The most minimal XFCE installation?

pogeymanz · 2009-02-17 23:32:34

Well, I already use Thunar and Xfce4-panel, and out of curiosity I did a pacman -S xfwm4 and this is what I saw:

Targets (1): xfwm4-4.4.3-1  

Total Download Size:    1.21 MB
Total Installed Size:   6.94 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]

So, that makes me wonder about just trying out a very minimal XFCE. But what about configuration? Is it easy enough to turn on compositing, switch themes, etc without too many more packages?

Also, is there an easy way to edit menus in XFCE yet?

haxit · 2009-02-17 23:55:29

I am interested in this also.

Wintervenom · 2009-02-18 00:17:31

I don't see why not, and I take this as a "no."

Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-02-18 00:18:50)

pogeymanz · 2009-02-18 01:12:06

Well, I'm going to see how I like this compared to openbox. Before now the xfce packages I had installed were:

thunar
xfce4-panel
xfburn
squeeze
and whatever their dependencies are

Now, I just added:
xfwm4
xfdesktop
xfce-mcs-manager

So that I could have the WM, right-click menu and the settings menus.

So this isn't the MOST minimal XFCE setup ever, but it's pretty small and functional.

Here is my .xinitrc if anyone cares:

xfdesktop &
conky &
xfce4-panel &
pidgin &
claws-mail &
exec xfwm4

Last edited by pogeymanz (2009-02-18 01:24:46)

SLKDK · 2009-02-18 13:13:06

If I were you, rather stripping XFCE down, I would use LXDE. It feels alot quicker on my laptop than XFCE.

pogeymanz · 2009-02-18 13:37:12

It's not really about that. I don't want a DE. I rather have Xfwm4 like a simple Openbox setup. It's nice because of the built-in compositing. And I can even edit the menus thanks to this thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=193093

Just scroll to cardinals_fan's post from the xfce wiki. Now the menu editor isn't worthless!

moljac024 · 2009-02-19 02:25:46

Is Xfwm4 as customizable as openbox ?

pogeymanz · 2009-02-19 14:09:06

It's pretty dang close. I have all my old shortcuts set up like they were in Openbox. You an also maximize vertically or horizontally, send to desktops, etc.

Plus you can play with transparency! You can make all non-focused windows transparent, or just window decorations. I choose to have them go to 75% opaque when I resize or move windows. Plus my window decorations are ~80% opaque, which looks really nice with black title bars.

It only uses a little more RAM to have xfdesktop+xfwm4 than Openbox + feh + xcompmgr.

I highly recommend it.

Last edited by pogeymanz (2009-02-27 14:04:25)

hollywoodb · 2009-02-20 16:47:36

The only way to edit the menu in the upcoming Xfce 4.6 is by putting your own desktop files in ~/.local/share/applications. A real way to edit the menus is slated for 4.8. Something to consider as currently 4.5.99 is in /testing.

As it is, Xfce 4.6 is faster in just about every respect on my box. Xfwm's compositing is quicker & cleaner, Xfce startup is faster, and the new settings dialog is nicer. It also finally gets xfce4-powermanager It also uses less RAM than 4.4.3.

I'm not sure how functionality will change when using Xfce 4.6 components as the OP does.

As far as pogeymanz's use of Xfwm4+xfdesktop: the desktop menu in 4.6 now has the Xfce menu in a submenu. The actual desktop menu has stuff like "Create new...", "Change Desktop settings..." and such, with a submenu at the bottom that lets you get to the Xfce menu.

pogeymanz · 2009-02-20 17:23:37

Are you saying that we wont be able to edit the desktop menu in 4.6?

As I recall, 4.4 had the desktop options in the menu as well, but I just removed them via the menu editor.

