Re: PAE (was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:43:50 -0400 (EDT), Tixy wrote: Wikipedia, that font of all wisdom, says of NX [1] ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit From that same article, the section on the Linux kernel says this: The support for this feature in the 64-bit mode on x86-64 CPUs was added in 2004 by Andi Kleen, and later the same year, Ingo Molnar added support for it in 32-bit mode on 64-bit CPUs. These features have been in the stable Linux kernel since release 2.6.8 in August 2004. The availability of the NX bit on 32-bit x86 kernels, which may run on both 32-bit x86 CPUs and 64-bit x86 compatible CPUs, is significant because a 32-bit x86 kernel would not normally expect the NX bit that an x86-64 processor supplies; the NX enabler patch ensures that these kernels will attempt to use the NX bit if present. So it looks like you're right. The NX feature can be used only when running a 32-bit kernel in PAE mode on a 64-bit processor. When running a 32-bit kernel in PAE mode on a 32-bit processor, the NX bit is not available. So I'm back to my original question. For a system with a 32-bit processor and less than 4G of RAM, what does running a PAE kernel buy me? I can understand why commercial Linux distributions want to eliminate a non-PAE kernel: it's one less kernel to support, and therefore higher profits. But what does running a PAE kernel on a 32-bit system with less than 4G of RAM do for *me*? All I see it doing is making the kernel bigger and chewing up more RAM. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
PAE (was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:45:10AM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: Furtherfore, a non-PAE kernel is useful even on PAE-capable hardware. The main purpose of PAE is to address memory above 4G. But if the machine has less than 4G of memory, what does a PAE-capable kernel buy you? PAE-capable kernels tend to be a bit bigger, all other things being equal, than non-PAE kernels, which chews up more precious memory with no obvious benefit. One such benefit is that the NX bit (non-executable memory pages) is only available with 64 bit page table entries, which in turn depend on PAE mode. This could be an argument for preferring a PAE kernel on PAE-capable hardware. Regards, Mirko
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:28:53 -0400 (EDT), Bret Busby wrote: On 15/08/2015, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: ... My IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop, which is still quite usable, would be a brick if I ran Ubuntu. It has a Pentium M processor in it, and that processor does not have the PAE feature. ... a solution to the PAE problem, relating to your Pentium M CPU, was mentioned, if you would be bothered to do anything about that. ... I don't wish to stir the pot again; but when I make a mistake, I need to correct it. You are right, Mr. Busby. The IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop which I possess contains a Pentium M processor which *does* support PAE but does not *advertise* that it supports PAE. Therefore, a PAE-requiring Linux kernel *will* run successfully on this processor if the forcepae kernel boot parameter is passed. Therefore, I was wrong when I said that this laptop would be a brick if I were running Ubuntu. However, there are 32-bit Intel-compatible processors out there which neither advertise nor possess PAE capabilities. Therefore, a non-PAE kernel is still needed for them. Furtherfore, a non-PAE kernel is useful even on PAE-capable hardware. The main purpose of PAE is to address memory above 4G. But if the machine has less than 4G of memory, what does a PAE-capable kernel buy you? PAE-capable kernels tend to be a bit bigger, all other things being equal, than non-PAE kernels, which chews up more precious memory with no obvious benefit. Furthermore, use of the forcepae option to force a PAE kernel to run on a processor which supports PAE but does not advertise such support has drawbacks. It taints the kernel, which disables lock debugging, for example. For these reasons, I believe that a non-PAE kernel is still needed; and I applaud Debian for providing one. Respectfully, -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: PAE (was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:52:30 -0400 (EDT), Mirko Parthey wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:45:10AM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: Furtherfore, a non-PAE kernel is useful even on PAE-capable hardware. The main purpose of PAE is to address memory above 4G. But if the machine has less than 4G of memory, what does a PAE-capable kernel buy you? PAE-capable kernels tend to be a bit bigger, all other things being equal, than non-PAE kernels, which chews up more precious memory with no obvious benefit. One such benefit is that the NX bit (non-executable memory pages) is only available with 64 bit page table entries, which in turn depend on PAE mode. This could be an argument for preferring a PAE kernel on PAE-capable hardware. Wow, did I really say, Furtherfore? Mercy! I need to do a better job of proofreading. Obviously, that was supposed to be Furthermore. Anyway, to your point: PAE may be a necessary condition for NX, but it is not a sufficient condition. I am presently using three 32-bit computers: one is a Pentium M (2G), one is a Pentium 4 (2G), and one is a Xeon (4G). All three are PAE-capable, and all three are presently running PAE Linux kernels. And all three display the following message during boot, according to dmesg|less: Notice: NX (Execute Disable) protection missing in CPU! So, for my hardware, that argument doesn't seem to hold up. Am I missing something? -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: PAE (was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?)
