[SOLVED] Antixcore + OPENBOX gives a blank screen after lightdm login …

Forum Forums General Software [SOLVED] Antixcore + OPENBOX gives a blank screen after lightdm login …

  • This topic has 32 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated Feb 17-11:50 pm by mikey777.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32736
    Member
    Avatarmikey777

    … If you have rox-filer installed, the command to launch the panel is
    rox –right=PANEL
    Of course, you could use top, left, or bottom for the position, instead.
    I use the ROX panel on the full or base antiX, as well as my core-builds. I just like it, I guess. (And it’s built-into the rox filer, which I’ve grown to like.)

    This worked really well – many thanks for the tip Christophe 🙂

    #32748
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    As for browsing- in 64 bits- try ungoogled-chromium it is very light on RAM, also lightning fast!

    Thanyou PPC for the browser tip!
    I’m always on the lookout for lightweight browsers, though I’m pretty happy with falkon (formerly qupzilla). I’ve never heard of ungoogled-chrome, but now you’ve mentioned it I’ll definitely take a look />

    If you want to view YouTube videos, in any resolution up to fullHD, use MPV (it has to be correctly configured) either directly or via SMtube (that’s essentially a Youtube player application, without publicity)

    .
    Yes I use mpv routinely for downloaded BBC TV programmes (using get_iplayer) and also playing music albums on our other laptops (mainly core 2 duo). On the single-core intel atom netbook (Samsung N145p) the highest quality of video that plays without problems is 25fps/2500 bitrate (which is fine), but for live-streaming youtube videos I can’t go higher than 480p (I usually use 360p), which is again fine. When you said HD quality was possible for playing youtube through mpv (I didn’t know this was possible), were you referring specifically to single-core intel atom netbooks?

    “Ungoogled-chrome” is called Chromium. The core source code is the same code that produces Google Chrome, but in Chromium, the code is 100% free, and comes without the extras that Google inserts. AntiX has Chromium available, as you’ve probably seen. Chromium is definitely among the lighter of the “full-featured” Web browsers.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by masinick.

    Brian Masinick

    #32749
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    I’m enjoying the topic and the discussion of trying new combinations of WM and DE’s. I intend to experiment with these options on some of my more powerful machines or in a VM. I am not against the idea of DE. But I am pretty impressed with antiX OOTB and it seems to be a pretty fine desktop environment to me. Even though technically it does not use a formal DE, like LXDE or XFCE.

    Seaken64

    I agree! For a lightweight environment, antiX is hard to beat. For a real desktop environment that is still reasonably efficient, MX Linux also does very well. It’s one of the more nimble Xfce implementations that I’ve used. Of course I’m biased, but I’ve preferred our distributions for many years because of their efficiency combined with excellent tools.

    Brian Masinick

    #32750
    Member
    Avatarmikey777

    “Ungoogled-chrome” is called Chromiuum.

    Ahah! I think you mean Chromium! When “Ungoogled-Chrome” was mentioned (never heard of it before but of course it’s alluding to Chromium’s roots), I looked it up and actually found a browser by this name!

    Chromium has been the goto browser for us for years now, on all the family’s laptops here, except the single-core Intel Atom netbook where it’s simply too slow. I did try Midori on this netbook but Falkon was much better. I loved Slimjet’s speed and lightness on the netbook but don’t want to use it as it’s closed source …

    #32751
    Member
    Avatarmikey777

    I agree! For a lightweight environment, antiX is hard to beat. For a real desktop environment that is still reasonably efficient, MX Linux also does very well.

    AntiX is a superb OS, and I love all the possibilities you have with full, core, base & net editions that allows for loads of experimentation – I’m learning a lot about how a Linux OS is put together since I jooined the forum here and started experimenting myself. What I don’t understand is why antiX is not right up there, nearer the top of the Distrowatch charts (not that I take them very seriously) …

    I tried MX-linux: it’s a very well themed and attractive OS, but quite resource hungry on older hardware (too slow on our Intel Atom netbook).

    #32752
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    I agree! For a lightweight environment, antiX is hard to beat. For a real desktop environment that is still reasonably efficient, MX Linux also does very well.

    AntiX is a superb OS, and I love all the possibilities you have with full, core, base & net editions that allows for loads of experimentation – I’m learning a lot about how a Linux OS is put together since I jooined the forum here and started experimenting myself. What I don’t understand is why antiX is not right up there, nearer the top of the Distrowatch charts (not that I take them very seriously) …

    I tried MX-linux: it’s a very well themed and attractive OS, but quite resource hungry on older hardware (too slow on our Intel Atom netbook).

