Which Xfce Distro?

pcybill · 2013-04-12 18:13:38

I use Manjaro here and am very happy with it.

Venomenus · 2013-04-12 19:50:41

I have been an Xubuntu fan for a while now but jumped ship last week to Manjaro; a little bit more setting up to get the fonts looking great and in understanding pacman/yaourt but so far I am very happy and it seems so much quicker too smile

stqn · 2013-04-14 00:39:17

I’m using Arch Linux and Xubuntu. Xubuntu has the advantage of “just working” and not breaking. Arch has the advantage of being up to date and fast.

But on the other side, Xubuntu’s update manager (and software center) is desperately slow, and I wonder if the system as a whole could be faster with another distro (I’m running it on a netbook, which does not help.) And Arch requires a lot of work (and bandwidth) to perform updates, and the switch to systemd has been and continues to be a nuisance months afterwards. Also they switched to Xfce 4.8 when it was half-broken.

I’d still recommend Xubuntu as an easy distro. It works.

Paulw2U · 2013-04-14 11:07:33

stqn wrote:

Xubuntu’s update manager (and software center) is desperately slow

I use synaptic and aptitude to find and install programs. Both are much quicker especially on a netbook although aptitude is of course a console application.

The Software Centre originated in Ubuntu. Synaptic allows easy searching but not in the way that the Ubuntu developers want you to. I think it's a shame that the Xubuntu developers have included it in the default Xubuntu installation. I make a point of never using the Update Manager as Synaptic does a much better job. It gives you better control of the update process by allowing you to make informed choices about whether to apply the updates or not.

Last edited by Paulw2U (2013-04-14 11:09:15)

sakamoto · 2013-04-14 20:44:51

Ubuntu is fine to get started for newly converted ex Windows users smile But after the learning period of 2 years distro hopping almost all users will move to distributions like Debian, Suse and Fedora. For me personally, there is only 1 distribution and it is Debian :-)

Debian all the way my friends... because of its stability, its philosophy, its developers, its high quality packaging system,... because Debian is a way of life big_smile

In case someone is interested to move to Debian... please use already the 'soon-to-become-stable' wheezy version as squeeze is too outdated right now.

ComputerBob · 2013-04-15 12:53:38

sakamoto wrote:

...In case someone is interested to move to Debian... please use already the 'soon-to-become-stable' wheezy version as squeeze is too outdated right now.

I agree with your recommendation for new Debian users to install Wheezy instead of Squeeze, but I disagree with your statement that "squeeze is too outdated right now."

"Outdated" is an incredibly subjective term. I've been using Squeeze Xfce for a few years, and it -- along with LibreOffice from backports and Firefox/Thunderbird (downloaded directly from Mozilla) -- is rock-solid and meets my needs -- which is way more important to me than running the newest version of everything.

This isn't a criticism of you, because, like me, you're free to have your own subjective standards. But, to me, the only (and currently overriding) reason that new Debian users should install Wheezy instead of Squeeze is because Wheezy (which is currently the Debian Testing branch) is very close to taking Squeeze's place as the new Debian Stable. Of course, once Wheezy becomes Debian Stable, some people will start calling it "outdated," too -- but not those of us who put a premium on a distro being stable and rock-solid.

Debian Testing always has newer versions of software than Debian Stable, and many people claim that Debian Testing is more rock-solid than many other distros' release versions. But every day, more and more people discover that there's a reason why Debian Testing is called Debian Testing. wink

Last edited by ComputerBob (2013-04-15 13:56:17)

sakamoto · 2013-04-15 21:02:35

try to install squeeze on a new laptop (released in last 6 months)... good luck with the available kernels in the repositories

wheezy only has 40 critical release bugs remaining which will be solved any day and are not impacting default desktop installs... there is currently no advantage starting with squeeze on a fresh desktop install...

we are not talking about ubuntu ;-) debian wheezy (testing) is even more stable than ubuntu's LTS releases big_smile

Last edited by sakamoto (2013-04-15 21:07:44)

ComputerBob · 2013-04-15 21:07:49

sakamoto wrote:

try to install squeeze on a new laptop (released in last 6 months)... good luck with the available kernels in the repositories
wheezy only has 40 critical release bugs remaining which will be solved any day and are not impacting default desktop installs... there is currently no advantage starting with squeeze on a fresh desktop install...

If your post in in response to mine, then it's obvious that you didn't read mine.

