MX Linux Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:52 am**

I'm curious: Given that many people use computers with pretty good specs, why are users happy with the XFCE DE?

What are the pros of this desktop environment even when NOT using old or low-end equipment?

Given the range of DEs available, why opt for XFCE a) as a user and b) as a creator?

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am**

XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:14 am**

I was a KDE fan before MX 14 was made available. It did not take me very long to embrace XFCE. I found it was easier to configure the desktop and had numerous configuration options. Also it was lighter on resources, I understand KDE has improved in the resource area but I have no desire to go back. The XFCE developers appear to me to be very conservative as to introducing changes to the system, and that implies stability.
I cannot compare to other DE's as I have only tried them on a limited basis, and did not desire to spend the time to learn them thoroughly. My initial reactions were that they did not give me any advantages over XFCE.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:36 am**

Its flexible, dependable, and uses a familiar paradigm.

but mostly for me its the whiskermenu, which is the IMO is the best menu on any DE. Brisk is close (mate and budgie) but its still a pale imitation of whisker.

I've got nothing against other DEs, but I find that once you know a particular DE you kind of end up comparing anything you use back to it. I think that's why I've never really gotten much traction using anything other than Xfce and fluxbox. Those were the first 2 DEs I tried (well, flux is technically a WM), and I still use them, mostly because I know them inside & out.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:42 am**

I love the fluxbox implementation on antiX.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:47 am**

Same what richb said.... "numerous configuration options and lighter on resources". Its main popularity started in 2015, though it was growing since 2003 from its early "ugly" theme appearance by upgrading to use GTK+ 2 libraries. Its conservative with constant technological advancements.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:55 am**

GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.

What's the advantage of split screen mode (I just discovered this in Nemo thanks to your post) versus the simple right click > open in new tab?

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'local files'. Files which aren't on your computer, I presume. As I don't know that those are I guess I don't this feature

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:57 am**

I think XFCE is the most impossible desktop environment after Gnome.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:07 am**

male wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:57 am I think XFCE is the most impossible desktop environment after Gnome.

Impossible in what way?

EDIT: I would add that I do not think this thread was started to bash XFCE other DE's but a legitimate question as to why people use it and why it was chosen for MX.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:19 am**

richb wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:07 am
male wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:57 am I think XFCE is the most impossible desktop environment after Gnome.
Impossible in what way?

EDIT: I would add that I do not think this thread was started to bash XFCE other DE's but a legitimate question as to why people use it and why it was chosen for MX.

Ha. My first draft actually opened with a 'I hope this is ok' and a ' I don't want to open a nasty can of worms' etc. And then I deleted them thinking I was being too cautious.

But yes, indeed. As someone considering jumping from Cinnamon to MX I'm seriously interested in why MX and Manjaro, for example, choose XFCE as flagships and why people choose to run a DE without all the bells and whistles most PCs can cope adequately with. This might help me decide before I get in too deep

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:41 am**

I actually like several different DE's. But what I like best about Xfce is that it doesn't get in my way. When I want to get actual work done I don't have to think about my desktop, it just does what I need. I don't have to think about it or figure things out. Some De's do get in my way and slow me down, despite being beautiful desktops.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:49 am**

XFCE is stable, reliable, easy to use, easy to learn, fast, efficient, configurable, and stays out of the way so I can do what needs to be done. In other words, it's just about perfect. I also use LXDE under Gentoo, which is slightly less easy to learn for beginners but still meets all of my needs. I've used most desktops at one time or another, but all of them fall short of what I'm looking for, in particular, most of the most popular desktops are bloated, intrusive and fall short in other ways, often not very stable as they push the bleeding edge of development.

Bells and whistles get in the way of work. I do not need or want to be entertained or nagged by my desktop.

Complaints about Thunar cause me to think that the users have not learned how to use it and the underlying OS well enough. Under XFCE, I would never consider using another file manager. But, users have choices. One can use alternative or even many file managers if one chooses, though I have found that using many file managers leads to confusion and mistakes. Also, XFCE is sufficiently Thunar-centric to make removing it a bad idea for most users.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:54 am**

Of course using other app choices than XFCE default choices does not in any way change the desktop. Personally I use Dolphin file manager. There is no need to remove thunar. other apps can be added and do not affect the desktop.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:17 pm**

richb wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:54 am Of course using other app choices than XFCE default choices does not in any way change the desktop. Personally I use Dolphin file manager. There is no need to remove thunar. other apps can be added and do not affect the desktop.

Interesting. So installing Dolphin and making that the default file manager won't cause issues? I've heard conflicting reports but while I was playing around the other day I managed to get Caja working seemingly without problems - although I was just playing around rather than actually working.

I also realised today that I never use any of those extra buttons along the top that Nemo offers me.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:19 pm**

you shouldn't have any issue with additional file managers as long as the filemanager doesn't try to take over the desktop folder presentation. caja and/or nemo (I forget if its which or both) used to have issues with this but I think those are resolved these days.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:31 pm**

Yes as to Dolphin not causing issues with XFCE. However other KDE apps need installation to get full Dolphin capabilities.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:15 pm**

Agree. Totally agree. I have tested some of DE and have get back to XFCE. XFCE is lean and fast. Folks have a wrong perception on LXDE and LXQT for being light. No.... In the first sight maybe yes, but when you use desktop with some applications on background and middle to heavy applications you will not find anymore the benefit of being light.Is much more easy and familiar configuration of XFCE than LXQT or LXDE or even OpenBox. I would prefer Trinity as the second Desktop, because is really a great desktop that comes with additional tools for user configurations and some other things when XFCE lacks.Anyway , also Trinity needs a right and careful configuration because will suffer when you run some applications in the same time.

Simple XFCE(without installing of XFCE additional plugins), is not more than 120-140 kb more than LXDE or even Trinity, but Trinity is much more friendly and offers more than LXDE. I have calculated the 120-140 kb difference on my Sparky Linux.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:16 pm**

deanr72 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:55 am
GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.
What's the advantage of split screen mode (I just discovered this in Nemo thanks to your post) versus the simple right click > open in new tab?

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'local files'. Files which aren't on your computer, I presume. As I don't know that those are I guess I don't this feature

Split-screen lets you drag and drop files from one place to another in one window.
No, by local files I mean files which are on your computer, as opposed to those on another machine on the internet.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:29 pm**

Personally nothing compares to what I can do with Xfce... I even like Thunar the way it is with all my little scripts added (posted elsewhere here). Over the years, I have used and left every other major DE because of overhead and sundry other nits. But I know that's just me.

This is Linux, so use what you like, mix & match what you choose. But for me, one of the beautiful things about this distro (MX) is its Xfce implementation.

If I were a fan of Budgie (I'd use Solus), for Cinnamon (I'd use Mint), LxQT (Manjaro or Siduction)... you get the idea.

For those who want Thunar to offer a dual panel, it's on the Xfce wish list. As they say, vote early, vote often to get it moving up the popularity chain. See: https://wiki.xfce.org/wish_list Or contact the Xfce lead Sean Davis : https://bluesabre.org/tag/xfce/

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:39 pm**

I have used Gnome, LXDE, KDE, Enlightenment, Openbox, Fluxbox, and Xfce. By far the easiest for me to configure any which way I like it is Xfce. I also think it's probably the most "newbie-friendly" DE, which is why it is the choice of some distros for children (even more than the Sugar desktop) as well as newcomers to Linux.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:54 pm**

GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:16 pm
deanr72 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:55 am
GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.
What's the advantage of split screen mode (I just discovered this in Nemo thanks to your post) versus the simple right click > open in new tab?

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'local files'. Files which aren't on your computer, I presume. As I don't know that those are I guess I don't this feature
Split-screen lets you drag and drop files from one place to another in one window.
No, by local files I mean files which are on your computer, as opposed to those on another machine on the internet.

