What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ...

All Gurus once were Newbies
Forum rules
There are no such things as "stupid" questions. However if you think your question is a bit stupid, then this is the right place for you to post it. Please stick to easy to-the-point questions that you feel people can answer fast. For long and complicated questions prefer the other forums within the support section.
Before you post please read this

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby southernpride1865 on Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:09 pm

When I decided to make the big switch from Windows to Linux, I went with a vendor of software, because I have no memory left. this way, I just stick the disk in and do not have to remember multiple commands and such for installation. However, their website showed Debian 7.0.0 "whezy" as being the most stable and LinuxMint being the easiest for Windows users to understand and switch to. I took this to mean that Debian was somehow "better" than Mint, and my plan was to put Mint on my desktop and Debian 7.0.0 on my laptop. However, after reading much of this thread, I am now wondering if this is such a good idea-perhaps I should just stick with Mint on both machines? My desktop is an old Optiplex that I swapped out the PSU, Graphics card (THAT was a trick!), mem sticks and processor (A slow P-4 to a faster P-4), so I was not too concerned about anything there. However, my laptop is a cyberpower custom-built gaming rig with all of my games (ALL of the SIMS 3, Halo, Doom CE, Freelancer, Airstrike, and quite a few others, plus everything I moved across my network for safekeeping when I went from Win7 to Mint Olivia on the desktop)l and I am a bit picky about what is there.

So, pros/cons on the following:

Query: switch from Win7, stay with Mint, or try/use Debian Whezy?

Query: because these are Windows games, what issues can I expect to encounter with the switch, assuming I decide to make it?

Query: can/shoud I move everything over to an external HDD and run it via an emulator? And yes, I believe I understand that Wine Is Not an Emulator, but what the heck IS it, and would/will it work in this circumstance? Or should I look into something else? And would this, in essense, be just a stupid way of doing a dual boot system to keep my Windows stuff and use Debian for everything else?

Oh yeah, "Query" was my word of the day!

Thank you
Chemistry stems from adventurers of the mind, fashioning theory and technique in harmony.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
southernpride1865
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:46 pm
Location: Front Range-Colorado

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Orbmiser on Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:44 pm

southernpride1865 wrote:When I decided to make the big switch from Windows to Linux, I went with a vendor of software, because I have no memory left. this way, I just stick the disk in and do not have to remember multiple commands and such for installation. However, their website showed Debian 7.0.0 "whezy" as being the most stable and LinuxMint being the easiest for Windows users to understand and switch to. I took this to mean that Debian was somehow "better" than Mint, and my plan was to put Mint on my desktop and Debian 7.0.0 on my laptop. However, after reading much of this thread, I am now wondering if this is such a good idea-perhaps I should just stick with Mint on both machines? My desktop is an old Optiplex that I swapped out the PSU, Graphics card (THAT was a trick!), mem sticks and processor (A slow P-4 to a faster P-4), so I was not too concerned about anything there. However, my laptop is a cyberpower custom-built gaming rig with all of my games (ALL of the SIMS 3, Halo, Doom CE, Freelancer, Airstrike, and quite a few others, plus everything I moved across my network for safekeeping when I went from Win7 to Mint Olivia on the desktop)l and I am a bit picky about what is there.

So, pros/cons on the following:

Query: switch from Win7, stay with Mint, or try/use Debian Whezy?

Query: because these are Windows games, what issues can I expect to encounter with the switch, assuming I decide to make it?

Query: can/shoud I move everything over to an external HDD and run it via an emulator? And yes, I believe I understand that Wine Is Not an Emulator, but what the heck IS it, and would/will it work in this circumstance? Or should I look into something else? And would this, in essense, be just a stupid way of doing a dual boot system to keep my Windows stuff and use Debian for everything else?

Oh yeah, "Query" was my word of the day!

Thank you


Well if Games is a big part and reason for the system then would stick with Win7 or setup if you have an extra 30-40gb on your hardrive then can install Mint or Debian alongside and dual boot. That is what I do as some of the games wine won't run.

