- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Jan 13-2:31 pm by seaken64.
-
Posts
-
seaken64
I’ve been playing around with LXDE and LXQt the past few days. I had some success installing both on MX so I thought I would take a look at running these DE’s on antiX. I found both on the Package Installer on the Control Centre.
I started with LXQt. After installation I logged off of IceWM and logged in to LXQt using the F1 key. The result was not good. I got a message stating that the window manager was not compatible and was presented with a choice to run one of the other desktops. I chose “Fluxbox” since I had read that LXDE would run on Fluxbox (I don’t know if LXQt is also supposed to support Fluxbox). Fluxbox started up but there was no sign of LXQt, at least as I had come to know it from my MX experiments.
I wondered if it would work with OpenBox so I installed OpenBox and tried again to log in to LXQt. Same result with OpenBox installed. From the dialog I chose OpenBox but when the desktop came on it did not resemble LXQt at all. There were some programs on the menu, like PCManFM-Qt, but other than that it just looked like plain OpenBox.
I decided to try LXDE next and again used the Package Installer to install it. Then I logged out and then logged in to LXDE through the F1 key. I again got the same message about the incompatible window manager. But I could see the LXDE desktop behind the dialog box so I just closed it. This time it looked like I had a full LXDE desktop. I’m assuming it is working with the OpenBox WM but I am not sure. I could not find any way to launch the Configuration Center for LXDE. But otherwise I was now clearly using the LXDE desktop.
I tried again with LXQt and after I got the same error message I dismissed the dialog as I did with LXDE. Then I clicked on the only entry on the list to choose a window manager and a file chooser dialog opened up. I browsed to /usr/bin and selected openbox. That did seem to work to get LXQt kickstarted. But the icons are messed up and the panel is missing most of the stuff I expect, like the menu launcher. I can use PCManFM-Qt and see the Applications, but otherwise the LXQt desktop is not complete.
So, it seems to me that LXDE is supported in antiX-21 but LXQt is not.
Does that sound about right? I did a search on the forum and there are some folks using LXDE. But I didn’t find much on LXQt. I wonder why it is listed on the Package Installer if antiX doesn’t really support it. And the installer did not seem to care that OpenBox was not installed on antiX. I’m presuming because the user is supposed to know this beforehand and that installing LXDE or LXQt on antiX is meant to be done mostly by the user and is not supported by the antiX devs.
I read from one user that they started with antiX core and then added LXLE. That seems to the best way. Although, LXDE does seem to be pretty good at setting up the menus to include all the apps in antiX FULL. It is not as nicely laid out as IceWM but everything seems to be there.
I will continue to experiment with LXDE. I think LXQt is too far away from my grasp.
Seaken64
- This topic was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by seaken64.
sybok
Hi, I have a antiX-19.2 testing.
Please see the output of
apt-cache policy fluxbox openbox lxqt
‘fluxbox’ comes from antiX repository but (the metapackage) ‘lxqt’ is from Debian.
Perhaps that the reason why ‘openbox’, which is from Debian as well (at least in my case), works better with the LX*.I have a dual-boot at work (antiX-21) with Fedora, the latter using LXQt and the environment looks… well, specific.
I prefer simple ‘fluxbox’ (with a lots of custom shortcuts).
christophe
I tried these out in virtual box. I think that first window is what pops up when using herbstluftwm also for the first time. Does that sound right? I just cancel that popup. I think it’s for users who mistakenly start hlwm or another non-standard wm.
But anyway, I installed lxqt first & on the other popup, I had to select a wm. It said to select one, which was unexpected. I chose icewm, because I didn’t know which was better. As it turned out, icewm looked just the same under lxqt, except the desktop with no icons, just names on the desktop. Conky was non-transparent. I couldn’t find a way to access any lxqt settings. It seems lxqt needs more user configuration to make it enjoyable.
Lxde installed & ran well for me immediately.
confirmed antiX frugaler, since 2019
@christophe, that mirrors my experience. I think getting LXQt working right will take more effort than I am willing to put in right now. But I am happy with the results of LXDE.
One thing that is a little weird is that the menus are now littered with a lot of Qt apps. I guess it’s no big deal. They seem to work. But I just don’t need all the duplication since the GTK apps work fine for me. I guess this is the consequence of installing LXQt even though it did not seem to install fully. I quickly looked in Synaptic to try and delete the lxqt stuff but it seems pretty detailed and it does not look like I will actually get rid of what was installed with LXQt without a lot of work. I will look more into this but I am not yet very accomplished at this stuff. I saw a command for apt that might work (sudo apt purge *lxqt*). Maybe I’ll try that. And I don’t know if that will also get rid of the Qt apps. It’s all just experimental.
Seaken64
@sybok,
I have not tried exhaustively to get LXQt to work. I did manage to set the window manager. Maybe I can try setting it to Fluxbox to see if it behaves differently. I am not near that machine right now so I will try your apt-cache policy command later.
Seaken64
sybok
@seaken64: I did not mean to imply that I use LXQt on top of fluxbox in Fedora since it is not true.