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 20:44 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:52:30 -0400 (EDT), Mirko Parthey wrote: One such benefit is that the NX bit (non-executable memory pages) is only available with 64 bit page table entries, which in turn depend on PAE mode. This could be an argument for preferring a PAE kernel on PAE-capable hardware. [...] PAE may be a necessary condition for NX, but it is not a sufficient condition. I am presently using three 32-bit computers: one is a Pentium M (2G), one is a Pentium 4 (2G), and one is a Xeon (4G). All three are PAE-capable, and all three are presently running PAE Linux kernels. And all three display the following message during boot, according to dmesg|less: Notice: NX (Execute Disable) protection missing in CPU! So, for my hardware, that argument doesn't seem to hold up. Am I missing something? Wikipedia, that font of all wisdom, says of NX [1] After AMD's decision to include this functionality in its AMD64 instruction set, Intel implemented the similar XD bit feature in x86 processors beginning with the Pentium 4 processors based on later iterations of the Prescott core. [...] It is only available with the long mode (64-bit mode) and legacy Physical Address Extension (PAE) page table formats, but not x86's original 32-bit page table format because page table entries in that format lack the 63rd bit used to disable/enable execution. And of 64-bit X86 [2] Intel subsequently began selling Intel 64-enabled Pentium 4s using the E0 revision of the Prescott core, being sold on the OEM market as the Pentium 4, model F. The E0 revision also adds eXecute Disable (XD) (Intel's name for the NX bit) So it appears that the XN/XD and 64-bit support coincide on a CPU. Unless XN was retrofitted to 32-bit only CPUs produced for things like the embedded market. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 -- Tixy
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 15/08/2015, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 04:23:17 -0400 (EDT), didier gaumet wrote: Sorry, I didn't catch you were using Ubuntu. Apparently, Ubuntu has dropped support for 586 procs (their 386 linux images being in fact 686 ones). That's not the case in Debian, x86 non-PAE procs still being supported (linux-image-*-586) We're getting off topic from the original intent of the OP's thread. But since you mentioned this ... I sure am glad that I use Debian and not Ubuntu. My IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop, which is still quite usable, would be a brick if I ran Ubuntu. It has a Pentium M processor in it, and that processor does not have the PAE feature. Long live pure Debian! And kudos to the Debian kernel team! -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `- I will try again, for the fourth time, to compose and send the message, as the last previous attempt, deleted the whole of the message, in the sending. You can denigrate Ubuntu Linux all you want, but there is no need for your denigration, to be public, or, on this list. The PAE problem was solved. Ubuntu Linux was the only operating system that could be found, other than MS Windows 8, that has the necessary drivers for this computer. No BSD variant, and, no Linux variant, other than Ubuntu Linux, had the necessary hardware drivers for this computer. It took me two years, to get this computer operational. The problems involved, have been extensivley discussed, on this and other mailing lists. And, in the course of my trying to get this computer working satisfactorily, I was directed to Ubuntu-mate, so that I could have a workable desktop environment, due to the elimination of GNOME 2. Having got this computer working, with Ubuntu 14.04 running the mate desktop environment, and, with Ubuntu-mate 15.04, and, because the Debian 6 installation on my HP Compaq NX5000, was not stable, I tried to install the i386 version of Ubuntu-mate 15.04. A problem involving the PAE issue, was discovered and resolved. When trying to do a system update on that system, the PAE problem recurred, and, with the gracious assistance of didier gaumet, that problem was resolved, and, a solution to the PAE problem, relating to your Pentium M CPU, was mentioned, if you would be bothered to do anything about that. Anyway, the PAE problem was resolved, and, , with that problem having been solved, starting a competition along the lines of who can urinate highest up the wall, is not helpful to anyone, and only takes us down to the level of the australian tennis players. Just because the australian tennis people think that a lout who is playing for them, defaming the partner of one of his rivals, by making a sexual slur against her, is acceptable, does not mean that we have to descend to that level. So, as the PAE problem is resolved, can we end your urinating up the wall competetion, and, leave the PAE issue alone, unless someone else has an unresolved problem associated with the PAE issue? Thank you. And, hopefully, in using a different web browser this time, the sending of the message, will not cause the message content to be deleted. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:31:23 +0800 Bret Busby bret.bu...@gmail.com wrote: And, what led to the discussion regarding the PAE problem, was related to the original post in the thread, if you bother to read and follow the thread, instead of simply directing your effort to the urinating up the wall. Dare I direct you to 1 Kings 16:11, in the King James version of the Good Book ? Cheers, Ron. -- Any resemblance with any normal person, living or dead, would be purely coincidental. -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 15/08/2015, Bret Busby bret.bu...@gmail.com wrote: On 15/08/2015, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 04:23:17 -0400 (EDT), didier gaumet wrote: Sorry, I didn't catch you were using Ubuntu. Apparently, Ubuntu has dropped support for 586 procs (their 386 linux images being in fact 686 ones). That's not the case in Debian, x86 non-PAE procs still being supported (linux-image-*-586) We're getting off topic from the original intent of the OP's thread. But since you mentioned this ... I sure am glad that I use Debian and not Ubuntu. My IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop, which is still quite usable, would be a brick if I ran Ubuntu. It has a Pentium M processor in it, and that processor does not have the PAE feature. Long live pure Debian! And kudos to the Debian kernel team! -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `- I will try again, for the fourth time, to compose and send the message, as the last previous attempt, deleted the whole of the message, in the sending. You can denigrate Ubuntu Linux all you want, but there is no need for your denigration, to be public, or, on this list. The PAE problem was solved. Ubuntu Linux was the only operating system that could be found, other than MS Windows 8, that has the necessary drivers for this computer. No BSD variant, and, no Linux variant, other than Ubuntu Linux, had the necessary hardware drivers for this computer. It took me two years, to get this computer operational. The problems involved, have been extensivley discussed, on this and other mailing lists. And, in the course of my trying to get this computer working satisfactorily, I was directed to Ubuntu-mate, so that I could have a workable desktop environment, due to the elimination of GNOME 2. Having got this computer working, with Ubuntu 14.04 running the mate desktop environment, and, with Ubuntu-mate 15.04, and, because the Debian 6 installation on my HP Compaq NX5000, was not stable, I tried to install the i386 version of Ubuntu-mate 15.04. A problem involving the PAE issue, was discovered and resolved. When trying to do a system update on that system, the PAE problem recurred, and, with the gracious assistance of didier gaumet, that problem was resolved, and, a solution to the PAE problem, relating to your Pentium M CPU, was mentioned, if you would be bothered to do anything about that. Anyway, the PAE problem was resolved, and, , with that problem having been solved, starting a competition along the lines of who can urinate highest up the wall, is not helpful to anyone, and only takes us down to the level of the australian tennis players. Just because the australian tennis people think that a lout who is playing for them, defaming the partner of one of his rivals, by making a sexual slur against her, is acceptable, does not mean that we have to descend to that level. So, as the PAE problem is resolved, can we end your urinating up the wall competetion, and, leave the PAE issue alone, unless someone else has an unresolved problem associated with the PAE issue? Thank you. And, hopefully, in using a different web browser this time, the sending of the message, will not cause the message content to be deleted. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 And, what led to the discussion regarding the PAE problem, was related to the original post in the thread, if you bother to read and follow the thread, instead of simply directing your effort to the urinating up the wall. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:31:23 -0400 (EDT), Bret Busby wrote: You can denigrate Ubuntu Linux all you want, but there is no need for your denigration, to be public, or, on this list. ... There's no need to get defensive, my friend. I was simply expressing my approval of Debian's management decision to continue to support non-PAE processors, as opposed to Ubuntu's management decision to drop support for non-PAE processors. Besides, this is a Debian list, not an Ubuntu list. Praise for Debian, when they do something right, is entirely appropriate here. Ubuntu Linux was the only operating system that could be found, other than MS Windows 8, that has the necessary drivers for this computer. I doubt that. Ubuntu enables non-free drivers and non-free firmware by default, Debian does not. But the drivers are available in Debian, if you know where to look. But I do not wish to argue about it. Peace. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Hi! My advice would be MATE. Runs perfectly on D8 and may be installed during setup. Great choice for those, who liked gnome2. 2015-08-14 6:04 GMT+03:00 Seeker seeker5...@comcast.net: On 8/13/2015 4:58 AM, Bret Busby wrote: On 13/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Le 13/08/2015 12:13, Bret Busby a écrit : i386 is 686, and not 586 ? Yes, I think that 386 Ubuntu Linux images are build with 686 instruction set compatibility. 386 meaning here x86. Anyway, you might have a way to force enabling PAE on your Celeron in Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PAE Thank you. That is how I managed to initially install the operating system. I have not tried, and, do not know how, to apply that fix as part of a kernel upgrade, and thence, I can not either update, or, add packages to, that computer, within that operating system installation. I guess it is now just a permanent bug in Ubuntu i386, if the problem does not apply to kernels outside Ubuntu. Here is the message I missed. ;) Looks like you may have missed the '-- forcepae' part of the 'forcepae -- forcepae' that signals the installer to use the forcepae option in the installed system. Or if you did upgrade the kernel previously, could still be a bug somewhere that caused the forcepae option to be lost. There is a bug report here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1307105 With instructions *Are you still booting with the forcepae option? If not, you'll need to add it.* *gksu gedit /etc/default/grub* *Make GRUB_CMDLINE_**LINUX_DEFAULT line look like:* * GRUB_CMDLINE_**LINUX_DEFAULT=**quiet splash forcepae* *Save. Quit. Run:* * sudo update-grub* *Reboot and try the update again.* Later, Seeker -- Best regards, Roman.
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le 14/08/2015 02:39, Stephen Powell a écrit : On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:20:59 -0400 (EDT), didier gaumet wrote: Gnome-flashback has replaced gnome-fallback: isn't it 2D compatible, relying on Metacity instead of Mutter? I don't know. All I know is that GNOME3 only worked for me in fallback mode, and then one day, fallback mode disappeared and my desktop stopped working. I made the switch to XFCE and I am happy with it. I have no incentive to switch back just to try your theory. I do know that I upgraded my laptop from wheezy to jessie a couple of weeks ago. It was running GNOME prior to the upgrade. After the upgrade, I got the infamous fail whale. That does not give me an incentive to try GNOME again. Let us say then that it is not my theory but a fact: from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GNOME_Flashback, I quote: GNOME Flashback (previously called GNOME fallback mode) is a shell for GNOME 3. The desktop layout and the underlying technology is similar to GNOME 2. It doesn't use 3D acceleration at all, so it's generally faster and less CPU intensive than GNOME Shell with llvmpipe. Don't get me wrong, I don't try to convert you to Gnome, I am myself an everyday Xcfe user.
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 04:23:17 -0400 (EDT), didier gaumet wrote: Sorry, I didn't catch you were using Ubuntu. Apparently, Ubuntu has dropped support for 586 procs (their 386 linux images being in fact 686 ones). That's not the case in Debian, x86 non-PAE procs still being supported (linux-image-*-586) We're getting off topic from the original intent of the OP's thread. But since you mentioned this ... I sure am glad that I use Debian and not Ubuntu. My IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop, which is still quite usable, would be a brick if I ran Ubuntu. It has a Pentium M processor in it, and that processor does not have the PAE feature. Long live pure Debian! And kudos to the Debian kernel team! -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le 13/08/2015 06:09, Bret Busby a écrit : Since you have mentioned an old system, I should perhaps mention that apparently, Linux has abandoned support for Celeron CPU's, as, having installed ubuntu-mate 15.09 on my HP/Compaq NX5000 which has a Celeron CPU, and the associated and subsequent problems, I have found that the Celeron CPU's are apparently no longer supported by Linux, as the kernels are incompatible with the Celeron CPU - a non-PAE issue, apparently. That is not Linux that has dropped support for non-PAE CPUs, that is the x86 default linux image in Debian (linux-image-*-686-pae). A simple way to solve your problem is to install linux-image-*-586 instead.