Doh! Of course I meant 'are' not 'aren't'. Would you believe I'm a proofreader

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:54 pm**

I've used a few DEs in my time. I like some of them. But I always prefer Xfce if the distribution supports it. Some users have to have bells and whistles, and more bells and newer whistles. I don't need wobbly things and spinning things. My goal is not to play with the DE. I just want my DE to work and stay out of my way. Xfce does that nicely. I don't even mind Thunar. I'm kind of getting to like it. But the biggest reason I like Xfce is that it just doesn't piss me off.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:14 pm**

deanr72 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:54 pm.......
Doh! Of course I meant 'are' not 'aren't'. Would you believe I'm a proofreader

Well, you are off-duty when you are posting to this forum, so you may be forgiven

I think you can see that most MX users enjoy the XFCE environment: of course you are entitled to prefer others.
But why not give the MX version of it a trial? .... You might even get to like it after a day or two!

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:18 pm**

What I like about XFCE:
Whiskermenu.
Thunar right click custom actions.
Right click on desktop gives you full menu including Thunar custom actions.
No dancing/wobbling/spinning/fading animated crap.
Customized panels; as many you need or want.

What I don't like:
On most distros I have tried the non-default themes can have elements that don't look right or work properly (I haven't check all of them on MX yet so I don't know how bad it is).
Not easy to customize colors of window decorations & other theme components.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:29 pm**

BV206,

Same here, I like XFCE, and especially the MX implementation.

You hit one of my wishes...
I have tried many themes, but all of the bars across the top of the windows seem black or dark.(I have not explored ALL of them, but many)

I like dark or black desk top wallpapers, so the title bars do not contrast a lot, which makes grabbing them some what harder than it should be.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:57 pm**

I chose MX Linux specifically because of Xfce.
If it weren't for that, I could have gone with KDE Neon or something like that.

There are too many things to list but show me anything else besides Xfce that can spawn a monitor background image over two monitors?

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:57 pm**

entropyfoe wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:29 pm [...]
You hit one of my wishes...
I have tried many themes, but all of the bars across the top of the windows seem black or dark.(I have not explored ALL of them, but many)

I like dark or black desk top wallpapers, so the title bars do not contrast a lot, which makes grabbing them some what harder than it should be.

Here are some themes that mix & match well together and deal with the too dark to find border issues. Qogir, victory-gtk, IceBlue. They are all available on http://xfce-look.org

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:41 pm**

entropyfoe wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:29 pm BV206,

Same here, I like XFCE, and especially the MX implementation.

You hit one of my wishes...
I have tried many themes, but all of the bars across the top of the windows seem black or dark.(I have not explored ALL of them, but many)

I like dark or black desk top wallpapers, so the title bars do not contrast a lot, which makes grabbing them some what harder than it should be.

On xfce-look.org there is a theme called XFCE-D-PRO-1.6. Once I found that I stayed with it. I've been using it for quite a while now. Give it a shot. It will give you a lighter title bar, too. I believe it was made by a member here a while back, if I recall correctly.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:21 pm**

IIRC XFCE was originally chosen (over KDE) to work on a netbook owned by Jerry3904. I believe that scratchig a personal itch is an extremely effective way to do development. The question then is why did the Mepis community accept the change from KDE to XFCE? And why did the Linux community as a whole embrace DE's like XFCE over the traditional DE giants KDE and Gnome?

For me, personally, I was an avid KDE user and even a dev up until KDE-4. I think the last release of Mepis used KDE-4 but it did not work on my system so I had to change to a different DE/Window Manager. Believe it or not, I use e16 which I've customized to add the features I needed most from KDE-3.

In my own very personal (grumpy old man who still drives a Volvo 240 wagon) opinion, I think KDE-4, Gnome, and even e17 went astray. They got too fancy or self-absorbed or something. I remember when something like this afflicted the PC hardware industry. The big players felt they had a lot of lock-in and thus felt free to deviate from standards and make their own "standards". There was a time when I recommended people stay away from the big name brands because they had more problems working with Linux (usually due to custom drivers needed to access hardware).

I think the Mepis community switch from KDE-4 to XFCE was much easier than a transition from KDE-3 would have been. My guess is that KDE-4 was not as fully embraced as KDE-3 was. There is a similar effect on the Windows side where the transition from Windows-7 to Linux with XFCE can be less painful than the transition from Windows-7 to Windows-10.

So if we see why not KDE or Gnome, that still leaves the question of why XFCE instead of one of the other many substitutes. XFCE may not be unique in this but it hits a sweet spot of doing enough without doing too much. I think this became a big boon to the MX (= Mepis + antiX) community because it allowed us to spend our limited developer resources refining, customizing, and improving rather than wrestling with the fancy features of the DE. These benefits get passed on to users because we've been able to spend a number of years focused on improving the user experience.

In addition, we're still able to have the hardcore devs contribute to the forums. This helps in two ways. It gets users the best possible help and it also lets the devs know what is going on in the front lines and what users are having trouble with. IMO if we can continue to do this then MX will continue to be a competitive and compelling distro. If we get overwhelmed in the forums then quality will start to suffer and perhaps we too will be led astray.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:03 pm**

manyroads wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:29 pm For those who want Thunar to offer a dual panel, it's on the Xfce wish list. As they say, vote early, vote often to get it moving up the popularity chain.

I find it most convenient to launch two instances of Thunar and copy/paste or drag/drop from one to the other. In fact, I find it more intuitive than a two-panel approach.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:05 pm**

BitJam wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:21 pm IIRC XFCE was originally chosen (over KDE) to work on a netbook owned by Jerry3904.

Yup. It's all Jerry's fault..

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:53 pm**

manyroads wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:57 pmHere are some themes that mix & match well together and deal with the too dark to find border issues. Qogir, victory-gtk, IceBlue. They are all available on http://xfce-look.org

Qogir checked, liked and installed. Thank you very much!

I have already spent some time on xfce-look, but all attempts to get a consistent design failed so far.

I mean I could also live with Arc-Dark and the Papirus icons, however, Qogir definitively looks more sleek and elegant.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:02 pm**

figueroa wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:03 pm
manyroads wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:29 pm For those who want Thunar to offer a dual panel, it's on the Xfce wish list. As they say, vote early, vote often to get it moving up the popularity chain.
I find it most convenient to launch two instances of Thunar and copy/paste or drag/drop from one to the other. In fact, I find it more intuitive than a two-panel approach.

That's what I do. I open the destination directory in another window and drag and drop, copy and paste between them. I think it works just fine that way. I just move the two windows where I want them and away I go.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:18 am**

Bonjour,
Un truc que je n'ai pas réussi c'est de garder le choix d'affichage. Par exemple dans les photos je veux de gros icônes et mes documents un affichage en liste.
Possible sous XFCE ?

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:52 am**

But why not give the MX version of it a trial? .... You might even get to like it after a day or two!

I've already got it installed on my second pc. I'll continue playing around with it, adding and deleting themes and programs etc. playing with panel layouts and what-not and see how hard it is to break.

Then I'd do an clean install when I know what I want.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:03 am**

deanr72 wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:52 am .........
I've already got it installed on my second pc. I'll continue playing around with it, adding and deleting themes and programs etc. playing with panel layouts and what-not and see how hard it is to break.

Then I'd do an clean install when I know what I want.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:23 pm**

Because it works, it works well out of the box.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:51 pm**

I was happy with gnome2. After the gnome3 fiasco, I experimented and moved to XFCE. It is efficient, and non-gimmicky. Mostly I think others are solving non-existent problems. I'm not interested in glitz-- the DE doesn't define my identity. I want simple, clean, unobtrusive. That's what XFCE gives me.