Ion Silverbolt · 2013-04-28 08:02:52

For myself, I like Xfce in Gentoo or Arch. I think these two distros offer the purest Xfce desktop you can get, and can boot to a working desktop under 100Mb's easy. Other distros tend to add a lot of extra stuff to their Xfce desktops. This is good or bad depending on what you want I suppose.

As for something easier, I'm really liking what Manjaro has been doing with their Xfce desktop.

paolo321 · 2013-04-28 17:11:13

I like ubuntu since it has a release cycle that is imho suitable for desktops pc, many software are already packaged and many PPAs are available, installation media is both installer and live, supports loopback.cfg by default (nice for multiboot pendrives) and other nice aspects. I don't like unity and some things related to "canonical management" ...

xubuntu seems to me a really good compromise. I don't like everything inside ubuntu/xubuntu, nothing is 100% perfect, but I have already found workaround for most issues and the overall experience seems nice.

MagnusBerg · 2013-04-29 12:43:42

I like Debian bequase i'm used to it and doesn't want all the extra, for me, useless packages that some more popular distros install by default. And I'm very happy to get rid of Pulse audio.
I have been using SUSE (a long time ago) and Gentoo before but found Debian for about a decade ago and stayed there. I installed Ubuntu ones...

I run Debian Sid (unstable) since about seven years. Before that I runs Debian testing. I can recomend everybody to run unstable. It's not unstable but sometimes (ones or twice a year) a dysfunctional package can get into the repository. That is easily soved by downgrade to the package you used before, and you get it easy in the testing repository.
I have less problems with unstable than I had the years then I was running testing. But OK: If your really need something rock stable nothing beats Debian stable.

Right now I run Xfce4 4.10 that's not in unstable yet... And more "unstable" than unstable is the Debian Experimental repository. I took the main Xfce4 4.10 packages from there. The Xfce4 4.10 plugins packages have I taken from the Ubuntu repository. And I have run this great combo on my desktop and my laptop computer for about a weak and have had no problems at all. So don't be afraid to run at least Debian Sid (unstable). Debian Sid have no release cycle, it get new packages every day.

Last edited by MagnusBerg (2013-04-29 12:55:47)

BruceMcL · 2013-04-30 14:56:28

Xubuntu - This is what I'm using now. It is easy to set up and use, and trouble free. I install Synaptic and the Xubuntu reserved/restricted packages right away.

Manjaro - I tried this recently. Very interesting, with some good features. The GUI installer worked well. The whole arch linux ecosystem has some good qualities. However I found that system updates from Manjaro were tricky, and in general I had to be more involved, pay more attention to, my system software than I want to.

Mint - I haven't tried this lately. I think Mint is doing some interesting and significant work with some of their other distributions, but with xfce I didn't see a big difference between Mint and Xubuntu, other than the start menu. Any other differences seem to be in the choice of default apps, which I can switch to in Xubuntu.

sixsixfive · 2013-05-01 10:48:20

Im sorry to tell you but there aren't any Xfce-distros, sure some like xubuntu or mint claim to be an xfce-distro but they include heavie gnome based applications which require a half gnome installed besides.

If you really want a lightweight distribution you have to do all by yourself, you can use a lightweight base such as puppy, damn small or even a debian netinstall.

cheers,

BruceMcL · 2013-05-01 15:05:56

sixsixfive wrote:

Im sorry to tell you but there aren't any Xfce-distros

Your definition of xfce distro is arbitrary, inconvenient, and contrary to current use of the word distro. The whole idea of different distributions is that they can mix and match components. Using one of the components as a way to describe a distribution does not imply the absence of presence of other components. That's the way things are now. I don't see any reason to change to the usage you apologetically advocate.

In common usage, there is always the word "pure" which can be added to a description of a distro. What you are describing is a "pure xfce" environment.

sixsixfive · 2013-05-02 01:35:06

arbitrary?

Xfce.org/about
Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for UNIX-like operating systems. It aims to be fast and low on system resources, while still being visually appealing and user friendly.
Xfce embodies the traditional UNIX philosophy of modularity and re-usability. It consists of a number of components that provide the full functionality one can expect of a modern desktop environment. They are packaged separately and you can pick among the available packages to create the optimal personal working environment.