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:07:47 -0400 (EDT), Dwijesh Gajadur wrote: Hello Debian users ?? I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Please share me your experience with Debian Gnome. I used to use GNOME (GNOME 2) because it was the default desktop in Debian at that time, but I switched to XFCE when GNOME upgraded from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3. Not only is the GNOME 3 interface very different from GNOME 2, but on a number of my machines, GNOME 3 didn't even work. GNOME 3 requires 3D graphics acceleration features in the X driver, and not all video chipsets support 3D graphics acceleration. Even for chipsets that do support 3D graphics acceleration, there may not be an X driver which exploits the chip's 3D graphics acceleration capabilities, or the driver may not be installed because it is buggy or has security vulnerabilities. The machine I am using to compose this e-mail falls into that category. There is a 3D graphics acceleration driver for my chipset, but it is not installed for reasons of reliability and security. I switched to XFCE because it doesn't require 3D graphics acceleration, and I've been happy with it. Furthermore, it is designed to run applications written for the GNOME environment. The interface is similar to the GNOME 2 interface, which I am familiar with. I'll probably stick with XFCE until there is a compelling reason to change. That's my two cents worth. Take it with however many grains of salt you think it's worth. It's worth emphasising to new users that Gnome and KDE applications can generally be used without running either desktop environment (unless they are very specific to the desktop) and in most cases, without much of the desktop environment being installed. I like Nautilus and K3B but use them both on an Xfce desktop. The necessary libraries must be installed, increasing the disc space used, but most mechanical drives aren't short of space. -- Joe
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le 13/08/2015 03:20, Stephen Powell a écrit : When GNOME 3 first came out, it had a fallback mode for systems without 3D graphics acceleration capability. Fallback mode was essentially the GNOME 2 interface. I continued to use GNOME 3 in fallback mode for a while. Changing desktops is a lot of work, and I'm lazy. But eventually, GNOME 3 eliminated fallback mode. [...] Gnome-flashback has replaced gnome-fallback: is n't it 2D compatible, relying on Metacity instead of Mutter?
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 08:08:26AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: [...] As for desktops: Two months ago i tried Gnome (eeek !) and XFCE (moan). Then i went back to fvwm2, which is terribly unconfigured when installed from Debian package. Similar trajectory here. Except -- I actually used Gnome for a while, and somewhere after the 1 - 2 transition slowly gravitated to XFCE. As XFCE was becoming more and more Freedesktop-y I finally came back (full-circle) to FVWM2. Never looked back. - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlXMSMkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbzCACfRm12gfyadDtiJ30cuVTWEMDb EDMAn0yZpqRLZ9Ry/aMOmqyL71JEq+YT =QoDD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Sorry, I did n't catch you were using Ubuntu. Apparently, Ubuntu has dropped support for 586 procs (their 386 linux images being in fact 686 ones). That's not the case in Debian, x86 non-PAE procs still being supported (linux-image-*-586)
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Le 13/08/2015 06:09, Bret Busby a écrit : Since you have mentioned an old system, I should perhaps mention that apparently, Linux has abandoned support for Celeron CPU's, as, having installed ubuntu-mate 15.09 on my HP/Compaq NX5000 which has a Celeron CPU, and the associated and subsequent problems, I have found that the Celeron CPU's are apparently no longer supported by Linux, as the kernels are incompatible with the Celeron CPU - a non-PAE issue, apparently. That is not Linux that has dropped support for non-PAE CPUs, that is the x86 default linux image in Debian (linux-image-*-686-pae). A simple way to solve your problem is to install linux-image-*-586 instead. No, it is not a 686 kernel, or even a 586 kernel. root@bret-Compaq-nx5000-PN728PA-ABG-UbuntuMate-1504:~# apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done You might want to run ‘apt-get -f install’ to correct these. The following packages have unmet dependencies. linux-image-extra-3.19.0-25-generic : Depends: linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic but it is not installed linux-image-generic : Depends: linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic but it is not installed Recommends: thermald but it is not installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. root@bret-Compaq-nx5000-PN728PA-ABG-UbuntuMate-1504:~# apt-get install -f Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done The following extra packages will be installed: linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic Suggested packages: fdutils linux-doc-3.19.0 linux-source-3.19.0 linux-tools The following NEW packages will be installed linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic 0 to upgrade, 1 to newly install, 0 to remove and 22 not to upgrade. 