The only issue I have with it is one that afflicts the others-- tearing.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:57 pm**

Well, newbie here but what I really dislike at XFCE is the poor multi-monitor environment support. I mean when you have a laptop and
switch between different combinations. I was able to somehow solve it with xrandr but it is still not out of the box solution.

(imho) XFCE is lightweight on resources but still convenient and attractive looking.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:17 pm**

WarhawkCZ wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:57 pm what I really dislike at XFCE is the poor multi-monitor environment support.

That should be XFCE-4.12.3 and XFCE-4.14. We're at 4.12.1.

There was also this curious post: Why do people often use XFCE for multiple monitor setup?

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:20 pm**

BitJam wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:17 pm
WarhawkCZ wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:57 pm what I really dislike at XFCE is the poor multi-monitor environment support.
That should be XFCE-4.12.3 and XFCE-4.14. We're at 4.12.1.

There was also this curious post: Why do people often use XFCE for multiple monitor setup?

I have to say multi monitors work fine for me...

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:45 pm**

BitJam wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:17 pm That should be XFCE-4.12.3 and XFCE-4.14[/url]. We're at 4.12.1.

re multi-montor support: I don't have any issues with my dual monitor setup using xfce4-display-settings version 4.12.3 which is available for some time now from our "fresh" mx-testrepo and comes with xfce4-settings version: 4.12.3-1~mx17+1.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:54 pm**

BitJam wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:17 pm
WarhawkCZ wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:57 pm what I really dislike at XFCE is the poor multi-monitor environment support.
That should be XFCE-4.12.3 and XFCE-4.14. We're at 4.12.1.

There was also this curious post: Why do people often use XFCE for multiple monitor setup?

I played with the latest settings as recommended here.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:30 pm**

About 10-11 years ago I decided to try something besides Windows and ended up trying Ubuntu 9.04 or whatever it was. Pretty much liked Gnome as it was then but, when Unity came along, that pretty much blew it for me.
Then a friend suggested Arch Linux, which I invested lots of time preparing for and then tried installing, only to quit after about 3-4 days. I waited about a week, started fresh and got it installed. Just with Xfce as the DE.

I loved it and ever since, anything I mess with has to have Xfce or it's not an option. On Arch Linux I don't even use a DM, I just boot into TTY1, login, X starts along with startxfce4 and my desktop comes to life.
Since then I have to have Xfce as the DE on everything. I was really pleased to see I could just install Xfce on MX Linux as the only DE. Usually you have to install Gnome or something similar and then install the Xfce goodies.
A couple of friends were pushing me to try MX Linux 18.1 and I put it off as just "another Debian distro". Boy, was I wrong. I have been pretty pleased with MX since I installed it a couple of weeks ago.

It seems to be a very stable distro and I love the working Fusion Icon, Compiz and Emerald WD.

My son got a beast of a new PC his friend built for him and so he gave me his 5 year old PC with a 4th gen. i7. The specifics are in my signature, except there wasn't enough room for 2 2TB SATA drives configured in RAID 0.

So, now everything is UEFI and of course Xfce as well. I have Arch Linux, Fedora 29, openSUSE TW, Xubuntu 18.04, MX 18.1 Continuum all using Xfce.
I've since installed Arch several times and of course like anything, it gets easier the more you do it. It just takes me several hours now except that first time was a bear.

I figured out in Thunar how to have access to all my Places on the left side is to right click on Documents, for example and then click "send to" side pane.
I've got a media partition that has a music folder. I mount the media partition in fstab and send them both to the side pane too.

What is really nice about Xfce is that it is the same on every distro. Mousepad, Thunar, the settings, pretty much everything is the same no matter what distro you happen to be on.
I probably have too many systems but, I like to play around with all of them. I look for new ones to install all the time and MX Linux was a good find.
Thinking about Slackware next but, I'm in no hurry. Playing with this stuff keeps me alive.

I can't lie Arch Linux is the best. It's the best documented and stable yet bleeding edge distro there is but, with my limited amount of experience with MX Linux, it is definitely 2nd for sure IMO.

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:22 pm**

FYI: Xfce 4.13 anything would be bad to install. 4.13 is a development version and the one we should get is 4.14.
On Arch Linux Xfdesktop went from 4.12.4-2 to 4.13.3-1 and everyone's compositing and transparency went away; the conky background went black.

The thread about that can be seen here: xfdesktop seems to be broken.

But, if you put xfdesktop on hold, everything works fine. 4.13.3-2 was released but, until 4.14 comes out we are pretty much keeping that on hold.

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:47 pm**

Cavsfan wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:22 pm FYI: Xfce 4.13 anything would be bad to install. 4.13 is a development version and the one we should get is 4.14.
On Arch Linux Xfdesktop went from 4.12.4-2 to 4.13.3-1 and everyone's compositing and transparency went away; the conky background went black.

The thread about that can be seen here: xfdesktop seems to be broken.

But, if you put xfdesktop on hold, everything works fine. 4.13.3-2 was released but, until 4.14 comes out we are pretty much keeping that on hold.

4.13 is a development version, but several distros have been using it for many months. Xubuntu uses xfdesktop 4.13 in both 18.10 and 19.04. Manjaro also uses 4.13. So the problem lies in Arch, not Xfce

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:57 am**

Well, thanks for the feedback so far. I've just discovered something else that I've not seen (or certainly not discovered) on a distro before - the ability to hide icons in the notifications area. Incredible. Now I can go from this:

To this:

With one click of the mouse button

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:01 am**

deanr72 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:55 am
GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.
What's the advantage of split screen mode (I just discovered this in Nemo thanks to your post) versus the simple right click > open in new tab?

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'local files'. Files which aren't on your computer, I presume. As I don't know that those are I guess I don't this feature

Hi,
better then filemanagers from other DE's is to use independent filemanagers with double pane capabilities such as SpaceFM and DoubleCmd ;-)
Kind regards,
Paul

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:05 am**

deanr72 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:52 am I'm curious: Given that many people use computers with pretty good specs, why are users happy with the XFCE DE?

What are the pros of this desktop environment even when NOT using old or low-end equipment?

Given the range of DEs available, why opt for XFCE a) as a user and b) as a creator?

I answer this question the same way anytime it is asked when I am using a "lightweight" option for DE or WM on higher spec gear...

Why would I want my computer to be idling above 300MB of RAM when I am doing absolutely nothing? Many DE's (including Windows 7 etc.) that are flashy and pretty and such gobble up my RAM (800MB+ to 1GB+). Now RAM may be relatively cheap nowadays, but, again, why would I want to be using that RAM for "nothing" all the time? On the system I am using currently, I only have 4 GB of RAM. If my DE uses nearly a GB or more to just sit there and do nothing, imagine what its going to be like trying to render large audio/video files or browse the web with multiple tabs, etc. etc.

When it comes to my computers, I want efficiency. (Actually that goes for most everything). I want my software to utilize memory efficiently, intelligently.

If XFCE uses under 400MB doing nothing, that's better than KDE or GNOME using 800+ to do the same (no)thing. Better yet is IceWM, JWM, or i3 using under 100MB. Shoot, even Trinity in Q4OS using a couple fewer MB than XFCE (maybe around 10MB less).

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:37 am**

Why would I want my computer to be idling above 300 MB of RAM when I am doing absolutely nothing?

Interesting. I do not care how much RAM I am using as long as my machine does not slow down or I run out. Idling my computer uses about 1.5 GB of its 16 GB of RAM. I understand for lower spec machines with little RAM it becomes more of an issue.

So low RAM usage is not a consideration for me using XFCE. I like its configurability and the ease to configure it.
I think it shows there are different reasons why people use XFCE.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:53 am**

richb wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:37 am [...]