So, now tell me what is lightweight on GDM which depends on gnome-session which also depends on gnome-shell? or GStreamer why do i need libmad, libgood, libawesome, libwithanotherstupidname when i only want to listen to my mp3s? If I want to install Inkscape(another debian, buntu, mint usw. example) why do I need GConf or gnomevfs? A real Xfce Distibution would at least try to be low on system resources (eg: include a build of Inkscape without those for me as xfce-user useless gnome bindings that bloat my system.)

Whats the point of using a lightweight desktop environment if your system is totally bloated with unused libs, deamons & applications?

cheers,

bwat47 · 2013-05-02 03:48:17

sixsixfive wrote:

Im sorry to tell you but there aren't any Xfce-distros, sure some like xubuntu or mint claim to be an xfce-distro but they include heavie gnome based applications which require a half gnome installed besides.
If you really want a lightweight distribution you have to do all by yourself, you can use a lightweight base such as puppy, damn small or even a debian netinstall.
cheers,

For pure XFCE I prefer arch myself.

But anyway, xubuntu is most certainly an XFCE distro and comes with mostly XFCE and lightweight apps. Xubuntu is my preferred XFCE distro because it does add some things pure XFCE sorely lacks, like proper pulseaudio support.

BruceMcL · 2013-05-02 15:12:11

@sixsixfive:

"Whats the point of using a lightweight desktop environment if your system is totally bloated with unused libs, deamons & applications?"

You answered that question earlier. The point is convenience.

"If you really want a lightweight distribution you have to do all by yourself ..."

Some people choose convenience and ease of installation over spending more time setting up their computing environment. Those people are running xfce, and they are running xfce distributions.

@bwat47

"For pure XFCE I prefer arch myself."

I'd like to try an Arch install with xfce. That might avoid some of the difficulties I had with Manjaro, while still giving me access to the Arch User Repository (AUR). Any tips or warnings for someone installing Arch for the first time?

Last edited by BruceMcL (2013-05-02 15:22:46)

stqn · 2013-05-02 15:59:51

BruceMcL wrote:

I'd like to try an Arch install with xfce. That might avoid some of the difficulties I had with Manjaro, while still giving me access to the Arch User Repository (AUR). Any tips or warnings for someone installing Arch for the first time?

Read the wiki. And before asking a question in the forum, search the wiki, and the forum. And read the news before any update. And read all messages that are printed when you update.

bwat47 · 2013-05-03 01:58:46

BruceMcL wrote:

@sixsixfive:
"Whats the point of using a lightweight desktop environment if your system is totally bloated with unused libs, deamons & applications?"
You answered that question earlier. The point is convenience.
"If you really want a lightweight distribution you have to do all by yourself ..."
Some people choose convenience and ease of installation over spending more time setting up their computing environment. Those people are running xfce, and they are running xfce distributions.
@bwat47
"For pure XFCE I prefer arch myself."
I'd like to try an Arch install with xfce. That might avoid some of the difficulties I had with Manjaro, while still giving me access to the Arch User Repository (AUR). Any tips or warnings for someone installing Arch for the first time?

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide

and

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

should cover most of what you need, the arch wiki is very good.

BruceMcL · 2013-05-03 15:01:59

@stqn, @bwat47

Thanks for the good advice. I followed the wiki instructions and was able to get xfce running on arch in virtualbox. It was a good learning experience. There are some youtube videos that helped as well. I don't have a specific youtube recommendation, but watching someone else install the base arch system before I started was helpful.

MountainDewManiac · 2013-05-03 19:51:36

sixsixfive wrote:

If I want to install Inkscape(another debian, buntu, mint usw. example) why do I need GConf or gnomevfs?

Inkscape is a fork of a fork of GNOME Illustration Application.

It appears to be written in C++, using gtkmm. Gtkmm is the official C++ interface for GTK+. GTK+ is maintained by members of the GNOME Foundation.

Why do you need GConf or gnomevfs to use what is, in practical terms, a "GNOME application?" I don't know - why, if you wish to build a house out of bricks, do you need to use bricks?

sixsixfive wrote:

A real Xfce Distibution would at least try to be low on system resources (eg: include a build of Inkscape without those for me as xfce-user useless gnome bindings that bloat my system.)

I understand that Inkscape is a pretty nice application. But I have no use for it. It appears that many people do, but in this case "many" is a relative term. I strongly suspect that when compared to the gross number of linux users, many actually turns out to be few. If it's a lightweight distro that you're talking about, why should it concern itself at all with an application that the majority of its users do not appear to need? Or, alternatively, that even fewer people seem to care overmuch that it has a few "GNOME" requirements?