The other consideration is graphics card used. There are varying degrees of functionality of games depending on graphics card the system has. So double whammy to solve. Graphics card powerful enough and supported by linux well using linux proprietary drivers?
And will the game run in wine? Way to many hoops for me so dual boot with win7.

Also while learning and breaking linux i can always boot to Win7 when a linux crisis looms and may be hours or days to resolve the issue. Also upgrades can break proprietary drivers requiring re-install of newer driver or tweaking the old one to get games working.

To me no headaches just to dual boot.

So the short of it is if Games are a high priority and many are windows games. Then wouldn't rely on just Linux to play them.
.
User avatar
Orbmiser
Level 7
Level 7
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:16 pm
Location: Portland,Oregon

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby southernpride1865 on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:26 pm

Interesting answers, and I thank you. I have a few hundred "extra" gigs on the hard drive, so space is no big deal. Graphics is an Intel 3000HD and an nVidia 555M with the Phys-x accellerator, and I will have to research compatability with those and a non-Windows OS. Games are only about 40 to 50 percent of what the rig is used for, I just had a momentary combination of "bigger is better" syndrome and a pocket full of cash at the exact same time that I decided I needed a laptop, so I just bought the best (or biggest, depending on how you look at it) that was available at that time and at my price. Looked at the XPS, Alien (pre-dell), and even a Voodoo, but decided I wanted it MY way, so I went with this one. 64-bit fastest I-7 they made, overclocked, as much memory as a 64 bit system can handle, blah blah blah.

But my question is more towards the perceived "which one is better" between Debian and LinuxMint Olivia, which I now have a better understanding of. "Stable" and "easier to use" are a world apart in this world, while with Windows, they tended to mean the same thing. And it is also my understanding that Debian is a better fit for those who are already comfortable operating in a Linux environment, as compared to someone like me who is only two weeks into it. I guess I will just work up a dual boot with the LinuxMint until I "get comfortable" with it, and then maybe revisit Debian. My main problem, if you will, is that I no longer have the memory or skills to learn AND break anything. Learning this is difficult enough for me!
Chemistry stems from adventurers of the mind, fashioning theory and technique in harmony.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
southernpride1865
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:46 pm
Location: Front Range-Colorado

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Orbmiser on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:43 pm

And it is also my understanding that Debian is a better fit for those who are already comfortable operating in a Linux environment


Hmmm I found running Mint or Mint Debian editions to both be easy.
Was running Mint KDE but wanting a distro that was more rolling release where I didn't have to do a clean install every 6months.
And Mint was only doing Cinnamon & Mate Debian editions. So went with SolydXK which is a fork of Mint team following in Mints well established footprints.

SolydXK has a Xfce & KDE semi-rolling update packs like mint. Means I don't have to keep installing fresh every 6 months.
And updates come out monthly.http://solydxk.com/
A bit of history

You find SolydXK’s roots in another great distribution: Linux Mint.

There were two distributions which I liked very much: Linux Mint KDE and Linux Mint Debian Edition. There were once rumors that the two would merge, but unfortunately that didn’t happen. So, I decided to make my own distribution. First as a tutorial in the forum, but later it became known as “The unofficial LMDE KDE”. When Linux Mint dropped their LMDE Xfce edition, I started that one from scratch and “The unofficial LMDE Xfce” was born.

Both these editions were mainly created with the help of the community. Without them they simply wouldn’t exist. Especially with the Xfce edition where the community decided which software was to be included and which software not. So, these distributions are really community driven.

When it became clear that the unofficial editions were not going to become official I decided to take the next step and let these great distributions stand on their own two feet and the unofficials got their proper names: SolydX and SolydK.

SolydXK will not forget it’s roots. SolydXK and Linux Mint closely work together to make our distributions even better.