I just prefer to use ‘fluxbox’ as the desktop environment.BobC
LXDE works reasonably well, but its memory hungry. I was at 440 mb used with just a terminal running. This was on a flashdrive, not installed. I wonder if that caused it. Is 440 mb unusual for LXDE?
1. I didn’t see a way to avoid loading clipit. I found that I could maintain the panel with a right click.
2. Volumeicon seems to run twice, and can be turned off in the ~/.desktop-session/startup
3. I guess my biggest issue was that I didn’t see any big advantages of running LXDE over IceWM or IceWM with ZZZfm.@seaken64: I did not mean to imply that I use LXQt on top of fluxbox in Fedora since it is not true.
I just prefer to use ‘fluxbox’ as the desktop environment.On the Fedora it just uses OpenBox? I did read that LXQt can use several different window managers, Fluxbox among them. I will try to use Fluxbox instead of OpenBox and see what happens.
FWIW, I do not prefer Fluxbox or OpenBox, but I do appreciate them and I attempt to use them so I can learn more about them. This is why I am testing LXQt/LXDE, to learn.
Seaken64
LXDE works reasonably well, but its memory hungry. I was at 440 mb used with just a terminal running. This was on a flashdrive, not installed. I wonder if that caused it. Is 440 mb unusual for LXDE?
1. I didn’t see a way to avoid loading clipit. I found that I could maintain the panel with a right click.
2. Volumeicon seems to run twice, and can be turned off in the ~/.desktop-session/startup
3. I guess my biggest issue was that I didn’t see any big advantages of running LXDE over IceWM or IceWM with ZZZfm.Hi BobC,
So far I am of the same opinion, in that I don’t see an advantage over IceWM. I use IceWM every day in antiX and I love it. But I also do not know too much about configuring desktops. I just use what antiX provides.
I did try to setup IceWM on a plain Debian and on a Core antiX and it did not go well for me. I just don’t know enough yet to get it setup to a usable state. I stick with antiX. But I did try LXDE and it seems pretty nice already mostly setup OOTB. On both antiX and Debian it seems to do a good job of setting up the menus at least, which to me is a big plus since I usually use the menus instead of keybindings. I will continue to experiment and try to learn more about setting up desktops.
And yes, it is more memory hungry by far. What antiX provides is amazing in such a small memory footprint. LXDE will not match this. But I have several 2G, 3G, and 4G systems and 200M to 400M idle RAM is fine on those machines. I’ll stick with IceWM on the machines with 1G and 512M.
Seaken64
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by seaken64.
olsztyn
3. I guess my biggest issue was that I didn’t see any big advantages of running LXDE over IceWM or IceWM with ZZZfm.
I recently tried LXDE in antiX 21, just testing out of curiosity, and came to the same conclusion. I found no advantages over IceWM and JWM (which I am using now). On the contrary – more wasted resources, particularly memory, with no benefit that I could notice.
Over time, moving from Fluxbox, then IceWM and recently to the new version of JWM, I have not found any benefit in any other DE I tested. Nothing beats antiX with rock solid JWM, unless fancy but restrictive environment is for someone more important than usable and effective system…Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters@olsztyn, I have not used JWM for awhile. I have it as my desktop on an old Pentium-III with 256 RAM, but I have not used that one in quite some time. I’ve been playing with some old Core2Duo machines that got passed down to me. They are not so restricted with memory and have a faster processor. But I still like antiX IceWM a lot. I will take another look at JWM based on your praise.
Seaken64
Somehow I got the alignment in this forum editor switched to right-align and have no idea how to witch it back to left-aligned. Oh, good, it corrected itself after I hit submit.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by seaken64.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by seaken64.
If I recall, Opnebox itself, with a Tint2 panel was reasonably efficient on memory, within 10 mb of IceWM or JWM. I didn’t really dig into why LXDE was using so much more.
But I still like antiX IceWM a lot. I will take another look at JWM based on your praise.
Just to clarify my statement, both IceWM and JWM (as well as Fluxbox) are good WMs. Also is the Openbox, mentioned above by BobC. I ended up with using JWM for the sake of ultimate reliability and elegant simplicity. Not a single issue that can be attributed to WM since. Rock solid…
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by olsztyn.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by olsztyn.
Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters@sybok, I ran that command you gave me. As you say the Fluxbox is from the antiX repo and Openbox is from Debian. I did switch the window manager to Fluxbox but it didn’t make any difference. I then switched it to “openbox-lxde”. That did clean up the look a little bit but the application window was still missing on the panel. I started clicking around and I found the settings for adding and removing widgets from the panel. I was able to add the Applications Menu and re-order the panel widgets. It now looks a little more normal.
It feels to me that the LXQt package is just not fully setup. With some work on the configs I can probably get it more in line with the results I get with LXDE.
But, as already stated by several of us already, there is not really and advantage to running LXDE/LXQt in antiX, since we have IceWM, Fluxbox and JWM already so nicely curated for us. In MX LXDE/LXQt does use less memory so there may be an advantage there. But again, the XFCE setup in MX is very nice and it’s hard to argue that LXDE/LXQt is a better desktop. But it may be some folks preference, and that is fine. I prefer the XFCE implementation on MX.
Seaken64
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
