- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux Mint 9 Xfce Review
We all know that there are passionate partisans of the GNOME and KDE versions of Linux Mint; yet, oddly, you rarely hear about people raving about the Xfce version. That’s a shame, because sometimes less is truly more. Linux Mint 9 Xfce has a lot to offer to those who have limited hardware, or who simply prefer not to deal with the eye-candy bloat of GNOME or KDE. |
|
|
Comments (19)
Looking for alternatives going forwared to my beliked KDE3, I've settled upon LXDE and Xfce. I go back and forth now and then, but I think I've found Xfce works better for me for whatever reason that is.
Let's face the fact that it's the applications that matter, not so much the DE.
The DE means ease of access, consistency amongst related applications, even integration to a degree, but I find the real wonder of the Linux environment that GNOME-, KDE-, Xfce- or any etcDE-related applications run side by side just fine. So very different from the proprietary world, where if you like Windows look-and-feel you can't run Mac applications, and vice versa. A simplistic equation, even an over-simplification, but I believe it shows the benefits for everyone of building on a common, commodity, foundation.
Let's face the fact that it's the applications that matter, not so much the DE.
The DE means ease of access, consistency amongst related applications, even integration to a degree, but I find the real wonder of the Linux environment that GNOME-, KDE-, Xfce- or any etcDE-related applications run side by side just fine. So very different from the proprietary world, where if you like Windows look-and-feel you can't run Mac applications, and vice versa. A simplistic equation, even an over-simplification, but I believe it shows the benefits for everyone of building on a common, commodity, foundation.
Why should Xfce be left in the dark? LXDE doesn't support nearly as many languages or locales and is lacking a lot of functionality which Xfce had. Just because you prefer the lighter LXDE doesn't mean Xfce should be discarded. Somehow I don't think you mean that your preferences should determine what others should or should not use. I hope you don't mean that.
I can list a whole slew of lighter than LXDE or XFCE, it depends on where you draw the line. Personally I use Fluxbox with random apps from all over the place dependent upon runtime dependencies, resource footprint, and capabilities for the intended task.
There are times when I just use X without a WM/DE at all, just odds and ends that I find handy. Thats about as light as you can get and still have your screen have 'lookit da pritty pichurz'. So what you call light and what I call light may be drastically different depending on your internal definition.
There are times when I just use X without a WM/DE at all, just odds and ends that I find handy. Thats about as light as you can get and still have your screen have 'lookit da pritty pichurz'. So what you call light and what I call light may be drastically different depending on your internal definition.
Xfce has been around a long time, and LXDE is newer and has more heat in the Linux geek world. On newer hardware you really can't tell the difference speed-wise. On older hardware you probably can.
I've run both Xfce and LXDE in the recent past. I've also run GNOME. My primary desktop at the moment is Xfce not because of any speed or memory advantages over GNOME but just because I happen to like the Xfce environment, admin tools and applications. If FTP access in the file manager was important to me, I'd go back to GNOME in a second (Gigolo is not working for me with Thunar), but I really don't need that.
I have had way fewer problems with Xscreensaver than I have had with GNOME screensaver in the past few months. Thunar, Mousepad and Xfce Terminal are all basic, lightning-fast, well-designed and usable applications. Things like Xfburn, Ristretto and Parole are working very well.
I've run GNOME on tons of hardware and haven't had a problem with its speed or memory footprint. Not all GNOME-running distros are the same; GNOME in Debian and FreeBSD is way faster than GNOME in Ubuntu, in my experience anyway. Basic GNOME is a very efficient environment. I just found a lot of what I like in Xfce and its various components. I don't have to "worry" about the coming of GNOME 3, GNOME-Do, or all the stuff that some distros have running in the background to power cloud file sharing and integrated social networking. From that perspective Xfce is a conservative, known entity, which is kind of what I need on my desktop. Right now I need Web browsers that work, applications that do what I need them to do and a desktop and back end that's efficient yet allows GUI adjustment of just about everything and which otherwise stays out of the way. Xfce is doing that.
I've run both Xfce and LXDE in the recent past. I've also run GNOME. My primary desktop at the moment is Xfce not because of any speed or memory advantages over GNOME but just because I happen to like the Xfce environment, admin tools and applications. If FTP access in the file manager was important to me, I'd go back to GNOME in a second (Gigolo is not working for me with Thunar), but I really don't need that.