So low RAM usage is not a consideration for me using XFCE. I like its configurability and the ease to configure it.
I think it shows there are different reasons why people use XFCE.

Hear, hear, @richb I agree. My machine has 24GB and I love xfce because of all the dials & knobs I can tweak. To my mind, no other DE comes very close except perhaps the old Gnome-Gtk2 child Maté. (I have to say I think Openbox wm affords incredible flexibility.)

I like the look I can achieve with Xfce, I like the tools MX provides to make the tweaking more 'user-friendly', I like its stability, and I even can make it look 'slick' to my old eyes. Oh and did I say I like its stability. Yes sir, I like its stability....

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:58 am**

It works well on older hardware (Celeron laptop with 4gb ram). More 'visually advanced' desktops use significant cpu-ram and occasionally crashed the pc back to the logon screen. It's also minimalistic and passes my OCD filter so I like it anyway.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:04 pm**

dreamer wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:47 pm
Cavsfan wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:22 pm FYI: Xfce 4.13 anything would be bad to install. 4.13 is a development version and the one we should get is 4.14.
On Arch Linux Xfdesktop went from 4.12.4-2 to 4.13.3-1 and everyone's compositing and transparency went away; the conky background went black.

The thread about that can be seen here: xfdesktop seems to be broken.

But, if you put xfdesktop on hold, everything works fine. 4.13.3-2 was released but, until 4.14 comes out we are pretty much keeping that on hold.
4.13 is a development version, but several distros have been using it for many months. Xubuntu uses xfdesktop 4.13 in both 18.10 and 19.04. Manjaro also uses 4.13. So the problem lies in Arch, not Xfce

Doesn't matter Arch Linux is still Arch Linux using the 5.0.7.arch1-1 kernel.
All you have to do is put IgnorePkg = xfdesktop in /etc/pacman.conf and it will never update.
While updating via terminal, which is the only way to update Arch Linux, it also tells you the version that would be installed if it were allowed to.
So, when I see 4.14, I'll know it is time

Low RAM usage or low system resource usage was never a consideration for me using Xfce. I use it because I like it the most of any DE I've tried.
Plus it's consistent across systems.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:23 am**

GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.

is split-screen mode any different/better than Thunar window tabs?
I didn't like using tabs in Thunar as i found it harder to keep track of files when moving things between folders, so still use two windows

not had problems with Thunar accessing remote folders via smb and ssh, and recently found it can also handle sftp too

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:25 am**

nik.gnomic wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:23 am..........
...........
not had problems with Thunar accessing remote folders via smb and ssh, and recently found it can also handle sftp too

Anything reached via smb is not really remote: smb only accesses your local network.
If you can access truly remote servers with Thunar, please tell how it is done.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:08 am**

What is really nice about Xfce is that it is the same on every distro. Mousepad, Thunar, the settings, pretty much everything is the same no matter what distro you happen to be on.

That's a good point - and one I hadn't considered.

Posted: **Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:35 pm**

GuiGuy wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:25 am If you can access truly remote servers with Thunar, please tell how it is done.

first time i found out about sftp was by accident - pasted url from filezilla into thunar instead of firefox

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:08 pm**

As a user of the Fluxbox WM for many years, I find DE's cumbersome, but XFCE is the least of the beast, it is light weight, whilst still having a good range of extras OTB. MX is a good mid range Linux distro.

There are several light weight distros that I will use, but this is as 'heavy' as I'll entertain on my machines.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:51 pm**

nik.gnomic wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:35 pm.........
........ - pasted url from filezilla into thunar instead of firefox

Thanks: clever trick!

Posted: **Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:00 pm**

On my PC I've currently got Arch Linux (#1 in my book), Fedora 29, openSUSE TW (rolling), MX 18.1 (#2 in my book), Slackware Current (rolling), Xubuntu 18.04.2 LTS and 19.04 all with Xfce as the lone DE along with Windows 10.
I've had Sabayon Linux and CentOS installed also but they were not really made for a desktop system like I want.

MX has definitely impressed me. It asks for the sudo password to mount another system's partition, it has a working fusion icon, it works with all of my hardware and did I mention that it has a working fusion icon?

Arch Linux and MX are the only ones that have compiz 0.8, Emerald, the fusion Icon and that's one good reason I like them both. Fedora has a working Fusion Icon but, the conky version is not quite up to what I want/need.
You cannot use 'override' on Fedora like on every other system there is. OpenSUSE did have a working compiz and fusion Icon but, not any more.

I use Compiz, et al for more than just eye candy. I use the commands you can setup and several other things but, the eye candy is cool too.

Bottom line - Xfce is the only DE I'll probably ever use again and I don't even need a low resource system. I've got a 4th generation i7, 16GB memory and 2 SSDs - one is 1TB and the other is 500GB which is still a beast.

The ONLY downfall I see to MX is that, like all Debian based distros, while booting up sometimes the panels do not appear and you have to logoff or reboot if logging off is not an option to get the panel(s) to show but, it's not that big of a problem.
If I could, I'd go with Arch Linux, MX Linux and Windows 10 (for games mostly). But, I get bored and need stuff to play around with while learning about new things Linux.

Posted: **Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:11 pm**

Funny, in five years with MX I've never seen that panel problem. You might think of starting a new thread dedicated to this, including the output of Quick System Info.

Posted: **Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:13 pm**

XFCE is great. I use the spacefm file manager ( never liked thunar - and spacefm does more without a fuss).
At the end of the day - I dont plan to spend my days admiring the OS ( I never understood all this obsesion with wobbly windows and other animations etc - why?). Its more about actually using the computer to do stuff.

Posted: **Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:07 pm**

Cavsfan wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:00 pm The ONLY downfall I see to MX is that, like all Debian based distros, while booting up sometimes the panels do not appear and you have to logoff or reboot if logging off is not an option to get the panel(s) to show but, it's not that big of a problem.

Are you booting MX Linux with systemd?

Posted: **Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:17 am**

I feel like desktop design was basically solved at around the Windows 2000 point, and most changes since have been minor, cosmetic, or regressive in some way. XFCE is fast, light on resources, customisable and has buttons to open applications. There was a lot of discussion about XFCE in the most recent Linux Unplugged podcast. Last week, they were talking up Ubuntu 19.04, saying how much it's improved in terms of speed, but that's making improvements to bloat that has been added... for some reason. This week, they are marvelling at how fast XFCE is.

What are new desktop environments trying to do?

Posted: **Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:15 am**

Eggnog wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:54 pm I've used a few DEs in my time. I like some of them. But I always prefer Xfce if the distribution supports it. Some users have to have bells and whistles, and more bells and newer whistles. I don't need wobbly things and spinning things. My goal is not to play with the DE. I just want my DE to work and stay out of my way. Xfce does that nicely. I don't even mind Thunar. I'm kind of getting to like it. But the biggest reason I like Xfce is that it just doesn't piss me off.

My sentiments as well. And MX' implementation of Xfce--including the side panel--is NEAR PERFECT. Also concur with Dolphin Oracle's comments about Xfce's Whisker Menu (as opposed to, say, KDE's irritating hierarchical menu, for example):

but mostly for me its the whiskermenu, which is the IMO is the best menu on any DE. Brisk is close (mate and budgie) but its still a pale imitation of whisker.

Posted: **Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:10 am**

rs55 wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:13 pm XFCE is great. I use the spacefm file manager ( never liked thunar - and spacefm does more without a fuss).
At the end of the day - I dont plan to spend my days admiring the OS ( I never understood all this obsesion with wobbly windows and other animations etc - why?). Its more about actually using the computer to do stuff.

+1 except:
XFCE is great (without too many untimely changes of design during about 20 years). I use the Nemo file manager ( never liked Thunar too much too - and Nemo does more without a fuss, and have Nautilus scripts functionality).