    I can only speculate that a larger number of people do have reasonably current systems and they tend to prefer distributions like MX Linux (a recent DistroWatch favorite) and Linux Mint – a frequent DistroWatch favorite. I’ll take either MX Linux or antiX over Linux Mint because I find them more “nimble”. If you find MX Linux to run slowly on your system you’d not be happy with Linux Mint. All of them are fine distributions, but our bias tends to be simplicity and lean, lightweight software whenever possible. Many of the other distributions, as useful as they are, do favor appearance and conveniences over lightweight behavior and efficiency. My hardware isn’t broken, but it’s never been brand new. Even when I buy “newish” hardware, it tends to be equipment that’s on sale near the end of it’s sales life, and often I get used equipment. The Dell Inspiron 5558 that I have now was once fairly new and it still runs well, but I consider it to be aging gracefully. Those who like to buy equipment ever few years would call it old.

    Brian Masinick

    #32756
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    I am curious what “the advantages of a full desktop” means.
    Seaken64

    When I said that, one of the things I was thinking of, when generally comparing DEs vs WMs, was that desktop environments usually come ready to work straight out-of-the-box, with minimal configuration needed to get them fully working (apart from things like wifi and printers/scanners setup).

    Just to give you one example: with DEs the menus come with the icons already installed alongside the application names, whereas with WMs one needs to do a bit of digging into the file system to configure this. As I’m not an advanced linux-user, this involves time online researching how to do this and sometimes the documentation (if it exists) isn’t always easy to find. Also panel icons need to be configured, e.g. volume icon & wifi/ethernet icons (that’s if you want these) as they are absent by default in the three WMs I looked at (Openbox, Jwm, Fvwm), though I’ve found that just adding these two icons to the startup command will use up another 30-40MB of idle RAM activity (though if you have say 2GB RAM installed this is not really an issue).

    Another example is wallpapers. These are really easy to install in DEs, using the gui – less straightforward in WMs. At the end of the day the DEs are easier to use as the gui is well-developped. With WMs, one is more dependent on the use of terminal – this is a disadvantage for those who are not advanced linux-users.

    On the other hand, the bare-bones nature of WMs is it’s strength when using them on really old hardware, and masinick alluded to this when he said “In my opinion the things that you “gain” by using a desktop environment do not justify their overhead on a really old computer.” I don’t have any really old computers: my interest here is keeping things as light as possible, without too much extra work, on a low-powered single-core Intel Atom netbook (Samsung N145P, made in 2011) to minimize CPU temperature/activity and RAM activity, in an effort to prolong the battery-discharge time. On reflection, it would be really interesting to gather data on battery use, comparing DEs and WMs, though at the moment I don’t have the time to do this.

    Thank you mikey777,

    That was a fantastic answer. I really appreciate that. It makes perfect sense to me now. With Windows Managers the desktop environment is engineered by the developer or user with the commensurate level of effort. With a DE the effort to make the desktop environment is expended by the developers of said DE – and users, or distro developers, can tap into that.

    Thanks,
    Seaken64

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by seaken64.
    #32757
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    I’ve been experimenting a lot with MX-Fluxbox. What is interesting is that it has most, if not all, of the advantages of the full DE, but with a smaller memory footprint and a simple efficient interface.

    But to mikey777’s point, it does take some effort to set it up. The advantage of the standard Xfce interface for MX is the same as it is for antiX’s IceWM – it is setup by the developers to be used by the end user with minimal effort on the users part.

    I will be sharing more on how I have set up MX-Fluxbox to work on my old P-III with 512MB over on the MX Forum. Mikey777, you should try it on your single-core netbook.

    Seaken64

    #32759
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    I am curious what “the advantages of a full desktop” means.
    Seaken64

    When I said that, one of the things I was thinking of, when generally comparing DEs vs WMs, was that desktop environments usually come ready to work straight out-of-the-box, with minimal configuration needed to get them fully working (apart from things like wifi and printers/scanners setup).

    Just to give you one example: with DEs the menus come with the icons already installed alongside the application names, whereas with WMs one needs to do a bit of digging into the file system to configure this. As I’m not an advanced linux-user, this involves time online researching how to do this and sometimes the documentation (if it exists) isn’t always easy to find. Also panel icons need to be configured, e.g. volume icon & wifi/ethernet icons (that’s if you want these) as they are absent by default in the three WMs I looked at (Openbox, Jwm, Fvwm), though I’ve found that just adding these two icons to the startup command will use up another 30-40MB of idle RAM activity (though if you have say 2GB RAM installed this is not really an issue).

    Another example is wallpapers. These are really easy to install in DEs, using the gui – less straightforward in WMs. At the end of the day the DEs are easier to use as the gui is well-developped. With WMs, one is more dependent on the use of terminal – this is a disadvantage for those who are not advanced linux-users.

    On the other hand, the bare-bones nature of WMs is it’s strength when using them on really old hardware, and masinick alluded to this when he said “In my opinion the things that you “gain” by using a desktop environment do not justify their overhead on a really old computer.” I don’t have any really old computers: my interest here is keeping things as light as possible, without too much extra work, on a low-powered single-core Intel Atom netbook (Samsung N145P, made in 2011) to minimize CPU temperature/activity and RAM activity, in an effort to prolong the battery-discharge time. On reflection, it would be really interesting to gather data on battery use, comparing DEs and WMs, though at the moment I don’t have the time to do this.