I have had way fewer problems with Xscreensaver than I have had with GNOME screensaver in the past few months. Thunar, Mousepad and Xfce Terminal are all basic, lightning-fast, well-designed and usable applications. Things like Xfburn, Ristretto and Parole are working very well.
I've run GNOME on tons of hardware and haven't had a problem with its speed or memory footprint. Not all GNOME-running distros are the same; GNOME in Debian and FreeBSD is way faster than GNOME in Ubuntu, in my experience anyway. Basic GNOME is a very efficient environment. I just found a lot of what I like in Xfce and its various components. I don't have to "worry" about the coming of GNOME 3, GNOME-Do, or all the stuff that some distros have running in the background to power cloud file sharing and integrated social networking. From that perspective Xfce is a conservative, known entity, which is kind of what I need on my desktop. Right now I need Web browsers that work, applications that do what I need them to do and a desktop and back end that's efficient yet allows GUI adjustment of just about everything and which otherwise stays out of the way. Xfce is doing that.
az: Excellent point. You might remember my article about PekWM at http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/03/improved-linux-screen-s... PekWM plus a decent panel app is still a favorite of mine for the netbook and that is also lighter than LXDE. One thing I probably should try is using PekWM instead of Openbox in LXDE and see how that works.
I still like Xfce best most of the time. Isn't having choices wonderful?
I still like Xfce best most of the time. Isn't having choices wonderful?
It's really nice not having to stick with what one project is dishing out.
I heard recently that {PC-,Free}BSD doesn't use LXDE on its live CD, because it requires GNOME libraries. As built from the Ports collection, it's true: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=15159 However, it looks like someone took a shortcut; in order to get the GTK+2 stuff, it just checks for GNOME.
caitlyn, I had actually spaced that article out. For uber light but still with a WM of some sort I have had some geek fun with just starting with vanilla openbox and bolting things on. One fun trick was using gdesklets so that I could put desktop shortcuts and a little eye candy on it. That and I prefer tint2 over fbpanel, but thats just me.
I tried Linux Mint XFCE during a distro hopping binge this month and found it to be a very nicely configured distro but with one fatal flaw which i see other commenters noted on the article website and that is if you use their Software Manager you can seriously leave your machine in an unfit state due to a complete lack of dependency checking, if you use Synaptic you will be ok but its not the default software manager.
This im afraid put me off using this distro and this comes from a regular Slackware user where dependency checking is done by the user not the software but this fact is well known and not hidden. The issue i have with it is they dont mention it anywhere so any average user will very probably be acting in ignorance and we all know what damage ignorance can do.
As for the LXDE vs Xfce well for me it was simple, i have tried both on various distros and Xfce currently wins hands down on useability while using very few resources.
LXDE had lots of issues which i put down to it being a very young desktop, it also had a lot of things i liked. I can honestly see myself switching to LXDE in the near future as I like the way it does some things better than Xfce but lack of basic stuff such as Trash support needs to be addressed first as i like to choose what i delete and what i trash its what the shift key was made for :)
In fact im finding Xfce currently meeting all my needs so well at the moment that i may not even go back to KDE 4 for which it was a temporary replacement due to the current ATI Radeon driver issues. I have since dumped the Radeon card onto my Win 7 gaming box and replaced it with an Nvidia card as it appears DAMMIT dont appear to concerned with the KDE4 issues as they have now released 4 versions of their driver since 10.5 (the least buggy but slowest) and none of which have yet solved the problems completely see here for greater elucidation http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19
Anyways currently running PCLinuxOS Phoenix (Xfce) Edition on most of my desktops plus Slackware+Xfce on my server and very happy with it.
This im afraid put me off using this distro and this comes from a regular Slackware user where dependency checking is done by the user not the software but this fact is well known and not hidden. The issue i have with it is they dont mention it anywhere so any average user will very probably be acting in ignorance and we all know what damage ignorance can do.
As for the LXDE vs Xfce well for me it was simple, i have tried both on various distros and Xfce currently wins hands down on useability while using very few resources.
