Help with starting programs with X

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 09:15:07

Hello, i have a low end netbook here and i installed Arch following the Beginner's guide.. Everything seems ok except i can't run graphical apps. I installed the intel drivers, installed Xorg but when i try to run Firefox i get

(process:279): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_slice_set_config: assertion "sys_page_size == 0" failed
Error: no display specified

So, i google around, tried all the possible commands i could try (export DISPLAY=:0, export DISPLAY=:0:0 and others i can't remember right now)
i tried to uninstall network manager, changed hostname as i read (am i wrong?) that "localhost" could give issues but i still can't get it to work...

My goal was to make an arch setup without any de so that i could run one window as fast as possible.. Can someone help me? Thank you!

PS.: how do i make the netbook connect automaticly to a wireless connection? I can get it to work with the manual connection on the wiki and with "wifi-menu -o interface(wlp1s0)" but i can't understand how to get it work when it come in range...

olive · 2015-10-27 09:21:09

How do you have configured your display. Do you use a display manager? Are you trying to launch firefox directly from the console? To use X applications, you must first start the X server with startx with a correct ~/.xinitrc (or more simply use a display manager and boot in graphical mode). For the network, a good solution is to use NetworkManager.

Note that you will need a windows manager, but you can choose a minimal one if you don't want a full desktop.
(The above is not technically true: you could theoretically use no windows manager at all by launching just Xorg and starting X application. But this won't work well since you will not have windows at all and won't be faster than a simplistic windows manager).

Last edited by olive (2015-10-27 09:28:40)

ayekat · 2015-10-27 09:25:26

Otherwise there is https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xi … ow_manager, if you really want to run just a single graphical application (kiosk-like).

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 09:35:38

olive wrote:

How do you have configured your display. Do you use a display manager? Are you trying to launch firefox directly from the console? To use X applications, you must first start the X server with startx with a correct ~/.xinitrc (or more simply use a display manager and boot in graphical mode). For the network, a good solution is to use NetworkManager.
Note that you will need a windows manager, but you can choose a minimal one if you don't want a full desktop.
(The above is not technically true: you could theoretically use no windows manager at all by launching just Xorg and starting X application. But this won't work well since you will not have windows at all and won't be faster than a simplistic windows manager).

Thanks for the fast reply! That is the weird thing, if i try to run "startx" on the terminal, i get -bash: startx: command not found

I tried my best not to post a forum thread but i couldn't figure it out by myself

surfatwork · 2015-10-27 09:54:57

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

Please read through, especially the bit about Xinitrc.

Your questions about automatically connecting to a single network are also answered in the beginners guide. Have fun. Trial and error is the best way, IMHO.

Last edited by surfatwork (2015-10-27 09:56:48)

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 10:20:07

surfatwork wrote:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg
Please read through, especially the bit about Xinitrc.
Your questions about automatically connecting to a single network are also answered in the beginners guide. Have fun. Trial and error is the best way, IMHO.

Allright, i got a little further, now it works when i "startx" but i only see 3 white terminals and touchpad support. I also installed openbox and that probably fixed the startx issue but i still can't run any window Is there something i missed?

EDIT: OMFG it works if i startx and then "firefox" in the terminals... Where can i see how to configure what i see when i start it?

Last edited by foxfacez (2015-10-27 10:31:21)

ayekat · 2015-10-27 10:32:56

foxfacez wrote:

I also installed openbox and that probably fixed the startx issue

No, openbox is just a WM. You should have installed the xorg-xinit package, which I assume you have, since startx works. Have you read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xinitrc?

The three white terminals is just startx defaulting to twm if it cannot find any .xinitrc in your home. Again, please read the linked article.

Last edited by ayekat (2015-10-27 10:33:30)

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 11:03:55

ayekat wrote:

foxfacez wrote:
I also installed openbox and that probably fixed the startx issue
No, openbox is just a WM. You should have installed the xorg-xinit package, which I assume you have, since startx works. Have you read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xinitrc?
The three white terminals is just startx defaulting to twm if it cannot find any .xinitrc in your home. Again, please read the linked article.

Allright, i'm editing now the openbox settings.. i deleted my old .xinitrc file and made a new one with only "openbox-session". Thanks everyone!

one last thing: the performance seems a little off for just one window with a browser (i'm comparing it to the distro i tried before, Point Linux). Is it normal? Any way i can make it go a little faster? Thanks again!

ayekat · 2015-10-27 11:17:56

Well, firefox is already a comparatively heavy piece of software - you may want to have a look at more lightweight alternatives.

But then again, if your goal is really just running a single graphical application (the web browser) without any DE/WM, allow me to recite myself:

ayekat wrote:

Otherwise there is https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xi … ow_manager, if you really want to run just a single graphical application (kiosk-like).

Also, performance is often quite subjective. Have you got some numbers?