Posted: **Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:09 pm**

How you able to make file picker for Nemo or else instead of Thunar? I mean when you download or upload image from (to) browser, you will see file manager which look like stupid Thunar, but not Nemo.

Posted: **Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:25 pm**

Can we get this fix for Firefox fullscreen video issue?

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ... ug/1796144

Posted: **Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:19 pm**

So differents between xfce and kde is only the RAM usage? I think linux is good only for internet browsing. It not require to install antivirus. So if i will get the same faster webserfing with kde and with xfce, what a point to use only xfce? Differents between Ram usage is only 500-1000 mb. I don't think DE have big influence on browser.

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:34 am**

denis12 wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:19 pm So differents between xfce and kde is only the RAM usage? I think linux is good only for internet browsing. It not require to install antivirus. So if i will get the same faster webserfing with kde and with xfce, what a point to use only xfce? Differents between Ram usage is only 500-1000 mb. I don't think DE have big influence on browser.

See this for a choice:

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:54 am**

A complete operating system for internet only? Never let your guard down, an antivirus is always useful.

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:28 am**

If you were using a complete OS only for browsing then why would you ever consider anything other than Tails????

https://tails.boum.org/

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:13 pm**

manyroads wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:28 am If you were using a complete OS only for browsing then why would you ever consider anything other than Tails????

https://tails.boum.org/

I don't need secure Tor network. I just need faster OS. Exactly I need faster internet browsing.

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:33 pm**

Then you could try antiX with Fluxbox,
which will give you maximum resources
for browsing or anything else desired.

No Xfce, no Kde, only Fluxbox and a browser.

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:12 pm**

Richard wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:33 pm Then you could try antiX with Fluxbox,
which will give you maximum resources
for browsing or anything else desired.

No Xfce, no Kde, only Fluxbox and a browser.

Are you kidding? I`m not computer geek for using terminal. And not sure if it will be faster.

Posted: **Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:56 pm**

denis12 wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:12 pm Are you kidding? I`m not computer geek for using terminal. And not sure if it will be faster.

I think you should move your issue into a separate thread. You seem to be off topic.

Posted: **Fri May 03, 2019 7:10 pm**

Jerry3904 wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:11 pm Funny, in five years with MX I've never seen that panel problem. You might think of starting a new thread dedicated to this, including the output of Quick System Info.

It happens to me once in a while on Ubuntu and most Debian based systems I have used. I believe when I installed MX it put the (single) panel on the left. I moved it to the top and created a bottom panel.
On many systems, just after you install and boot up, if you switch the session to a Xfce session the very first time you login, it asks if you want to create the default (2) panels, one for the top and one at the bottom pre-configured with show desktop, web browser, and a couple of other items.
Today it did not have any problem with the panels but the conkys wanted to display over top of everything so I logged out and back in and everything was good to go.

dreamer wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:07 pm
Cavsfan wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:00 pm The ONLY downfall I see to MX is that, like all Debian based distros, while booting up sometimes the panels do not appear and you have to logoff or reboot if logging off is not an option to get the panel(s) to show but, it's not that big of a problem.
Are you booting MX Linux with systemd?

No, I wasn't as a matter of fact. When I customized the EFI grub I overlooked the option to boot using systemd. But, I've added it and will see what happens.
Here is what I now have for MX: (although my grub is on Arch)

Code: Select all

menuentry 'MX 18.1 Continuum' {
        search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494
        linux   /boot/vmlinuz root=UUID=1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494 ro quiet resume=/dev/disk/by-uuid/b564ed75-b9ee-410f-9f87-04afc30a0ff4 splash
        initrd  /boot/initrd
}
menuentry 'MX 18.1 Continuum (systemd)' {
        search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494
        linux   /boot/vmlinuz root=UUID=1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494 ro quiet resume=/dev/disk/by-uuid/b564ed75-b9ee-410f-9f87-04afc30a0ff4 splash init=/lib/systemd/systemd
        initrd  /boot/initrd
}

Posted: **Fri May 03, 2019 7:52 pm**

Booted with systemd and panels were fine. Conkys were a tad messed up so a logout/login solved that. The 7 conkys are from Conkywx, I test for a guy that programs the conkys, weather info and all of it in Arch Linux.
Initially he used one website weather source and we know now what happens when the website decides to change something... It blows the conkys up or rather does not display the weather.

He has made it work with several weather source websites but, when one went bad, you would have to manually change it. So, now he is working on making it change it's source automagically,
But, here is what it currently looks like - sheer magic - the seismic and news (The Onion

) conkys scroll up and the music conky scrolls right to left:

He also wrote the wx media player based on mplayer. It would take a movie to show it best.

You can get it here. He wrote his own version of conky called conky-cairo for Arch and it's in the AUR. Conkywx

I'll keep a better eye on the panels and boot with systemd every time I'm in MX, which is quite a lot.

Posted: **Fri May 03, 2019 8:10 pm**

I'll keep a better eye on the panels and boot with systemd every time I'm in MX, which is quite a lot.

You can set the boot to use systemd every time in MX Boot Options, check the box "Enable saving last boot choice."

Posted: **Sat May 04, 2019 11:32 am**

Cavsfan wrote: Fri May 03, 2019 7:10 pm When I customized the EFI grub I overlooked the option to boot using systemd. But, I've added it and will see what happens.
Here is what I now have for MX: (although my grub is on Arch)

Code: Select all

menuentry 'MX 18.1 Continuum' {
        search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494
        linux   /boot/vmlinuz root=UUID=1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494 ro quiet resume=/dev/disk/by-uuid/b564ed75-b9ee-410f-9f87-04afc30a0ff4 splash
        initrd  /boot/initrd
}
menuentry 'MX 18.1 Continuum (systemd)' {
        search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494
        linux   /boot/vmlinuz root=UUID=1cb06a9e-c0dd-467a-bef5-2ad3d1b0e494 ro quiet resume=/dev/disk/by-uuid/b564ed75-b9ee-410f-9f87-04afc30a0ff4 splash init=/lib/systemd/systemd
        initrd  /boot/initrd
}

Cavsfan wrote: Fri May 03, 2019 7:52 pmI'll keep a better eye on the panels and boot with systemd every time I'm in MX, which is quite a lot.

Jerry3904 wrote: Fri May 03, 2019 8:10 pm You can set the boot to use systemd every time in MX Boot Options, check the box "Enable saving last boot choice."

Thanks for that info. and that is a great feature but, as I mentioned I customize my grub and it's on Arch Linux. It will be easy to select the option to boot into MX using systemd.
The reasons I customize my grub are:
1) Except on Arch Linux and openSUSE (which was fixed from a bug I opened), the 2nd img is not added for Arch's initrd /intel-ucode.img /initramfs-linux.img line.
2) I can have a background of my choosing, menu font colors of my choosing and I can control what is displayed on the menu.
3) When you boot this many systems, grub gets much of it wrong. I fix it so every menuentry is like the grub is on the native partition that it is going to boot into.

All Debian based distros are the same in that there are 3 colors that can be used for fonts, If it finds a background picture in /boot/grub. I like having 3 available colors.
On Arch Linux, there is no /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme file, so the picture and font colors are in /etc/default/grub. Also only 2 font colors can be defined - one for the highlighted menu option and one for the other menuentries.
The color above and below the box as well as the color when you edit an entry is white so that necessitates a darker background color or you will not be able to read it.

On MX, since I have not seen a 2nd kernel get installed, no symlinks for /boot/vmlinuz and /boot/initrd, I created them.
On every system when it is first installed these symlinks do not get created until a kernel gets installed via updates.