Schoelje,

14/02/2013

Going full Debian distro then would agree there is more complexity involved in learning to use. But Mint flavors have removed a lot of those barriers making it easier for the new to linux crowd.
.
User avatar
Orbmiser
Level 7
Level 7
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:16 pm
Location: Portland,Oregon

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby bunnywang7 on Fri Sep 27, 2013 12:00 am

XFCE is that , we can say it's a desktop icon while Openbox does not

and some of the ram icons
bunnywang7
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:54 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby fraterchaos on Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:51 pm

I would like to mention something here that might not be known to many users...

I recently saw some benchmark tests done in a video on YouTuibe about different distros and window manager/DE's

I was shoocked and surprised to learn the under Ubuntu, Xfce (at least with xubuntu) is actually more of a memory and resource hog that the standard Ubuntu Unity desktop!

The reason I mention this, I was running an old dell dimension 2400 that was serious underpowered, and not knowing all that much about different distros, and had had Ubuntu 11 on it at an earlier time, I went ahead and let it get upgraded to 12.04... big mistake as the machine simply didn;t have the power even to run Unity 2D... so I posted a few questions and was advised (by people who i am sure meant well) to try either Xubuntu or Lubuntu... having seen Xfce at an earlier point, I had some idea what it was like, so I opted to try something new and went with Lubuntu, which proved to run quite well on the old Dimension... but then, the machine crashed (having nothing to do with Lubunut, mind you) and I had to get a newer hand-me-down machine up and running... a Dell Vostro 200 64 bit to which I added an Nvidia Geforce 7300 with 128 megs of RAM of it's own.

I ran Lubuntu 64 bit on that for a while and it was ok, but I could not get Compiz to work at all, nothing but crashes and then I found out about Kwin, so I tried adding that on top of LXDE.... it worked, but not all that well, many of my LXDE apps were no longer listing on the menus and some would cause the system to hang...

Since I had two physical Hard Drives and the seocnd one was nearly empty, I decided to install another OS on that, and hearing good things about Mint15 Kde version, I went for it, and I am very happy I did...


Anyway, I just wanted to warn you, if you think using something like Xubuntu is a lightweight desktop... think again. Not sure about other distros, but Xubuntu is actually worse than standard Ubuntu for being a resource hog.
fraterchaos
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:16 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Nilla Wafer on Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:58 pm

Oh.My.Gosh.

Xubuntu is not Xfce for goodnessakes. Xubuntu is Ubuntu plus Xfce plus a bunch of Gnome stuff plus Compiz plus default settings and applications and window dressing that make it the resource hog that it has become.

Minimal Ubuntu plus just Xfce would be a LOT lighter and faster than Xubuntu is. But not as pretty, perhaps, and not as simple as Xubuntu. Xfce needs a little help to make it simple and easy and as fully functional and it's older siblings, Gnome and KDE. That's why they add all that stuff to Xfce, and THAT is what slows it down and makes it resource hungry.

~nilla
User avatar
Nilla Wafer
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:11 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby millpond on Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:44 am

I use an ancient AMD 32 bit system with a deprecated ATI9550 card. 1 Gb ram.

My favorite DE is actually KDE,as I have found it to be more problem free than Gnome or XFCE.
XFCE always gives me power management problems causing a hard reboot instead of suspending.
KDE always works.even with hibernation. This is critical as I rarely shut this system off.

The actual problem with KDE is that it comes with a ginormous PIM suite - Nepomuk and a couple others which are CPU hungry and useless if you do not use them.
But they need to be disconnected at the config file level.
If you carve KDE (or any DE) down to its basics it will become lean and faster.
More bling, less speed.

I also like Cinnamon, but the latest upgrade to Debian Mint removed it, so I either need to compile it or wait for its release in a few months.
I simply do not like Gnome 3
millpond
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Orbmiser on Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:45 pm

millpond wrote:I use an ancient AMD 32 bit system with a deprecated ATI9550 card. 1 Gb ram.

My favorite DE is actually KDE,as

The actual problem with KDE is that it comes with a ginormous PIM suite - Nepomuk and a couple others which are CPU hungry and useless if you do not use them.


Well with only a 1gb just about any DE will tax the system stats you stated.
Including how well proprietary graphic drivers are doing.
So it's more about your system stats then actually KDE being huge,resource hog.

