[SOLVED] XFCE Non-ESR Firefox – Pulseaudio/APulse – no Autostart

[Member rej]

Hi-

I am setting up antiX 19 for a friend who wants to use the non-ESR Firefox and XFCE with LightDM.

Pulseaudio will start manually with “pulseaudio –start”, but not automatically after reboot.

The same happens with apulse, without pulseaudio, or with both installed.

Pulseaudio starts up automatically with SLiM in XFCE.

Session and Startup – Application Autostart:

Pulseaudio sound system (start the pulseaudio sound system)

I added:

Pulseaudio Daemon

/etc/pulse/daemon. conf

Still no autostart…

Would non-ESR Firefox update automatically?

Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you.

• This topic was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Brian Masinick.

[Member Xecure]

Helpful

Up

0

::

https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/how-to-set-pulseaudio-default/#post-54889

https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/have-sound-in-firefox-no-sound-in-seamonkey/page/2/#post-34378

antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

[Member rej]

Helpful

Up

0

::

xecure -Thanks for your quick reply and the links.

I had searched the forum and online for something relating to pulseaudio & XFCE/LightDM and had tried what I could find. I did not find anything in the antiX forum. There might not be too many XFCE users.

SLiM with XFCE:

Icon in System tray, can adjust sound on startup

non-ESR FF- sound on startup works as expected

FF-ESR – sound on startup works as expected

—————–
LightDM with XFCE – no icon in System tray on startup

FF-ESR – sound works as expected [likely running on Apulse]

Non-ESR FF- no sound

Will start manually with “pulseaudio –start”, but not automatically after reboot or logout.
—————

pulseaudio -D & was in “Startup” – uncommented.

Pavucontrol was installed. I had also installed “pasystray” to see if it would help.

There has been no issues with Firefox-ESR. The non-ESR Firefox in XFCE/LightDM is where the troubles come in – I can launch Pulseaudio manually through the terminal and it works.

I had added it to “Startup and Session – Application Autostart”, even though it was already in “Startup”.

Pulseaudio sound system (start the pulseaudio sound system)

I added:

Pulseaudio Daemon

/etc/pulse/daemon.conf

There seems to be a startup issue between the non-ESR Firefox and XFCE/LightDM. [FF-ESR autostarts with LightDM as it should – no problem]

I looked at lightdm.conf and could not find anything related.

Are there other XFCE or LightDM configuration files for startup?

[Member Xecure]

Helpful

Up

0

::

OK. Now I understand. You are NOT using antiX’ desktop-session manager.
Go as root to /etc/pulse/client.conf.d/ and copy disable-autospawn.conf to a new file enable-autospawn.conf
Edit enable-autospawn.conf and change autospawn to yes
autospawn=yes
If this doesn’t enable pulseaudio, then there is something missing in your installation.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Xecure.

antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

[Forum Admin Dave]

Helpful

Up

0

::

If you are wanting to use xfce, lightdm, pulse-audio, firefox, etc why not use MX?
Those are all part of the default setup.

Computers are like air conditioners. They work fine until you start opening Windows. ~Author Unknown

[Member rej]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Xecure –

Thanks! autospawn=yes did it!

Even though “volumeicon”[pavucontrol] and “pasytray” are listed in the “Notification Area” “known Applications”, they have the “no-icon” icon and do not appear in XFCE system tray.

[Member rej]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Dave –

Thanks for the suggestion!

He is using MX currently, but he has massive file transfers and was hoping that antiX would be faster for that.

[Member Xecure]

Helpful

Up

0

::

rej wrote:

Thanks! autospawn=yes did it!

Good to know. I think many DEs require this option. I remember following a dolphin_oracle video on setting KDE plasma on antiX core and he had to do this to enable pulseaudio, and I found that the same procedure worked while setting XFCE today on a VM (antix core + XFCE), just to figure out the pulseaudio problem.

rej wrote:

Even though “volumeicon”[pavucontrol] and “pasytray” are listed in the “Notification Area” “known Applications”, they have the “no-icon” icon and do not appear in XFCE system tray.