3 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/16.1 MB of archives. After this operation, 36.5 MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] y (Reading database ... 189664 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack .../linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic_3.19.0-25.26_i386.deb ... This kernel does not support a non-PAE CPU. dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic_3.19.0-25.26_i386.deb (--unpack): subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 Examining /etc/kernel/postrm.d . run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs-tools 3.19.0-25-generic /boot/vmlinuz-3.19.0-25-generic run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-update-grub 3.19.0-25-generic /boot/vmlinuz-3.19.0-25-generic Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic_3.19.0-25.26_i386.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) root@bret-Compaq-nx5000-PN728PA-ABG-UbuntuMate-1504:~# -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I did n't catch you were using Ubuntu. Apparently, Ubuntu has dropped support for 586 procs (their 386 linux images being in fact 686 ones). That's not the case in Debian, x86 non-PAE procs still being supported (linux-image-*-586) So, the i386.deb in linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic_3.19.0-25.26_i386.deb is actually 586, and, from Ubuntu and not Debian... Confusinger and confusinger -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le 13/08/2015 12:13, Bret Busby a écrit : i386 is 686, and not 586 ? Yes, I think that 386 Ubuntu Linux images are build with 686 instruction set compatibility. 386 meaning here x86. Anyway, you might have a way to force enabling PAE on your Celeron in Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PAE
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/2015, Bret Busby bret.bu...@gmail.com wrote: On 13/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I did n't catch you were using Ubuntu. Apparently, Ubuntu has dropped support for 586 procs (their 386 linux images being in fact 686 ones). That's not the case in Debian, x86 non-PAE procs still being supported (linux-image-*-586) So, the i386.deb in linux-image-3.19.0-25-generic_3.19.0-25.26_i386.deb is actually 586, and, from Ubuntu and not Debian... Sorry - i386 is 686, and not 586 ? My error Confusinger and confusinger -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le sextidi 26 thermidor, an CCXXIII, Thomas Schmitt a écrit : There are several descendants of program xeyes around. Including xeyes itself; any half-decent window-manager should be able to swallow an arbitrary window and turn it into an applet. As for desktops: Two months ago i tried Gnome (eeek !) and XFCE (moan). Then i went back to fvwm2, which is terribly unconfigured when installed from Debian package. But i could take my 15 year old ~/.fvwm2rc file, change a few absolute paths in it and got exactly the look-and-feel that i am used to from my previous three computers. The ideal window manager for people who are not flexible enough for a new desktop every other year. Hear, hear! But it seems ill-loved by Debian maintainers: it still suggests fvwm-themes, which has completely disappeared from the repositories several releases ago. There is fvwm-crystal, but it is a monster built on top of Fvwm. It is sad, even: just shipping a 200-lines example config with a few visual enhancements over the default config is enough to make it look good. Without that, unknowing users are scared away before realizing they do not really need these huge desktop environments. The same goes for zsh, in fact. The default config is awful, with not even the current directory in the prompt, but with just a few options it becomes immensely more comfortable than bash. I wonder if the maintainers would be amenable to proposed default config files enhancements. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Hi, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: (except for the pair of eyes, which I greatly miss). There are several descendants of program xeyes around. My favorite time waster on Sun4 was oneko, the mouse chasing cat. As for desktops: Two months ago i tried Gnome (eeek !) and XFCE (moan). Then i went back to fvwm2, which is terribly unconfigured when installed from Debian package. But i could take my 15 year old ~/.fvwm2rc file, change a few absolute paths in it and got exactly the look-and-feel that i am used to from my previous three computers. The ideal window manager for people who are not flexible enough for a new desktop every other year. Have a nice day :) Thomas
RE: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Please share me your experience with Debian Gnome. With Kind Regards, Dwijesh I haven't had trouble with Gnome3 on both a real laptop (low power Compaq with Intel graphics), and also on VMware virtual machines (although there were some hoops to jump through to avoid fallback mode for Debian 7). Debian 8 works seamlessly on VMware. I also got Gnome3 running in the Jessie beta on a 9 year old desktop, without issue and it seemed to perform reasonably well. I can't compare to XCFE since I haven't used that, but I do like Gnome 3.