    Sorry if this ends up a double post. I posted earlier but I don’t see it anymore. So just in case it doesn’t show up again I’ll add:

    I just wanted to say I really appreciate your answer mikey777. It cleared up my question completely. I now have a better appreciation of the advantages of a DE.

    Thank you,
    Seaken64

    #32760
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    The fundamental difference between a window manager and a desktop environment is that a window manager is a single component.

    A desktop environment, at least a truly integrated desktop environment such as KDE, GNOME and Xfce, contain a window manager, file manager, terminal emulator, a set of applications and a distinct appearance with a set of wallpapers, matching icons, in short a complete working environment.

    antiX is a complete system, but each component, from the window manager to the various utilities, tools, applications and appearance are provided by the distribution, not the desktop environment. The specific programs come from a variety of different sources, some developed by the team, but much of the work comes from various GNU-based projects and other freely available works.

    Brian Masinick

    #32776
    Member
    Avatarmikey777

    I will be sharing more on how I have set up MX-Fluxbox to work on my old P-III with 512MB over on the MX Forum. Mikey777, you should try it on your single-core netbook.

    Many thanks Seaken, I’m very interested to have a look at your MX-Fluxbox setup on the MX-forum – the default MX-xfce edition was like a slug on my intel atom netbook (xfce just seems to be getting progressively heavier as time goes on).

    #32851
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    I will be sharing more on how I have set up MX-Fluxbox to work on my old P-III with 512MB over on the MX Forum. Mikey777, you should try it on your single-core netbook.

    Many thanks Seaken, I’m very interested to have a look at your MX-Fluxbox setup on the MX-forum – the default MX-xfce edition was like a slug on my intel atom netbook (xfce just seems to be getting progressively heavier as time goes on).

    My post is up on the MX Forum on how I setup MX-Fluxbox on my old P-III. Yes, MX-Xfce is usually too heavy for anything less than 1GB, and depending on what apps are being used less than 2GB. But MX-Fluxbox will run nicely in 1GB, or even less, as in my case of 512MB. Check it out. I think it will work for you.

    Seaken64

    #32858
    Member
    AvatarPPC

    This thread has derailed quit a bit from the topic… but on the MX-Fluxbox topic – here it goes- it seems that the current point release ( note that I’ve not tested this- I still have MX 18.X installed) of Mx Linux now officially includes MX-Fluxbox out of the box – if that really happened, to use Fluxbox, simply install the latest MX-Linux and choose Fluxbox on the log-in menu.
    Note that Fluxbox on MX runs as a layer over XFCE, using parts of it, so it uses a lot more idle RAM than Fluxbox on antiX. Also Mx-Fluxbox is set up using very particular defaults – for example – the toolbar is on top, the clock is on the left side. It uses idesk icons- you can create new application icons for the desktop using a application provided out of the box, but you can’t “put” files on the desktop, like you can if Rox or SpaceFm is managing antiX Fluxbox. There’s also (last time I checked) no full debian menu available, but you can use XFCE’s application search (that looks almost like the XFCE’s whisker menu – but it stays RAM resident…)
    All that said, MX-Fluxbox is a very good way for users to have both the tools that MX provides out of the box AND use less system resources. For Intel Atom single core without not much RAM (I have one such device), antiX runs a bit smoother…

    P.

    Edit: I should have been more precise when I talked about ungoogled chrome – it’s in fact https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
    It’s quite a bit lighter then chrome, on my computers, and supposedly complete free from any kind of google integration. You can even test a older appimage, if you don’t want risk installing the .deb files (https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/)

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by PPC.
    #32876
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    Edit: I should have been more precise when I talked about ungoogled chrome – it’s in fact https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
    It’s quite a bit lighter then chrome, on my computers, and supposedly complete free from any kind of google integration. You can even test a older appimage, if you don’t want risk installing the .deb files (https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/)

    P.

    Yeah, “ungoogled Chrome” is actually Chromium. I’ll have to look at this site to see if it’s the official Chromium or not, but Chromium originally was a Google project with real source code, omitting proprietary Google bits. Perhaps this one is even cleaner and gets rid of more stuff (especially if Google had any “phone home” code in Chromium source. If I see anything different, I’ll comment again, but meanwhile to reiterate, the Chromium Web browser is unbranded, freely available, non proprietary, originally a free source code offering based on Google Chrome. Binary images have been built by various parties.

    Brian Masinick

    #32886
    Member
    Avatarmikey777

    This thread has derailed quit a bit from the topic

    Agreed.
    Yes, my fault really as I should have callled a halt after the Openbox issue was solved.
    Can folk contine the Chromium/Ungoogled-Chrome and MX-flubox discussion in two new separate threads?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.