Even lighter than Cinnamon which I found more resource hog and tad smidgin clunky and less smooth.
Tho I expect the excellent team to resolve those issues in Cinnamon 2.0 which I haven't tried yet.

My SolydK KDE (Mint fork) chimes in at 350mb to desktop. Using open default drivers on a Ati 4350 older card.
That's with all the bling like desktop effects including yaWP weather plasmoid and conky script.

Which chimes in a lot less than any other DE I have used.
Even a couple of xfce versions I tried where close neck to neck with my present KDE.
I have a 4gb with 4gb swap that is never used.
As 90% of the time I don't see my system get above the 1.5gb.
Even running half a dozen full fledge apps across 3 virtual desktops on dual 22" displays.

Yes it great to turn off Nepomuk and other services if not needing or using. And I don't use any of Kwallet,Kmail,Pim,etc..

So comparing KDE on a 1gb system and stating it's a resource hog is a tad unfair. As for a 1gb system is better suited to be looking at xfce,Lx,puppy,crunchbang,razor-Qt,etc.. or other DE's that are specifically designed for older limited ram systems.

On a more current and modern 2gb or more system. You would be stating how clean & lean it is. And if possible recommend people upgrade if possible their ram to 2gb or more to widen their choices. Giving them much more choices and options.
.
User avatar
Orbmiser
Level 7
Level 7
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:16 pm
Location: Portland,Oregon

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Timmi on Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:49 pm

Khalid wrote:Well, 3rd time.. thank you. Oh and yes, I replaced Windows with Linux since I was very pissed with Windows a few days back, and I'm happy I did that, but I regret the files I have lost, lol, I guess I'll move on.


Khalid, did you reformat your entire hard drive, when you installed?

For any other people who are new to Mint (or Linux), if you've had a problem with windoze, please check with some more experienced people here before installing.
There is a way you can resize partitions, create a new one, and access old windoze files, copy them to a new partition, before you reformat your computer. You can then keep the new partition intact, while you create your swap, and Linux partitions where your windoze used to sit. You can do a total of 4 primary partitions, and most laptops have a hidden one (for recovery and stuff like that) and that counts as the first. (you can remove the hidden one, but that eliminates all hopes of ever restoring your original OS and it's license - it's not a large partition, always negligible in space used up, it's just that it consumes one of the 4 allowed). I mention the 4 paritions, because I like to have one for Linux, one for Data, and one for Swap. If you want to run a dual-boot, you need an extra one for Windoze. In order to share your Windoze data with Linux, you will need a FAT partition, where you store your data when in windoze, or in Linux. (kind of like a local shared cloud between the two OSes if you wish). Keep your hidden partition and you no longer have space for that extra one. Keeping data on a separate partition has it's advantages: if spyware, malware, virus damages your C:, chances are it ruins that before it gets to the other partition.

How to:
the way I do it, is to create a FAT partition, as windoze usually uses NTFS, which is, in Linux versions, perfectible. when you repartition, first rearrange your files to consolidate the space they are spread out on. that will give you a free area at the end (outer perimeter) where to create a new partition. you can either boot windoze and copy your data files into there, or you can boot a linux live cd/usb (see forums on how to set that up) and check if you can find the files without going via windoze (such as if when windoze is irreparably damaged), and copy them from what was your C:(...)users\(...)\mydocuments to your newly created partition. after, you can install linux, creating new partitions where the windoze one was, but just make sure you remember the size of the new data partition so you can distinguish it from others regardless of numbering, while you are doing your install. when you install, create one for swap, one for linux. your new data partition should be by far the largest.
Timmi
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:04 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Timmi on Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:05 pm

Nilla Wafer wrote:Oh.My.Gosh.
Xubuntu is not Xfce for goodnessakes. Xubuntu is Ubuntu plus Xfce plus a bunch of Gnome stuff plus Compiz plus default settings and applications and window dressing that make it the resource hog that it has become.
Minimal Ubuntu plus just Xfce would be a LOT lighter and faster than Xubuntu is. But not as pretty, perhaps, and not as simple as Xubuntu. Xfce needs a little help to make it simple and easy and as fully functional and it's older siblings, Gnome and KDE. That's why they add all that stuff to Xfce, and THAT is what slows it down and makes it resource hungry.
~nilla