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Le 13/08/2015 12:13, Bret Busby a écrit : i386 is 686, and not 586 ? Yes, I think that 386 Ubuntu Linux images are build with 686 instruction set compatibility. 386 meaning here x86. Anyway, you might have a way to force enabling PAE on your Celeron in Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PAE Thank you. That is how I managed to initially install the operating system. I have not tried, and, do not know how, to apply that fix as part of a kernel upgrade, and thence, I can not either update, or, add packages to, that computer, within that operating system installation. I guess it is now just a permanent bug in Ubuntu i386, if the problem does not apply to kernels outside Ubuntu. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Fvwm2. Was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Hi, Nicolas George wrote: [fvwm2] it seems ill-loved by Debian maintainers: I was prepared to give it up. Especially after knowing the configuration it had on Debian 6. Since i use that machine mainly via SSH i never bothered to try my workstation configuration file. The nearly zero functional configuration of Debian 8.1 forced me to give it a try. It was a nice start for the quite cumbersome endeavor to catch up with 8 years of Linux evolution. It is sad, even: just shipping a 200-lines example config with a few visual enhancements over the default config is enough to make it look good. Without that, unknowing users are scared away before realizing they do not really need these huge desktop environments. I assume it is least cumbersome for the Debian maintainer to ship only a minimal configuration and to leave it to the old fart user to get it to run As It Always Was (TM). Google fvwm2rc finds the configuration of Eric S. Raymond, color marked examples, starter examples, ... After installation of fvwm2 there are man pages for the fvwm2 commands. E.g. man FvwmButtons. So one can look up the commands used in the configurations and try them interactively with FvwmConsole. We should make clear that fvwm2 is in use. Wasn't there a popularity list of packages ? How to vote ? (How to keep out of vote all the packages which i never use but got installed anyway ?) I wonder if the maintainers would be amenable to proposed default config files enhancements. A single person is listed in https://packages.debian.org/jessie/fvwm That gives hope. (My stuff is nominally maintained by an inactive team and two friends of mine who got a real life meanwhile.) I'm all in for positive feedback. Before we propose enhancements, we should probably ask about the reason for the sparse default configuration. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Fvwm2. Was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Thomas Schmitt wrote: Nicolas George wrote: [fvwm2] it seems ill-loved by Debian maintainers: the old fart user to get it to run As It Always Was (TM). Google fvwm2rc finds the configuration of Eric S. Raymond, color marked examples, starter examples, ... After installation of fvwm2 there are man pages for the fvwm2 commands. E.g. man FvwmButtons. So one can look up the commands used in the configurations and try them interactively with FvwmConsole. At least a few years ago, fvwm shipped with an old copy of my fvwm config as a complex example, using m4 as a preprocessor. But it looks like it's not there any more. In case it's interesting, it's up at http://www.einval.com/~steve/debian/fvwm2rc.example Shout if anything is unclear! -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast. Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Stephen Powell wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:38:19 -0400 (EDT), Patrick Bartek wrote: I've never used GNOME 3. It won't fully run on any of my systems since none don't have 3D capability. So, it goes into fallback mode. I assume you meant to say none have 3D capability. Yes. How did I miss that? I proof read all my posts. Must be getting old. ;-) B
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/15 13:08, Wayne Hartell wrote: I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Please share me your experience with Debian Gnome. With Kind Regards, Dwijesh I haven't had trouble with Gnome3 on both a real laptop (low power Compaq with Intel graphics), and also on VMware virtual machines (although there were some hoops to jump through to avoid fallback mode for Debian 7). Debian 8 works seamlessly on VMware. I also got Gnome3 running in the Jessie beta on a 9 year old desktop, without issue and it seemed to perform reasonably well. I can't compare to XCFE since I haven't used that, but I do like Gnome 3. I'm using Gnome3 on both low end and powerful hardware, it runs perfectly (albeit slower than lxde on my eeepc). It's dynamic desktop management features I love so much. Pressing the Super key zooms out and shows all open applications on a desktop tiled, it also shows all the desktops in a preview down the right hand side. You can drag applications between desktops, if you go in-between the desktops it'll create a new one at that point, and there's always one spare at the bottom. The left hand side is a dock and the middle has the list of installed apps. Right clicking on any lets you create a shortcut in the dock. Super key + start typing to open an application is great also