Code: Select all

cd /boot
sudo ln -s -f initrd.img-4.20.12-antix.1-amd64-smp initrd
sudo ln -s -f vmlinuz-4.20.12-antix.1-amd64-smp vmlinuz

I'm guessing that they will be created if a new kernel gets installed but, I'm prepared just in case with a script that would run at kernel installation.
Fedora 29 does not create the symlinks when a new kernel is installed so I have a script that does it. I went through a testing phase until I got it right but, it works every time now,

Jerry3904, sorry for such a drawn out answer for a single sentence reply. I just wanted to elaborate on why I will never need to use that option.

Posted: **Sun May 05, 2019 4:06 pm**

XFCE just works.
It's the least buggy and one of the least buggy DE's in my experience.

Posted: **Mon May 13, 2019 3:40 pm**

The top and bottom panels do not appear most of the time during initial boot up whether I've booted systemd or not. I clicked on the top and then both panels appeared and everything was normal after that.
It did when I booted just now using systemd. But, since most Linux disros are using systemd as default. I will do away with the 2 grub menuentries and just let it default to systemd.

Arch Linux, Fedora 30 and openSUSE TW all boot systemd as default.

I've seen this panel issue many, many times as all of my systems use the Xfce panels. It seems that it is always the Debian based distros that do this.

Posted: **Mon May 13, 2019 5:08 pm**

Cavsfan wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 3:40 pm The top and bottom panels do not appear most of the time during initial boot up whether I've booted systemd or not. I clicked on the top and then both panels appeared and everything was normal after that.
It did when I booted just now using systemd. But, since most Linux disros are using systemd as default. I will do away with the 2 grub menuentries and just let it default to systemd.

Arch Linux, Fedora 30 and openSUSE TW all boot systemd as default.

I've seen this panel issue many, many times as all of my systems use the Xfce panels. It seems that it is always the Debian based distros that do this.

I have never seen this panel issue in Xfce. I boot MX Linux (sysvinit) and occasionally Xubuntu (systemd). You can open your boot log from MX Boot Options and paste it in a new thread. Maybe your panel problem can be solved.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:32 am**

dreamer wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 5:08 pm
Cavsfan wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 3:40 pm The top and bottom panels do not appear most of the time during initial boot up whether I've booted systemd or not. I clicked on the top and then both panels appeared and everything was normal after that.
It did when I booted just now using systemd. But, since most Linux disros are using systemd as default. I will do away with the 2 grub menuentries and just let it default to systemd.

Arch Linux, Fedora 30 and openSUSE TW all boot systemd as default.

I've seen this panel issue many, many times as all of my systems use the Xfce panels. It seems that it is always the Debian based distros that do this.
I have never seen this panel issue in Xfce. I boot MX Linux (sysvinit) and occasionally Xubuntu (systemd). You can open your boot log from MX Boot Options and paste it in a new thread. Maybe your panel problem can be solved.

I booted into MX and the panels were missing, I clicked on the top where they should be and they appeared. I've seen this so many times on so many different systems, it's not worth the effort to fix it.
That log contains this:

Code: Select all

rootMX18.1: clean, 355016/3276800 files, 2873540/13107200 blocks
INIT: version 2.88 booting
[info] Using makefile-style concurrent boot in runlevel S.
[....] Starting the hotplug events dispatcher: systemd-udevdstarting version 232
. ok 
[ ok ] Synthesizing the initial hotplug events...done.
[ ok ] Waiting for /dev to be fully populated...done.
[ ok ] Setting up keyboard layout...done.
Press any key to close

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:35 am**

"on the top where they should be" -- in MX the single panel is on the left edge by default. Did you move it? If yes, how?

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:17 pm**

Cavsfan wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:32 am [...]
I booted into MX and the panels were missing, I clicked on the top where they should be and they appeared. I've seen this so many times on so many different systems, it's not worth the effort to fix it.
[...]

Please explain why you believe "where they should be" is "on the top". Did you (like I do) move the panel? If you really mean "they" you must have created a second and/or more panel(s). Did you set them to hide or similar?
Did you make certain on your LightDM Greeter screen, that you are actually signing in to xfce... not some other desktop or a non-desktop environment?
Are you able to provide a screenshot of what you see?

Just some thoughts. I try not to have very many of those, thoughts. I'm pretty certain I'm over quota for today. :lipsrsealed:

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:58 pm**

manyroads wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:17 pm
Cavsfan wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:32 am [...]
I booted into MX and the panels were missing, I clicked on the top where they should be and they appeared. I've seen this so many times on so many different systems, it's not worth the effort to fix it.
[...]
Please explain why you believe "where they should be" is "on the top". Did you (like I do) move the panel? If you really mean "they" you must have created a second and/or more panel(s). Did you set them to hide or similar?
Did you make certain on your LightDM Greeter screen, that you are actually signing in to xfce... not some other desktop or a non-desktop environment?
Are you able to provide a screenshot of what you see?

Just some thoughts. I try not to have very many of those, thoughts. I'm pretty certain I'm over quota for today. :lipsrsealed:

Yes, I moved them immediately after I installed them. I wanted 2 standard Xfce panels, which are on Arch Linux, openSUSE, Fedora 30 and every other distro I can think of.
The MX Linux panel, when moved to the top, came totally backwards from what I consider standard - e.g. what every other Linux system's Xfce panel looks like. I am also sure I booted into an Xfce session.

Login, restart, suspend, etc, Date/Time and Workplace Switcher should be at the top right. The Application menu should be at the top left. I have a custom date/time set to %A - %B %d, %Y - %I:%M %p (probably most suitable to Americans).
Some systems ask you when you boot into the system for the 1st time if you would like the default panels and if I get that option, I love it and take it every time.

The default that they mean has a panel at the top (as I just described) and a panel for the bottom.
It by default contains the following in the left side:

Show Desktop

Terminal Emulator (Xfce terminal)

File Manager (Thunar)

Web Browser

Application Finder

If it does not contain those, I add them. It takes a little effort but, what doesn't? Set it and forget it.

I will add things I want to be there like Nvidia Server Settings and if Thunar cannot be made to show the Catfish File Search on the side bar, I'll put Catfish there as well.
At the top I added Visual Studio Code to have easy access to that.

If you thought the MX panel default was standard across all distros that boot Xfce, you would be mistaken.

Here is a screenshot of my current MX setup and I could show you the exact same panels in several other distros that come with a top panel and optionally a bottom panel.
I've got a 4K 3840x2160 monitor, I can afford the 40 pixel high panel at the top and the same at the bottom.

Here is my Arch Linux Xfce desktop:

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:04 pm**

Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:35 am "on the top where they should be" -- in MX the single panel is on the left edge by default. Did you move it? If yes, how?

Sorry, I didn't notice your question!
I believe I right clicked on it and then clicked on horizontal. If it didn't automatically go to the top, I hold the left mouse button down while "grabbing" the panel and putting it on the top and then let go of the mouse.

As far as the items, you can right click on most things and then click on move. Because when you add something it defaults to the left and you have to move it to where you actually want it.
The exception is the grouped icons, Fusion Icon, Network Icon, Volume, Power, etc.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:08 pm**

II you use MX Tweak, Display panel horizontally and choose top the orientation of the icons will be as you prefer. As far as where the panel should be, MX chooses to put the panel on the left edge. Who is to say it should not be there. It was the choice of the developers and is easily changed with MX Tweak.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:11 pm**

Cavsfan wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:04 pm
Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:35 am "on the top where they should be" -- in MX the single panel is on the left edge by default. Did you move it? If yes, how?
Sorry, I didn't notice your question!
I believe I right clicked on it and then clicked on horizontal. If it didn't automatically go to the top, I hold the left mouse button down while "grabbing" the panel and putting it on the top and then let go of the mouse.