Could we bring this back into the context of Mint xfce?
Are you speaking generalities, or saying that Mint xfce is very light in that way?
Timmi
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:04 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Timmi on Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:27 pm

Robin wrote:The two are different things. The window manager controls how the desktop windows are "drawn" by your computer. When we refer to windows in Linux, we don't mean that other operating system by Microsoft, we mean the little boxes that contain the graphics for whatever application you launch. Microsoft did a smart thing by calling their OS "Windows." It sort of suggests that they invented the little things. But in fact, long before there was the Windows operating system, there were windows with borders to separate running applications. Unix and DOS both had windows.

In Linux you can choose between window managers like Icewm, Openbox, Fluxbox, and Xfwm. Openbox is a big favorite because it has a nice "right-click anywhere on the desktop" feature that brings up a whole menu from which you can launch applications, open a terminal, etc. You can even have wallpaper. Many folks with older low-powered machines use only a window manager and no desktop environment at all. Without the extra visual "eye candy" and decorations, computers running only a window manager run very fast! Fluxbox is considered a little less "newbie friendly" than Openbox, but "Mintified," I'm sure that isn't the case with our Fluxbox edition. Google the term "Linux window managers screenshots" to see what can be done with just a bare-bones window manager!

A desktop environment on the other hand includes a window manager but also includes stuff like panels, applets, and applications that are designed to work best in that particular desktop environment. Among desktop environments are KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Enlightenment, and LXDE. Each has it's own special features and applications. The "heavyweight" desktop environments (KDE and Gnome) have all sorts of wonderful features like "plasmoids" and the famous "spinning cube." They're more demanding on resources, but on computers 2 years old or newer, they run plenty fast. Xfce is kinda sorta like "Gnome Lite," if you will. It "feels like" Gnome but offers fewer of the extra fancy features and is designed to work better on modest hardware. LXDE is a very "lightweight" desktop environment - so light in fact that it has been "accused" of being a window manager instead of a full-fledged desktop environment. The look of LXDE reminds alot of people of what "Windows 98" looked like.

Each of the desktop environments has it's own set of applications that work best in their "native" environment. That is called "integration." Xfce applications, for example, are integrated into the Xfce desktop environment, so the experience of applications in their "native" desktop environment will tend to be snappier and more responsive. Most people mix-and-match applications anyway. You can use any application in any desktop environment! But if you have limited space on your hard drive, it's better not to do that, since installing a single KDE application onto a Gnome desktop, for example, may also "pull in" large libraries from the other desktop environment. Here's are some of the applications listed according to the desktop environment they are native to:

These are just a few examples. The KDE file manager also doubles as a nice web browser! Some find it complicated, others love it. Brasero always just makes coasters out of my blank CDs, but both Xfburn and K3B work flawlessly. Other people find that Brasero works best for them. The only way to be sure is to "use what you have," and if it doesn't work or you don't like it, try one of the others. So much choice! It's wonderful, but a bit overwhelming to a newbie. So much of it is a matter of taste and what works on your own machine. It took me a year of trying them all to finally choose a favorite (I'm an Xfce fanboy now - but that could change too)! I chose what works fastest on my hardware yet still offers most of the features I want in a desktop.

Now you see why it's a bigger question than it seems like at first! Sooooo many choices! But don't hurry! Try a few, one every month or two when you feel like exploring, and if you're delighted with what you've got, just keep it! But it's fun to see what the others are like. Many a nicely "pimped out" desktop with wicked special effects has won a few people over from Windows and Mac. And many an aging heap has been saved from a landfill and converted into a screamin' fast machine by a sweet-and-simple, bare-bones window manager! A number of families from the studio where I take dance class have been won over by the mind-bending speed and elegance of a lightweight Xfce mixture on an ancient old dinosaur that was donated for the kids to use.