LXDE had lots of issues which i put down to it being a very young desktop, it also had a lot of things i liked. I can honestly see myself switching to LXDE in the near future as I like the way it does some things better than Xfce but lack of basic stuff such as Trash support needs to be addressed first as i like to choose what i delete and what i trash its what the shift key was made for :)
In fact im finding Xfce currently meeting all my needs so well at the moment that i may not even go back to KDE 4 for which it was a temporary replacement due to the current ATI Radeon driver issues. I have since dumped the Radeon card onto my Win 7 gaming box and replaced it with an Nvidia card as it appears DAMMIT dont appear to concerned with the KDE4 issues as they have now released 4 versions of their driver since 10.5 (the least buggy but slowest) and none of which have yet solved the problems completely see here for greater elucidation http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19
Anyways currently running PCLinuxOS Phoenix (Xfce) Edition on most of my desktops plus Slackware+Xfce on my server and very happy with it.
I came to Gnome when the KDE 4.0 thing erupted. I've been using it ever since. I spend an inordinate amount of time in my file manager. It's been over a year since I tried one of the lighter desktops. Both of those mentioned here left me without many of the features and abilities I have come to like in Nautilus. Thunar just seemed clunky. Again, it's been a while since I used it.
How would today's Thunar compare with the current Nautilus builds?
h
How would today's Thunar compare with the current Nautilus builds?
h
Nautilus does have some features that Thunar doesn't have. Some of those features, to me, are a bit ridiculous for a file manager, like the ability to burn CDs that Nautilus has. Thunar is faster and requires less memory than Nautilus. If you add the available plugins (which many distro do automatically) I find it does have all the functionality I need. YMMV, of course.
FWIW, I have never liked Nautilus and always end up using an alternative on a Gnome desktop.
FWIW, I have never liked Nautilus and always end up using an alternative on a Gnome desktop.
As basic file managers go Thunar is pretty good nothing fancy we Brits have a saying "It does exactly what it says on the tin" see here for explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_exactly_what_it_says_on_th...
I cant compare it to Nautilus as i've never used it but compared to Dolphin or Konqueror it definitely has less features but the features it lacks were basically IMO not essential others may differ. The only thing i do miss and hope they implement in the future is tabs, if that gets done then Thunar would be pretty much perfect for me.
I cant compare it to Nautilus as i've never used it but compared to Dolphin or Konqueror it definitely has less features but the features it lacks were basically IMO not essential others may differ. The only thing i do miss and hope they implement in the future is tabs, if that gets done then Thunar would be pretty much perfect for me.
I've been using Xfce (instead of KDE) since this past February, but one of things that I missed in Thunar was a recursive file search function (Thunar's only works in the current folder).
Then I found this article that tells how to easily install Catfish as a custom action in Thunar:
http://marksnotebook.com/ubuntu/how-add-built-search-thunar-...
I love it!
Then I found this article that tells how to easily install Catfish as a custom action in Thunar:
http://marksnotebook.com/ubuntu/how-add-built-search-thunar-...
I love it!
Thunar doesn't do networked filesystems terribly well, in my experience anyway. Gigolo is supposed to bridge this gap, and while it worked for me in Xubuntu 10.04, Gigolo hasn't performed as well in Fedora 13. Since my FTP client needs are generally heavy and often complicated, I use FileZilla on just about every architecture on which it's available, including Linux.
I always liked the ROX filer. I first used it in Puppy and often install it when I do a "minimal" desktop in other OSes (OpenBSD, TinyCore, etc.)
I always liked the ROX filer. I first used it in Puppy and often install it when I do a "minimal" desktop in other OSes (OpenBSD, TinyCore, etc.)
@ComputerBob thanks for that info about Catfish, had never heard of it until now.
Have been using Linux for years and that app managed to never appear on my radar, it appears you do learn something new everyday even at my advancing age.
It works great looks like i can say goodbye to find and locate, i always hated CLI anyways!
Cheers
It works great looks like i can say goodbye to find and locate, i always hated CLI anyways!
Cheers
@Koriel - You're welcome! That's why I'm here. ;)
@helios Thunar is still kinda meh IMO (lacking options). PCMan works well though, not as full featured as Nautilus as of yet, but it will be some day.
~Jeff
~Jeff
Back in the KDE 3.5.X days, I was enthralled with Konqueror simply because I could employ mouse gestures in it. When it went 4.0, the ability of those gestures went away. As much as I use my file manager, having mouse gestures in the app was way cool.
And yes, if you can get Catfish to work with Thunar, it rocks as a search tool...I just need more from my file manager than Thunar provides.
And yes, if you can get Catfish to work with Thunar, it rocks as a search tool...I just need more from my file manager than Thunar provides.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
~Jeff