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 11:35:28

ayekat wrote:

Well, firefox is already a comparatively heavy piece of software - you may want to have a look at more lightweight alternatives.
But then again, if your goal is really just running a single graphical application (the web browser) without any DE/WM, allow me to recite myself:
ayekat wrote:
Otherwise there is https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xi … ow_manager, if you really want to run just a single graphical application (kiosk-like).
Also, performance is often quite subjective. Have you got some numbers?

Yeah firefox is def heavy, and the performance is pretty much the same even without openbox.. I tried epiphany too as it's really nice but it's still not as smooth as in the other distro, just the scrolling and general responsiveness..

olive · 2015-10-27 11:57:41

You won't have any improved performance with no window manager at all than with a simplistic windows manager. A simplistic windows manager use negligible resource in comparison to X itself or any graphical software you will likely use. I like icewm but there are other ones. For the web browser read the wiki. dillo or links are ultra lightweight but won't be able to handle most modern websites. Chromium is very responsive but is not that lightweight. Choose the one you want.

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 12:08:17

olive wrote:

You won't have any improved performance with no window manager at all than with a simplistic windows manager. A simplistic windows manager use negligible resource in comparison to X itself or any graphical software you will likely use. I like icewm but there are other ones. For the web browser read the wiki. dillo or links are ultra lightweight but won't be able to handle most modern websites. Chromium is very responsive but is not that lightweight. Choose the one you want.

Yeah, i was playing a little with them and honestly it's not that of an improvement... It's sad tho, i tought i could have a lighter distro while even without a de it's not... It's weird..

olive · 2015-10-27 12:19:58

Are you not mistaking a DE with a windows manager? A simple windows manager just do that: manage windows. That does not necessitate a lot of resources and is the common way to use X, as it has always been. Some windows manager are able to work with no heavy toolkit, maybe no toolkit at all (I think of twm which was invented at the same time as X, for X). You can actually consider a windows manager making part of X. A DE contains a windows manager but much more than that: a lot of daemons that do various thinks related to the session. Moreover the windows manager provided by the big DE (like Gnome) contains a lot of eye candy (3D graphic, etc..). That can take a sensible amount of resources.

Last edited by olive (2015-10-27 12:20:09)

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 12:37:10

olive wrote:

Are you not mistaking a DE with a windows manager? A simple windows manager just do that: manage windows. That does not necessitate a lot of resources and is the common way to use X, as it has always been. Some windows manager are able to work with no heavy toolkit, maybe no toolkit at all (I think of twm which was invented at the same time as X, for X). You can actually consider a windows manager making part of X. A DE contains a windows manager but much more than that: a lot of daemons that do various thinks related to the session. Moreover the windows manager provided by the big DE (like Gnome) contains a lot of eye candy (3D graphic, etc..). That can take a sensible amount of resources.

That is what i was saying.. the other distro could run a de (xfce) and the browser and still be faster, i don't know how that can be possible..

olive · 2015-10-27 13:01:11

If other distro seems to be faster, it might be a driver issue. What is your graphic card? Some graphic cards works better with proprietary drivers that other distros may have enabled automatically. That can make a big difference. What glxinfo | grep -i render gives? Are they any errors in /var/log/Xorg.0.log?

Last edited by olive (2015-10-27 13:01:34)

Trilby · 2015-10-27 13:46:26

Or more likely a different browser. You are talking about using two of the heaviest browsers in your archlinux runs.

Check out other browsers. Dillo is pretty light and quick. Netsurf even moreso.

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 14:02:24

olive wrote:

If other distro seems to be faster, it might be a driver issue. What is your graphic card? Some graphic cards works better with proprietary drivers that other distros may have enabled automatically. That can make a big difference. What glxinfo | grep -i render gives? Are they any errors in /var/log/Xorg.0.log?

It doesn't seems like i have glxinfo installed.. i can't find issue withing the logs. The netbook has an integrated intel gpu and i already have installed the drivers..

foxfacez · 2015-10-27 14:03:06

Trilby wrote:

Or more likely a different browser. You are talking about using two of the heaviest browsers in your archlinux runs.
Check out other browsers. Dillo is pretty light and quick. Netsurf even moreso.

I'm comparing these 2 browsers because they are the exact ones i tried yesterday with the other distro.. i will check them out too tho! Thank you for the suggestion

Arch Linux

#1 2015-10-27 09:15:07

Help with starting programs with X

#2 2015-10-27 09:21:09

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#3 2015-10-27 09:25:26

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#4 2015-10-27 09:35:38

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#5 2015-10-27 09:54:57

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#6 2015-10-27 10:20:07

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#7 2015-10-27 10:32:56

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#8 2015-10-27 11:03:55

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#9 2015-10-27 11:17:56

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#10 2015-10-27 11:35:28

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#11 2015-10-27 11:57:41

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#12 2015-10-27 12:08:17

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#13 2015-10-27 12:19:58

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#14 2015-10-27 12:37:10

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#15 2015-10-27 13:01:11

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#16 2015-10-27 13:46:26

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#17 2015-10-27 14:02:24

Re: Help with starting programs with X

#18 2015-10-27 14:03:06

Re: Help with starting programs with X

Board footer