How to choose?
1. - Look at screenshots from the different DEs and WMs and pick a pretty one!
2. - Consider a "lightweight" if you have an older, low-resource computer that you want to run fast!
3. - Experiment with the different applications from the different DEs and see what works best for you and fits your needs and tastes.
4. - Don't forget to ask your family if you share the computer with them!
Enjoy the ride. It's fun to try them all.

-Robin


Thank you Robin, this is very thorough.

If it's OK, may I sum this up and make it a little bit more nooB friendly?

I found a helpful quote from an ubuntu forum http://askubuntu.com/questions/18078/what-is-the-difference-between-a-desktop-environment-and-a-window-manager that I'll quote below:

There are basically three layers that can be included in the Linux desktop:

X Windows – This is the foundation that allows for graphic elements to be drawn on the display. X Windows builds the primitive framework that allows moving of windows, interactions with keyboard and mouse, and draws windows. This is required for any graphical desktop.

Window Manager – The Window Manager is the piece of the puzzle that controls the placement and appearance of windows. Window Managers include: Enlightenment, Afterstep, FVWM, Fluxbox, IceWM, etc. Requires X Windows but not a desktop environment.

Desktop Environment – This is where it begins to get a little fuzzy for some. A Desktop Environment includes a Window Manager but builds upon it. The Desktop Environment typically is a far more fully integrated system than a Window Manager. Requires both X Windows and a Window Manager. Examples of desktop environments are GNOME, KDE, Xfce among others)


So basically the layering of the way things sit on top of each other is like this:
5. the software that you run (abiWord, gnumeric, Chromium, etc)
4. Desktop Environment (further refines and expands upon the user interface - this is the uppermost level that makes for the user experience (the look and feel)
* Gnome, KDE (old but sticks around for a large legacy fanbase), LXDE, XFCE
3. Window Manager (foundation for the user interface, requires xwindows to dance with your hardware)
* Icewm, Openbox, Fluxbox, Xfwm
2. X-windows (interface between your window manager and your hardware (such as graphics card))
1. Disk Operating System (handles file manipulations, opening (that includes opening a data file or program file, etc), reading, writing, by everything that sits atop of it, onto the actual physical hardware (memory/storage))
0. Hardware
note: this is not meant as a replacement for the OSI model, but rather something simplified to explain the topic at hand. also, it is easy to argue with some of the points above, as hardware is software in disguise, and vise-versa.


I hope I didn't make any mistakes... if I did, please let me know so I can edit the post with corrections.
Timmi
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:04 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Nilla Wafer on Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:38 pm

Timmi wrote:
Nilla Wafer wrote:Oh.My.Gosh.
Xubuntu is not Xfce for goodnessakes. Xubuntu is Ubuntu plus Xfce plus a bunch of Gnome stuff plus Compiz plus default settings and applications and window dressing that make it the resource hog that it has become.
Minimal Ubuntu plus just Xfce would be a LOT lighter and faster than Xubuntu is. But not as pretty, perhaps, and not as simple as Xubuntu. Xfce needs a little help to make it simple and easy and as fully functional and it's older siblings, Gnome and KDE. That's why they add all that stuff to Xfce, and THAT is what slows it down and makes it resource hungry.
~nilla


Could we bring this back into the context of Mint xfce?
Are you speaking generalities, or saying that Mint xfce is very light in that way?


I was replying to Fraterchaos' post - but failed to quote what I was replying to. So to clarify, both Xubuntu and Mint Xfce (at least the last version that was built from Xubuntu) have lots more extra stuff added. "Pure Xfce" - without all the extra stuff - is very lightweight and easy on resources. Debian or minimal Ubuntu with Xfce (not "xubuntu-desktop," but just the Xfce desktop environment) is speedy and ultralight!

Xubuntu is not Xfce. It's Ubuntu plus Xfce + a bunch of Gnome stuff, compositor, extra goodies and assorted applications. Mint Xfce is not Xfce. It's Mint plus Xfce + a compositor + assorted goodies and applications.