Admittedly, there are a few. Some people would rather that it was a "Qt" thing than a "GTK+" one. I've looked at installing a few such applications, and they appear to want to install a large list of "KDE" things (the popular application K3B springs to mind as an example).

sixsixfive wrote:

Whats the point of using a lightweight desktop environment if your system is totally bloated with unused libs, deamons & applications?

Are they truly unused? Install your distro of choice, the DE you wish to use, and all the applications that you like? Manually remove all the libs, deamons, and apps that you feel are unused. See if everything still runs, looks, and functions the way that you wish.

paolo321 · 2013-05-04 17:01:55

sixsixfive wrote:

Whats the point of using a lightweight desktop environment if your system is totally bloated with unused libs, deamons & applications?

I like Xfce not only because it is lightweight, but because it's a TRADITIONAL desktop environment.
Some applications I need install many deps and probably something is not needed... But this is not my biggest problem, and most times I'm not skilled enough to choose what is really needed.
Obviously, I tend to use "pure" gtk apps when possible , trying to avoid gnome-only stuff , mono , kde-related...
But if something works well for my usage, I just install it with its deps :-)

sebastien · 2013-05-04 21:57:04

Haven't tried xubuntu for a while, sorry.

I'm now looking around for a replacement of my Gnome Mint 9 (10.04 based) that is going end of life and the Ubuntu Netbook Remix of my wife's netbook for the same reason.

I had a good feeling with Arch XFCE (though I won't recommand for new comers; and I'm not sure I could pick Arch for a stable environnement - could be wrong here, I'm not too familiar with Arch). BTW the Arch wiki is indeed very good. I found Debian stable based fast and reliable but not as polished as Mint. SolydX which is based on Debian testing looks pretty. Perhaps a bit too new to be considering as time reliable. Stability is important to me, so the testing branch is the farest I could go on Debian based system; I woudn't go for a Debian sid based (like apsosid/siduction). And finally I do not really care to get a "pure" XFCE system; my intention is to get something that fits my needs and my taste: for instance I never quit using Thunar on my Gnome Isadora desktop; neither I used Evolution or Thunderbird (Claws is the best IMHO); so I wasn't in a pure Gnome environement either ;-). Following this way of thinkink, I'm the kind of guy not to be ashamed of installing compiz and awn dock on top of xfce. Hence, Voyage Live is the kind of dstro I could be interested in. Take a good XFCE based disto, add your tweaks and stuff you like, and get the best for you: fast enough for your feeling and pretty enough for your taste. I've installed compiz + AWN dock on a Mint 13 XFCE and the result is kind of perfect for me: fast, pretty, handy, and LTS. Seems my choice is closed to be set.

stqn · 2013-05-05 06:26:01

MagnusBerg wrote:

Right now I run Xfce4 4.10 that's not in unstable yet... And more "unstable" than unstable is the Debian Experimental repository. I took the main Xfce4 4.10 packages from there. The Xfce4 4.10 plugins packages have I taken from the Ubuntu repository.

Your post makes me want to switch from Arch to Debian unstable, or at least make it high in my list, but it’s weird that Xfce 4.10 is not in unstable yet! It’s one year old and I haven’t had any problem with it since it was introduced into Arch.

ninos · 2013-05-05 08:59:50

Fedora 18

Xfce Forum

Sub domains

#26 2013-04-12 18:13:38

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#27 2013-04-12 19:50:41

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#28 2013-04-14 00:39:17

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#29 2013-04-14 11:07:33

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#30 2013-04-14 20:44:51

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#31 2013-04-15 12:53:38

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#32 2013-04-15 21:02:35

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#33 2013-04-15 21:07:49

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#34 2013-04-28 08:02:52

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#35 2013-04-28 17:11:13

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#36 2013-04-29 12:43:42

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#37 2013-04-30 14:56:28

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#38 2013-05-01 10:48:20

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#39 2013-05-01 15:05:56

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#40 2013-05-02 01:35:06

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#41 2013-05-02 03:48:17

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#42 2013-05-02 15:12:11

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#43 2013-05-02 15:59:51

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#44 2013-05-03 01:58:46

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#45 2013-05-03 15:01:59

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#46 2013-05-03 19:51:36

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#47 2013-05-04 17:01:55

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#48 2013-05-04 21:57:04

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#49 2013-05-05 06:26:01

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

#50 2013-05-05 08:59:50

Re: Which Xfce Distro?

Board footer