Also, do you think the fix I posted above wont work for the 4.6 menu? It basically takes a snapshot of the current system menu, which you can add to your current menu (making it seems like every entry is in the menu twice). Then you remove the automatic system menu in the editor and you have a fully editable menu that just doesn't update itself.

hollywoodb · 2009-02-20 17:51:14

pogeymanz wrote:

Are you saying that we wont be able to edit the desktop menu in 4.6?
As I recall, 4.4 had the desktop options in the menu as well, but I just removed them via the menu editor.
Also, do you think the fix I posted above wont work for the 4.6 menu? It basically takes a snapshot of the current system menu, which you can add to your current menu (making it seems like every entry is in the menu twice). Then you remove the automatic system menu in the editor and you have a fully editable menu that just doesn't update itself.

From http://jeromeg.blog.free.fr/index.php?p … r-the-menu...

People have been complaining for a long time that menu editing is a pain in Xfce : Xfce 4.4 menu editor was quite limited. 4.6 is a bit better as you can put Desktop files in ~/.local/share/applications/ to modify the menu, but it lacks a GUI to do those actions quickly and easily.

It looks like I might have jumped the gun, however (from http://wiki.xfce.org/howto/customize-menu)

Xfdesktop installs a menu file, and desktop entry files for the root menu (Execute, Terminal, File manager, …). To customize your menu you will have to tweak those.
Copy the installed menu inside your home:
cp $prefix/etc/xdg/menus/xfce-applications.menu ${XDG_CONFIG_HOME:-~/.config}/menus

I'm not sure how this affects the old xml menu format, I haven't looked into it much. Basically Xfce is approaching full compliance with the FreeDesktop specification, and desktop files rather than xml menus are result.

I did come across this on the mailing lists, which indicates you can still have the normal desktop right-click apps menu if you disable desktop icons:

The apps menu is now a submenu of the desktop context menu when
file/launcher icons are enabled.

P.S., Xfce 4.6RC1 (4.5.99) is in /testing, and I'm running it now. I just enabled the testing repo long enough to install Xfce 4.5.99 and then disabled the testing repo again. I'll let update to 4.6 when it's in the "stable" repos.

pogeymanz · 2009-02-27 14:11:33

moljac024 wrote:

Is Xfwm4 as customizable as openbox ?

XFCE4.6 is even more customizable than 4.4! We can now fill open space horizontally and vertically (that's the one where it grows to the next window's border).

Also, the compositor has been optimized to be smoother, etc. Supposedly the new XFCE uses less memory and is faster. From the way it looks, it seems that a minimal XFCE like mine has all the functionality of Openbox plus cooler theming, GUI settings manager, nice transparency effects, and icons in the root menu.

All of that at the price of a few MB RAM. I'll have to compare directly and see what the actual difference is with a clean boot into each.

hollywoodb · 2009-02-27 15:11:40

After following this thread I've run the following two configurations:

Xfce 4.6:
- Uses less memory than Xfce 4.4.x or LXDE on my box (YMMV)
- Much faster compositing than Xfce 4.4.x
- Very, very nice. With Gigolo for gio/gvfs I no longer see a compelling reason to run Gnome
- I really can't praise the upcoming 4.6 enough

Openbox+tint2+trayer+thunar+xfce4-power-manager+feh+xcompmgr
For this config I'm just launching an openbox session with the following in autostart.sh:
- tint2 panel
- trayer systray
- feh for background
- thunar --daemon (manages automounting, pops up when insert USB stick, etc)
- xfce4-power-manager (screen blanking, suspend/hibernate, etc)
- xcompmgr for compositing

I'm also running Wicd under both environments.

The Openbox environment starts faster and takes up less screen space. It doesn't have all the xfce goodies; for example I don't have a pager, quicklaunch buttons, or any panel applets (no always-visible volume control applet either). My GTK2 and icon themes are set via ~/.gtkrc*. I'm using the standard openbox menu.xml for a menu.

Verdict:
Xfce 4.6 is a better DE by far. Barely uses any more memory than my openbox "session" with all that is running. If you really want all the Xfce goodies and want to swap out xfwm for openbox that's pretty easy to do too. As we speak I'm currently still running the openbox setup because it's been a couple years since I've used openbox extensively and I kind of enjoy it.