In the same way that so many of us are frustrated by the popular misconception that Linux = Ubuntu, we may also be frustrated with other popular misconceptions like Xfce=Xubuntu or KDE=Kubuntu.

My apologies for not quoting the post I was responding to.
User avatar
Nilla Wafer
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:11 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby nuambenzina on Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:47 am

Why I can't have different Desktop Enviroments in Linux Mint Maya 13 LTS?

There is absolutely no WAY to install KDE, MATE, XFCE, CINNAMON, side by side in LINUX MINT installation and switch between them on th login screen?

I ubuntu I was able to install them with tasksel

or

Code: Select all
sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

sudo add-apt-repository "deb http://packages.mate-desktop.org/repo/ubuntu precise main" && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install mate-desktop-environment
nuambenzina
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:43 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Linee on Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:03 pm

Robin wrote:That is a very broad question (But I understand a newbie wouldn't know how so), so let me try to whittle it down a bit.

Enjoy the ride. It's fun to try them all.

Hope this wasn't too long...

-Robin



Wow Robin! Excellent! I am a newbie to Linux Mint and from the looks of it will be very comfortable here if the people are willing to inform the way you have. My roots are in Windows 3.1 up throught 8.1 and I'm now sick of fiddling around that while not getting a good user experience out of it. I've tried out many different Linux distros-- from the beginning I think it's "DSL" to Fedora, Ubuntu (starting with 8.10), Zorin, Ubuntu with Cinnamon, Ubuntu with KDE Plasma Desktop, elementaryOS, and now using LM 16 KDE. I plan on sticking with this for a long time to come.
User avatar
Linee
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:32 am

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby vrkalak on Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:40 am

Linee wrote:Wow Robin! Excellent! I am a newbie to Linux Mint and from the looks of it will be very comfortable here if the people are willing to inform the way you have. .


I know that you were not aware of this, but "Robin" passed away in Oct. 2011, after a long illness.
He was a joy to know ... I am fortunate enough to have called Robin friend. He was 19 years old.

Robin was an 'avid' user of Linux and Xfce user ... he never gave up his faith in Linux or on life. We will miss him. :cry:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=84053
Image
:: LinuxMint-Debian-Edition (Fluxbox) :: Manjaro/Arch (Xfce) ::
Registered Linux User: #497031 :: DeviantART Page
User avatar
vrkalak
Level 10
Level 10
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Linee on Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:50 pm

vrkalak wrote:
Linee wrote:Wow Robin! Excellent! I am a newbie to Linux Mint and from the looks of it will be very comfortable here if the people are willing to inform the way you have. .


I know that you were not aware of this, but "Robin" passed away in Oct. 2011, after a long illness.
He was a joy to know ... I am fortunate enough to have called Robin friend. He was 19 years old.

Robin was an 'avid' user of Linux and Xfce user ... he never gave up his faith in Linux or on life. We will miss him. :cry:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=84053


vrkalak, I am so very sad to hear this. Thank you for letting me know. I have a 24 and a 22 year old myself. I'll be keeping Robin in my heart and my thoughts each time I post here. :cry:
User avatar
Linee
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:32 am

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby Registrymop on Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:57 am

If you learn Debian there is some complexity involved in it and its use is not so easy. But if you use other, then this resolves all these issues.
Registrymop
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:57 am

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby rfharabin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:06 pm

Thanks Robin, Found this in a search and it answered all my questions...for today anyway.
rfharabin
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: What is the difference between Debian, Fluxbox, XFCE, ..

Postby StephenW4TOL on Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:53 am

Hi!! I'm totaly a newbie here and just want to say a big thank you to Robin for such an informative post. You really made it clear and easy to understand. Thanks for taking time to help someone new to Linux learn. I am running Linux Mint 16 Petra with Mate desktop on a HP laptop 2.0 dual core processor and 4gig of ram. Love it!! :D :D
StephenW4TOL
StephenW4TOL
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:12 am

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Newbie Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gene, Google Adsense [Bot], InkKnife, sgtkillswitch, WharfRat and 27 guests