Fedora 18

Wow, you've convinced me to switch. 

MagnusBerg wrote:

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

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

I got a better tips, than mix repositories, in this tread
http://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=7946

Siduction is a Debian live cd version that I don't know anything about. ;-) But the packages works great in Sid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@sixsixfive:

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

You answered that question earlier. The point is convenience.

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

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

@bwat47

"For pure XFCE I prefer arch myself."

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

You answered that question earlier. The point is convenience.

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

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

@bwat47

"For pure XFCE I prefer arch myself."

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

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

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

cheers,

For pure XFCE I prefer arch myself.

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

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

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

cheers,

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

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

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

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

cheers,