As far as the items, you can right click on most things and then click on move. Because when you add something it defaults to the left and you have to move it to where you actually want it.
The exception is the grouped icons, Fusion Icon, Network Icon, Volume, Power, etc.

That's why the items on it are reversed. If you used MX Tweak to move the vertical panel up, the items are all arranged the "normal" way for a horizontal panel, from left to right.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:35 pm**

This thread is convoluted enough that it hurts my old brain...

I don't think I can help. Sorry.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:10 pm**

richb wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:08 pm II you use MX Tweak, Display panel horizontally and choose top the orientation of the icons will be as you prefer. As far as where the panel should be, MX chooses to put the panel on the left edge. Who is to say it should not be there. It was the choice of the developers and is easily changed with MX Tweak.

asqwerth wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:11 pm
Cavsfan wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:04 pm
Jerry3904 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:35 am "on the top where they should be" -- in MX the single panel is on the left edge by default. Did you move it? If yes, how?
Sorry, I didn't notice your question!
I believe I right clicked on it and then clicked on horizontal. If it didn't automatically go to the top, I hold the left mouse button down while "grabbing" the panel and putting it on the top and then let go of the mouse.

As far as the items, you can right click on most things and then click on move. Because when you add something it defaults to the left and you have to move it to where you actually want it.
The exception is the grouped icons, Fusion Icon, Network Icon, Volume, Power, etc.
That's why the items on it are reversed. If you used MX Tweak to move the vertical panel up, the items are all arranged the "normal" way for a horizontal panel, from left to right.

I am not aware of the full capabilities of MX Linux, MX Tweak and the whole gamut. But, I am used to improvising, which I did.
I right clicked on the panel, moved the mouse down to panel and then clicked on Panel preferences and changed Mode to Horizontal. I'm not saying the default MX Panel is wrong and that may be their standard, I'm saying it is not the standard for Xfce.

I've been around Linux for 10-11 years, installed most distros that are available to install. Started out with Ubuntu of course and then when Unity, etc. came around I found Xubuntu (Ubuntu + Xfce).
I've installed Arch Linux several times and that system is only what you install yourself, zero bloatware,etc. Of course I went with Xfce and don't even use a DM, I just login to TTY1 and it starts X and Xfce.
I have openSUSE TW Xfce, Fedora 30 Xfce, Debian Testing Xfce (which has a working Fusion Icon BTW). That is 6 Linux systems plus Windows 10 on this 1TB SSD.

But, I've had CentOS Xfce, which is not really cut out to be used like I use an operating system. I think it had conky version 1.9...
I had Sabayon Linux on here for a while, Mageia 6.1 for awhile but, could not install Conkywx so got rid of it.

I would install Gentoo, except who wants to have to compile every single package on your machine before you install it.

Arch Linux is my favorite, it's bleeding edge but, also very stable with pacman as it's package management system.
I've occasionally encountered problems and been able to roll back a package, packages or everything on the system to a certain date.
Then don't upgrade the system (CLI is the only way to update) or put a package on Ignore status and it will not update.

I'm not trying to claim I am the expert; I've just got a lot of experience and can figure stuff out or improvise if need be.

But, I sure am glad my friends got me to try out MX Linux! At first I thought nope just another Debian based distro but, once I installed it I seen I was wrong.

It's a great system.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:17 pm**

manyroads wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:35 pm This thread is convoluted enough that it hurts my old brain... I don't think I can help. Sorry.

I know what you mean but, everything I've mentioned is about systems with Xfce, so I may have strayed a tad, I still kept it on Xfce.

As a matter of fact, Xfce is the reason I like any of this stuff.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:25 pm**

It would be useful to explore the MX Tools. They are designed to make things easier for XFCE and the system in general. They are frequently praised by reviewers fir this reason. I understand that when one is very familiar with a system and have done things a certain way that is the go to method.
In any case glad to have you here and I hope you enjoy MX.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:48 pm**

Why XFCE?

.....

Why not?

.....

Too many desktops have gone off the rails. KDE since version 4, and now Plasma 5, is full of features that I really don't use and get in the way. And yet it does not have ability to add drop-down menus to Panel Launchers. But with XFCE, entries on a panel launcher can make use of desktop files, but are not dependent on them. I'll give you an example of how useful this is:

My computer has a "Line In" input, fed by the RIAA pre-amp on my record turntable. The output is fed into a switch that selects between my amplifier and the cable to the computer's Line In input. I want to use this input to capture sound into Audacity. But I also want to monitor the input. so I can hear what's going on.

The main command on the panel launcher is, of course, Audacity. The second and third commands are Enable Loopback and Disable Loopback.

The command to Enable Loopback is:
pacmd load-module module-loopback latency_msec=5

The command to Disable Loopback is:
pacmd unload-module module-loopback

I was able to type these commands in, using the "Add new empty item" button on the Launcher Properties menu. I didn't need a pre-existing desktop file anywhere. Now that is the sort of power you need in a desktop, not loads of fancy stuff.

And that is why XFCE.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:41 am**

You don't need low end specs to embrace more of a minimalist zen philosophy. For instance, the desktop is for people who don't understand what is going on under the hood so it is useless bloat to people like me. The good thing is MXLinux makes it easy to install alternative window managers and switch to them unlike the current Debian desktop. I swear Debian froze on me when trying to switch to my non-default desktop. Three minimalist window managers I like are CWM, ratpoison, and i3wm. XFCE, KDE and Gnome are just useless bloat to me. It's funny that people claim to like Gnome 3 because it gets out of their way and lets them focus on coding more but that is more true of the window managers I just posted.

A simple 'man -k cwm' shows an openbsd-cwm manpage as it does not just go by 'cwm'.

Not my screenshot :

http://i.imgur.com/4kWz7jX.png

P.S. I don't even use my mouse in CWM.

Mod note: please be mindful of image sizes, see viewtopic.php?f=133&t=48374

image changed to link

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:50 am**

davemx wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:48 pm Why XFCE?

.....

Why not?

.....

Too many desktops have gone off the rails. KDE since version 4, and now Plasma 5, is full of features that I really don't use and get in the way. And yet it does not have ability to add drop-down menus to Panel Launchers. But with XFCE, entries on a panel launcher can make use of desktop files, but are not dependent on them. I'll give you an example of how useful this is:

My computer has a "Line In" input, fed by the RIAA pre-amp on my record turntable. The output is fed into a switch that selects between my amplifier and the cable to the computer's Line In input. I want to use this input to capture sound into Audacity. But I also want to monitor the input. so I can hear what's going on.

The main command on the panel launcher is, of course, Audacity. The second and third commands are Enable Loopback and Disable Loopback.

The command to Enable Loopback is:
pacmd load-module module-loopback latency_msec=5

The command to Disable Loopback is:
pacmd unload-module module-loopback

I was able to type these commands in, using the "Add new empty item" button on the Launcher Properties menu. I didn't need a pre-existing desktop file anywhere. Now that is the sort of power you need in a desktop, not loads of fancy stuff.

And that is why XFCE.

For what is worth KDE is super fast on slackware because slackware is just superfast in general because it lacks all the hand holding bloat spaghetti code of Ubuntu. Only reason I am not using slackware right now is its last release was in 2016 and -current is not stable.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:56 am**

Probably because Patrick needs monetary support.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:21 am**

Richard wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:56 am Probably because Patrick needs monetary support.

I heard the slackware store was ripping him off plus they don't have anything I like such as slackware stickers for my laptop unless the DVD bundle comes with them. I think donated straight with paypal is the best option.

