not. Tried all solutions found on net: disabling network automout, removing tumbler, changing nsswitch.conf, nothing helps. Also Thunar often hangs for a moment when opening folders or scrolling through large folders.

I will now switch to PCManFM which runs fast and smooth. Is there a way to make Xfce places plugin start some other file manager than Thunar?

sebre · 2013-10-27 20:12:48

Same problem on Xubuntu 13.04 with Thunar 1.6.2: it takes always a lot more than 10 seconds at first start and then shows two Thunar windows. There is no delay or double window with PCManFM or SpaceFM.

videodrome · 2014-10-12 16:34:59

Certainly not fixed in 1.60, because it's happening to me on a fresh Xubuntu install with 1.63.

jeromeARCH · 2020-04-03 07:56:32

Hi @ComputerBob, i have the same problem you had (we are in 2020) with thunar and sure, Automount to false did not resolve the problem (and if yes, it should absolutly not be an acceptable solution, because it is not a solution but a tricky hack out of Thunar).
I also tryed to change nsswitch.conf (yeah, i'm courageous and have a dangerous life... by the time i just commented the original config line and add the new one under, then add this try to a txt llog file...).
My version de xfce is 1.8.14 on xfce4.14.
I'm a dev (Java, Kotlin, Scala, C, C++, Python, Ruby, Perl5&6, Haskell, Javascript) and i have a low 30 years old experience to administrate Linux/Unix systems. I'm sad to read some user's answer to you there... it is very agressive's answer they wrote and sure, they miss-understand you and deny this fact.
Anyway, no one is perfect, but the problem remains.
When i start from root, no problem.
When i start from $HOME logged as user not root, boom... 30 seconds to start.
Thunar also suffer this 20 second timing delay on a i7 8 cores computer when i'm trying to change the files view (the main view) from icons to files to files decriptions...
And htop see that Thunar last version is still using only one core of the CPU at 100% for all the long waiting to print the view.

Also, Thunar still doesn't have any decent --debug option to show what it try to do so badly.
Still doesn't have decent log file (or maybe i don't find where) and still poor documentation.
It should be network waiting time (but if this is happening each time you change the print view style, it is also because of a very bad design code pattern), or maybe a file in current $HOME directory (but without decent --debug option, how to know that ?).

So please, feel free to consider there is a real problem and maybe a strange and not so good design pattern in the Thunar code (from long times ago), and maybe also an option to create to just show debug messages.

Thank you for accept that no one is perfect (you to) but that, we have to be better.

Last edited by jeromeARCH (2020-04-03 07:56:49)

drm · 2021-08-11 14:26:35

For anyone from google ending up here, the culprit in my case was a missing dbus user session which blocks the startup of thunar (and many more applications such as mousepad, evince, etc) and times out after exactly 30s.

The fix in my case (I run i3 and use thunar as a file manager), was to start my X session within a dbus-launch wrapper, so in my .xinitrc I replaced

exec i3

with:

exec dbus-launch --sh-syntax i3

and that solves the issue and I think is not a workaround but a consequence of my somewhat sober and simple X setup. In my particular case, it was after a Debian upgrade from buster to bullseye. Hope this may help a searching soul in the future smile

The post that ultimately got me looking in the right direction is here https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=143658

Xfce Forum

Sub domains

#26 2012-12-07 07:05:12

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#27 2013-05-09 04:14:32

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#28 2013-08-23 12:10:32

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#29 2013-08-23 15:34:30

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#30 2013-08-25 12:58:43

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#31 2013-08-26 03:08:43

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#32 2013-08-26 04:55:05

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#33 2013-08-26 05:29:43

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#34 2013-08-26 12:11:49

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#35 2013-08-26 12:38:54

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#36 2013-08-26 12:45:08

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#37 2013-08-26 14:27:45

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#38 2013-08-26 19:33:48

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#39 2013-08-26 21:32:56

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#40 2013-08-27 02:57:27

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#41 2013-08-27 16:29:25

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#42 2013-08-27 16:53:59

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#43 2013-08-27 20:25:35

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#44 2013-08-28 03:15:18

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#45 2013-09-03 18:31:30

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#46 2013-10-14 15:17:10

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#47 2013-10-27 20:12:48

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#48 2014-10-12 16:34:59

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#49 2020-04-03 07:56:32

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

#50 2021-08-11 14:26:35

Re: [Solved] Thunar takes 30 seconds to start the first time

Board footer