I have no experience with XFCE, so I don’t know how to solve this. Maybe there is some other dependency needed, but I don’t really understand the problem myself.

antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

[Member rej]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Xecure-

Thank you so much for your help!

[Member seaken64]

Helpful

Up

0

::

rej wrote:

Dave –

Thanks for the suggestion!

He is using MX currently, but he has massive file transfers and was hoping that antiX would be faster for that.

I’ll be interested to learn if antiX is the solution for faster massive file transfers. My first instinct is that it won’t make a difference. But maybe I am missing something. Anyway, I agree that MX already has all the stuff built in. And you can tweak MX. Probably easier to tweak MX than build up antiX. I would suggest trying the Fluxbox desktop session in MX.

Seaken64

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

seaken64 wrote:

rej wrote:

Dave –

Thanks for the suggestion!

He is using MX currently, but he has massive file transfers and was hoping that antiX would be faster for that.

I’ll be interested to learn if antiX is the solution for faster massive file transfers. My first instinct is that it won’t make a difference. But maybe I am missing something. Anyway, I agree that MX already has all the stuff built in. And you can tweak MX. Probably easier to tweak MX than build up antiX. I would suggest trying the Fluxbox desktop session in MX.

Seaken64

I’d be pretty surprised if it made much of a difference. Out of all the old computers I’ve experimented with, you have to have rather limited resources as well as an aged computer before MX Linux fails, leaving you with only antiX and other really minimal resource distros (Puppy, Tiny Core, Slitaz…) Maybe an old netbook would be one such scenario.

--
Brian Masinick

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

but he has massive file transfers and

disk-to-disk?
across a LAN?
downloading from an external network? FTP? NFS? SAMBALAMBALOO?

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/48399/fast-way-to-copy-a-large-file-on-a-lan

mbuffer!

The biggest bottleneck in transferring large files over a network is, by far, disk I/O. The answer to that is mbuffer or buffer. They are largely similar but mbuffer has some advantages. The default buffer size is 2MB for mbuffer and 1MB for buffer. Larger buffers are more likely to never be empty. Choosing a block size which is the lowest common multiple of the native block size on both the target and destination filesystem will give the best performance.

Buffering is the thing that makes all the difference! Use it if you have it! If you don’t have it, get it! Using (m}?buffer plus anything is better than anything by itself. it is almost literally a panacea for slow network file transfers.

If you’re transferring multiple files use tar to “lump” them together into a single data stream. If it’s a single file you can use cat or I/O redirection. The overhead of tar vs. cat is statistically insignificant so I always use tar (or zfs -send where I can) unless it’s already a tarball. Neither of these is guaranteed to give you metadata (and in particular cat will not). If you want metadata, I’ll leave that as an exercise for you.

Finally, using ssh for a transport mechanism is both secure and carries very little overhead. Again, the overhead of ssh vs. nc is statistically insignificant.

Regardless of O/S, optimizations are probably avilable via tweaks to sysctl parameters, and choice of filesystem + settings. Changing O/S instead of identifying//fixing the bottleneck seems like misdirected effort.
.

[Member rej]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Seaken64-

I agree, Fluxbox is fast and easy, but he is used to XFCE. I had been trying to introduce him to window managers and it did not go well.
—————-
skidoo –

Thanks, yes “massive” = “nebulous”. The MX installation on his main computer had some sort of hiccup (nothing to do with MX) that caused corruption with years and years of un-backed up files having to be fished out of the drive and transferred. From his description, it sounded like they were slow and “bottlenecking”, which is something I had also experienced in MX with manual backups (not recently) but never antiX. He was trying to save them quickly before there was more deterioration, so I set him up with a configured XFCE antiX live usb. He installed it and then found the real reason [operator error] for what he had been experiencing and was able to transfer (most of) the files efficiently.

Thanks for the mbuffer suggestion, I looked at it and will pass it along to him.

He is now using a backup program.
————-
Dave-

I was just going on my experience with MX vs antiX and found antiX to be faster booting, transferring i.s.o. files, computing sha/md5, opening applications, etc – I could be wrong…

————–
Apologies – I did not see these replies and would have marked this post as “Solved” at the time but it would not allow.

I appreciate all the input – all good information.

Thank you!!

[Author]

Posts