On a side note, I don't like mousepad+xfprint. I can't seem to get it to print without running off the edges of the page. Using leafpad or any other app and using standard printing via CUPS works fine. I've uninstalled xfprint and mousepad and have installed leafpad in their place. I haven't encountered any other app that uses xfprint for anything, so it isn't a major issue.

pogeymanz · 2009-02-27 22:13:29

I too am very excited about 4.6. I've been drooling over the http://www.xfce.org/about/tour for a while now. I'm still going to wait for it to hit the repos, though.

I'll post back later today or tomorrow with my memory usage on a fresh boot of 4.4 vs Openbox.

pogeymanz · 2009-02-27 22:42:50

What the hell. I decided to go ahead and do my measurements now.

Remember: The goal is to compare similar, functional set-ups of these two window managers. This is not a full XFCE installation.

-----------------> Xfwm 4.4.3-1 vs. Openbox 3.4.7.2-1 <-------------------

MACHINE: Dell Inspiron 530n; E2180 @ 2.00Ghz; 1GB RAM @ 530MHz (not sure about that speed); Arch64

--Openbox-session:
autostart.sh

# Programs to launch at startup
eval `cat ~/.fehbg`
xcompmgr -cC -t-3 -l-3 -r5 -o.8&

# Programs that will run after Openbox has started
conky &
xfce4-panel &
pidgin &
claws-mail &

TOTAL RAM USED AT START-UP: ~140MiB/.98GiB

--XFCE-Minimal
.xinitrc

#!/bin/sh

#exec openbox-session

# Load programs then WM
xfdesktop &
conky &
xfce4-panel &
pidgin &
claws-mail &
exec xfwm4
#exec fusion-icon

TOTAL RAM USED AT START-UP: ~152MiB/.98GiB

--A Few Notes

I tried to used set-ups that gave comparable functionality. Xfwm had compositing enabled, which is why I loaded xcompmgr in the Openbox-session. I also used the same wallpaper in both setups. Also, xfdesktop is needed to have a right-click menu.

The RAM readings were from my conky display and I waited for the value to settle before taking the readings.

I did a reboot between sessions so that the memory would be cleared (I assume).

Any difference in speed is not percievable.

Overall, the difference on my machine is ~12MiB in favor of Openbox.

Also keep in mind that since this is 64-bit, these values are higher than they would be on a 32-bit identical set-up and that the less RAM there is, the less each program will use. So these values are only comparable to running the same programs on Arch64 on a machine with 1GB RAM.

--My Opinionated Conclusion

Basically, these set-ups offer the same functionality and speed. The difference here is that xfwm4 has much nicer compositing than xcompmgr, good settings GUI, and better theming capability. One thing that is stupid about xfwm4 is that you cannot resize the windows by grabbing the top with your mouse. This doesn't effect me because I always use ALT+Right-Click to resize windows even before I knew about this shortcoming.

I can't wait to compare 4.6 once it hits the repos.

Last edited by pogeymanz (2009-02-27 23:13:05)

waytin · 2009-02-28 04:20:33

This thread is interesting.

I have another question. How about the speeds of xfwm4 and openbox?
My firefox is much faster with openbox(LXDE) than with metacity(gnome). And when I used xfce 4.4, I didn't feel the speed of xfwm4. Of course, it is faster than gnome, but just a little bit.

I am interested in the speed of xfwm 4.6. Is it faster than openbox?

adamlau · 2009-02-28 06:05:30

xfdesktop 4.60 + xfconf 4.60 uses about 21 MB less memory than pcmanfm to manage my jwm desktop (18 MB vs. 39 MB on a fresh boot). Right-click support for thunar UCAs are also provided for by xfdesktop. Nice. Real nice.