As far as I know the slackware store is currently down probably because they were ripping Pat off.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:23 am**

DracoSentien wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:21 am
Richard wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:56 am Probably because Patrick needs monetary support.
I heard the slackware store was ripping him off plus they don't have anything I like such as slackware stickers for my laptop unless the DVD bundle comes with them. I think donated straight with paypal is the best option. DVD is so oldschool I don't even have a cd/dvd drive on my laptop.

As far as I know the slackware store is currently down probably because they were ripping Pat off.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:12 pm**

DracoSentien wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:50 am
For what is worth KDE is super fast on slackware because slackware is just superfast in general because it lacks all the hand holding bloat spaghetti code of Ubuntu. Only reason I am not using slackware right now is its last release was in 2016 and -current is not stable.

KDE is fast enough, it's just annoying. Like a lot of desktops.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:24 pm**

richb wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:25 pm It would be useful to explore the MX Tools. They are designed to make things easier for XFCE and the system in general. They are frequently praised by reviewers fir this reason. I understand that when one is very familiar with a system and have done things a certain way that is the go to method.
In any case glad to have you here and I hope you enjoy MX.

Thank you! I am enjoying MX very much. I tried to install the development version a few days ago and I did move the panel from the left side via MX Tools, so I do see how that works. After I installed the Nvidia driver, I installed the 5.0 something kernel and it wouldn't boot.
Tried twice and gave up. Then I installed antiX 17.4.1 in it's place. It didn't come with Xfce but, sudo apt install xfce4 got me most of what I wanted, including the session. I still had to install xfce4-terminal (as they call it) and mousepad.
Here's a screenshot:

Probably not a real good background for the conkys but, not too bad. I was also able to customize the grub screen: I used one of their backgrounds and 3 font colors.

I noticed yesterday that on one site MX Linux was #1 I believe in getting the most attention right now and getting installed. So, the word is getting around.

Posted: **Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:36 pm**

Xfce, even dating back to the "original" implementation, has always been fairly simple, modest on resources and sensible. As technology has improved, so has Xfce, though certainly not with any "bleeding edge" features, but also lacking a great number of work stopping errors.

I've found Xfce to be similar in features and performance with the earliest desktop environments.
Xfce is not the leader of fancy new features but it has long been a reliable, simple to use desktop environment.

My desktop needs are not great, so Xfce is perfect for me.

There are times when I do not need a desktop environment at all. Xfce is still fine because it's not cumbersome, but in those cases I may use the IceWM window manager and a Web browser, file manager and command line, perhaps with a simple text editor.

Posted: **Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:41 am**

Mxlinux can run on a laptop with low specs and high specs . So a wider ranche of users all over the world, also for people with no budget.

If you look into the future the differents between the flashy desktops (unity/Gnome) and a DE like xfce will be more and more.
.
Old computers are getting older, but still usefull, and the new ones are getting faster and faster. At that time Mxlinux users with low end computers are still capable to use mxlinux.
A unity/gnome like system will ask more and more of your system in the future.

It's just a functional stable system.

Thats how i see MxLInux, why i think they use XFCE.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:06 pm**

Artim wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:39 pm I have used Gnome, LXDE, KDE, Enlightenment, Openbox, Fluxbox, and Xfce. By far the easiest for me to configure any which way I like it is Xfce. I also think it's probably the most "newbie-friendly" DE, which is why it is the choice of some distros for children (even more than the Sugar desktop) as well as newcomers to Linux.

For some reason I don't understand Rhythmbox only works in the Gnome/Budgie desktop environment.

Will I break something if I install Budgie from the MX package installer? Okay not me personally, but the MX Linux system.

Posted: **Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:06 pm**

lekkermx wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:06 pm
Artim wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:39 pm I have used Gnome, LXDE, KDE, Enlightenment, Openbox, Fluxbox, and Xfce. By far the easiest for me to configure any which way I like it is Xfce. I also think it's probably the most "newbie-friendly" DE, which is why it is the choice of some distros for children (even more than the Sugar desktop) as well as newcomers to Linux.
For some reason I don't understand Rhythmbox only works in the Gnome/Budgie desktop environment.

Will I break something if I install Budgie from the MX package installer? Okay not me personally, but the MX Linux system.

A forum search unearthed many questions and mentions of Rhythmbox so apparently it's working for others in Xfce. If you're having a problem with it I suggest you start a new topic, giving details of exactly what the problem is and including your quick system info, so people can try to help troubleshoot it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:23 pm**

Rhythmbox? What's that?

Oh yeah I used to use that but, it's been a long, long time. Why not simply use Audacious instead?
It works great with Conkywx plus what else has a Winamp Classic UI?

Xfce is the same across distros, you have Thunar, Mousepad, xfce-terminal, etc. They basically are the same in the same place or close.
I currently have 8 Linux distros and Windows 10 on this machine. I get bored just using stuff, I have to be looking into a new distro, or installing it and tweaking it.

I have Arch Linux (rolling), Debian Buster (was Testing but, I let it become 10), Debian Testing (rolling), Fedora 30, openSUSE Tumbleweed (rolling) MX Linux 18.3, Xubuntu Bionic Beaver 18.04 LTS, Xubuntu Eoan Ermine 19.10 (devel) and Windows 10.
Every grub is customized because everytime it updates on one system it installs there.

Most systems get other systems grub wrong, Arch Linux for example has 2 imgs on the initrd line like so:

Code: Select all

initrd /intel-ucode.img /initramfs-linux.img

Every distro except Arch and openSUSE just insert the first one and leave the 2nd one off causing a no boot situation unless you know to edit that line and know what to insert.
I opened a bug on openSUSE and that is why that is fixed; also opened one in Ubuntu but, it just sits there.

Anyway, I have Xfce on every one of the 8 Linux systems, also addicted to buuf icons. I install that right after I get the Nvidia fan cooling the system down after installation (coolbits, etc.)
Paramvir, our weather programmer wizard is still working on automating weather sources. When you use 1 weather site to obtain all of your weather info and it changes, everything goes down.

He is working on it switching automatically to another weather source without the user even noticing.
Here is the latest and I wish I could provide a movie because some of the conkys scroll down and some sideways, so it's not static. I've never heard of anything like this before.
The news is just from the Onion.

Have you all noticed on Distrowatch MX Linux is the #1 Distribution.

Posted: **Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:36 pm**

Sorry, just one more thing about Xfce: on Mousepad I always go to edit > preferences and change the Color Scheme to Cobalt.
Nice and dark plus you get the colors on executable files.

Ok, that's it; I know I've repeated myself a few times, so I shall post no more...

Posted: **Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:58 pm**

I have to say that most of the tangential software like music players etc are able to run on most desktop environments (DEs). Xfce is a desktop environment, not the packaged apps a distro chooses to apply to the DE. I personally use many of the same apps across DEs and wm (window managers)... they look a bit different environment to environment but that's about all.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:18 am**

I mostly just want a traditional desktop metaphor. None of that Unity or GNOME 3 crap.

I cut my Linux teeth on GNOME 2 but I have spent plenty of time using Xfce, KDE, Cinnamon, LXDE, and MATE. I have always found KDE sluggish and never much liked it but I am not picky between Xfce, Cinnamon, LXDE, or MATE. I am using MX Linux specifically because it's the only distro besides Fedora that would install on my Ryzen 2200G rig. I had never tried it prior but I really like it so far. But Linux Mint, Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, and Manjaro all failed to boot. Sabayon booted but failed to install. Most of those OSes don't ship with a new enough kernel to support my processor. Not sure why Sabayon wouldn't install as it ran great in a live environment.

I am excited for the vsync and HiDPI support coming when the next MX release ships with the new Xfce, as this is mostly a media and streaming box hooked up to my 4K TV. Fedora installed fine on the machine but it didn't perform as well with 4K streaming video as MX seems to so far.

MX Linux Forum

Why XFCE?

Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?

Re: Why XFCE?