F6 boot menu desktop choices at login.

[Forum Admin BitJam]

utu wrote:

I have not repaired the functional damage I’ve done to the F6 desktop choices mechanism.

I still have no idea how I should have tried to bring in Xfce4 and not corrupt the antiX boot menu apparatus. Is there documentation somewhere I should have consulted beforehand?

The words you use are confusing to me. It is trivial to check if the F6 menu is working correctly. Make a selection in the menu and then use the F12 key to see what the boot parameters are. Likewise, you can do “cat /proc/cmdline” to check the boot parameters after you’ve booted. If you select F6 –> icewm and “desktop=icewm” shows up in /proc/cmdline then the F6 menu is doing its job.

The choice of what window manager to run is usually made by the desktop manager program. We use SLiM. We modified /etc/slim.conf so the window manager is called via the desktop-session program. This allows the “desktop=$WM” cheat to work and it also allows you to switch window managers without logging out of X. If you have changed to a different desktop manager or have disabled desktop-session in some other way then, of course, the “desktop=$WM” cheat will no longer work.

Context is worth 80 IQ points -- Alan Kay

[Member utu]

@BitJam
demo@antix1:~
$ cat /proc/cmdline
desktop=icewm vga=791 persist_all wicd quiet splash=v disable=lx

I have selected icewm, fxce4 panel and fxce4 plug-ins appear and work ok.
I assumed fxce4-panel and xfce4-plugins would _only_ work with xfwm4.

Using icewm alone, before adding xfce4 material, I had some problems that
make me not want to rely on it as a building block.

cat /proc/cmdline confirms my input, but doesn’t convince me that just
because I asked for icewm that its actually what got selected.

I’d be happier to know that antiX would reject an improper wm choice.

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by utu.
• This reply was modified 2 years ago by utu.

64-bit MX-18.2 using 4.20.12 Kernel LiveUSB on Dell Laptop

[Member skidoo]

I’d be happier to know that antiX would reject an improper wm choice.

So try adding something bogus to the bootline, like desktop=monkeypants to test the result, eh?

Using icewm alone, before adding xfce4 material, I had some problems that make me not want to rely on it as a building block.

Problems meritworthy of bug report(s), or it just didn’t suit your fancy?

xfce

In case you didn’t realize it, I’ll mention that MX Linux has “xfce, plus all of the same antiX liveboot+persistence goodies”.

[Member utu]

skidoo wrote:

xfce

In case you didn’t realize it, I’ll mention that MX Linux has “xfce, plus all of the same antiX liveboot+persistence goodies”.

I’ve spent the past few days with MX-16.1 and have a thoroughly satisfactory MX-16.1 LiveUSB working now.

I intend to start over from scratch with antiX 17 and see if I can achieve a similar result.
Trying to repair an antiX LiveUSB I’d somehow mangled was not a good approach.

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by utu.
• This reply was modified 2 years ago by utu.

64-bit MX-18.2 using 4.20.12 Kernel LiveUSB on Dell Laptop

[Author]

Posts