Last edited by adamlau (2009-02-28 12:34:19)

pogeymanz · 2009-02-28 07:06:48

waytin wrote:

This thread is interesting.
I have another question. How about the speeds of xfwm4 and openbox?
My firefox is much faster with openbox(LXDE) than with metacity(gnome). And when I used xfce 4.4, I didn't feel the speed of xfwm4. Of course, it is faster than gnome, but just a little bit.
I am interested in the speed of xfwm 4.6. Is it faster than openbox?

On my machine, there is no noticeable speed difference between xfwm4.4 and Openbox. Compiz feels a little less quick on my machine. So that you can compare; my machine's specs are above. I can only assume that 4.6 would be the same speed as 4.4 and openbox (fast as lightning).

adamlau · 2009-02-28 12:36:20

Xfwm 4.4.3 consumed less memory than and felt just as snappy as Openbox 3.4 on my boxes.

Last edited by adamlau (2009-02-28 12:36:33)

waytin · 2009-02-28 14:53:37

Well, I test xfce 4.6 in VirtualBox, and it work very well.
The speed is satisfactory. Even if using compositor, it is still quick.

In conclusion, xfce 4.6 is great besides a little problem in icons.

pogeymanz · 2009-02-28 16:36:31

As an update, 4.6 set-up exactly like my 4.4 above only used ~136Mib from a reboot!

Openbox Session: ~140MiB
Xfwm4.4 Session: ~152MiB
Xfwm4.6 Session: ~136MiB

That's right- less than Openbox!!

pogeymanz · 2009-02-28 21:14:39

Well, this is sad for me, but it seems that my idea for a minimal XFCE is impossible with 4.6.

I say this because I noticed that my keyboard shortcuts didn't work. So I googled and found that you needs xfce-settings-helper to be running. However, xfce-settings-helper needs the xfce session manager...

So, basically you need the whole DE to use xfwm4.6 as a window manager, which totally bums me out.

EDIT: But it doesn't seem to use any more memory to use xfce session manager than to not. I can't decide if it's worth it! I'm so used to not having a whole DE that I'm pretty uncomfortable with it now...

Last edited by pogeymanz (2009-02-28 21:35:16)

insulae · 2009-03-05 22:02:12

hollywoodb wrote:

- Very, very nice. With Gigolo for gio/gvfs I no longer see a compelling reason to run Gnome

i downloaded with yaourt gigolo, and i want to mount a sftp or smb share but i can't
example:
in connect i write " sftp://root@server1 " and i receive "volume doesn't implement mount.

with smb i received the same error,

so the cuestion:
what is wrong?, my command or my gigolo?.

guisacouto · 2010-01-03 16:17:17

i also have this problem.. I always get the message "Error mounting location: volume doesn't implement mount".
If i use gvfs-mount from bash I also get this problem with the same message, so I guess its not a problem with gigolo but with gvfs-mount.

is there a way out?

regrds

Arch Linux

#1 2009-02-17 23:32:34

The most minimal XFCE installation?

#2 2009-02-17 23:55:29

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#3 2009-02-18 00:17:31

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#4 2009-02-18 01:12:06

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#5 2009-02-18 13:13:06

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#6 2009-02-18 13:37:12

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#7 2009-02-19 02:25:46

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#8 2009-02-19 14:09:06

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#9 2009-02-20 16:47:36

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#10 2009-02-20 17:23:37

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#11 2009-02-20 17:51:14

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#12 2009-02-27 14:11:33

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#13 2009-02-27 15:11:40

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#14 2009-02-27 22:13:29

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#15 2009-02-27 22:42:50

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#16 2009-02-28 04:20:33

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#17 2009-02-28 06:05:30

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#18 2009-02-28 07:06:48

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#19 2009-02-28 12:36:20

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#20 2009-02-28 14:53:37

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#21 2009-02-28 16:36:31

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#22 2009-02-28 21:14:39

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#23 2009-03-05 22:02:12

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

#24 2010-01-03 16:17:17

Re: The most minimal XFCE installation?

Board footer