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 14/08/2015, Seeker seeker5...@comcast.net wrote: Sorry for sending a response off list, I usually I double check the To field before hitting send, but that didn't happen this time. On 8/12/2015 9:09 PM, Bret Busby wrote: Since you have mentioned an old system, I should perhaps mention that apparently, Linux has abandoned support for Celeron CPU's, as, having installed ubuntu-mate 15.09 on my HP/Compaq NX5000 which has a Celeron CPU, and the associated and subsequent problems, I have found that the Celeron CPU's are apparently no longer supported by Linux, as the kernels are incompatible with the Celeron CPU - a non-PAE issue, apparently. This is one of those cases where you shouldn't make blanket statements, there are newer Celeron processors that work fine, without having to do anything special. Celerons are designed to be cheap, so are always cut down in some way or another compared to the rest of the Intel line up. From what I can find quickly on Google looks like Celeron M and Pentium M have the same issues reltive to current day expectations and the Linux kernel, and I did see that there was another reply with a link that may help you with that. Later, Seeker The matter had been dealt with as much as it could, so far, and clarified a bit, without resolution, between my message to which you responded, and your response, which you would have seen, if you had read the rest of the thread past my message to which you responded. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Sorry for sending a response off list, I usually I double check the To field before hitting send, but that didn't happen this time. On 8/12/2015 9:09 PM, Bret Busby wrote: Since you have mentioned an old system, I should perhaps mention that apparently, Linux has abandoned support for Celeron CPU's, as, having installed ubuntu-mate 15.09 on my HP/Compaq NX5000 which has a Celeron CPU, and the associated and subsequent problems, I have found that the Celeron CPU's are apparently no longer supported by Linux, as the kernels are incompatible with the Celeron CPU - a non-PAE issue, apparently. This is one of those cases where you shouldn't make blanket statements, there are newer Celeron processors that work fine, without having to do anything special. Celerons are designed to be cheap, so are always cut down in some way or another compared to the rest of the Intel line up. From what I can find quickly on Google looks like Celeron M and Pentium M have the same issues reltive to current day expectations and the Linux kernel, and I did see that there was another reply with a link that may help you with that. Later, Seeker
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:20:59 -0400 (EDT), didier gaumet wrote: Gnome-flashback has replaced gnome-fallback: isn't it 2D compatible, relying on Metacity instead of Mutter? I don't know. All I know is that GNOME3 only worked for me in fallback mode, and then one day, fallback mode disappeared and my desktop stopped working. I made the switch to XFCE and I am happy with it. I have no incentive to switch back just to try your theory. I do know that I upgraded my laptop from wheezy to jessie a couple of weeks ago. It was running GNOME prior to the upgrade. After the upgrade, I got the infamous fail whale. That does not give me an incentive to try GNOME again. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le 13/08/2015 23:14, Bret Busby a écrit : Hello. Thank you. Thank you for your previous clarifications. Thank you for the solution above, which worked and solved the problem. And, thank you for your patience with me. Great! My pleasure :-)
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 8/13/2015 11:20 AM, Bret Busby wrote: The matter had been dealt with as much as it could, so far, and clarified a bit, without resolution, between my message to which you responded, and your response, which you would have seen, if you had read the rest of the thread past my message to which you responded. The last message I saw was this... On 8/13/2015 3:50 AM, didier gaumet wrote: Le 13/08/2015 12:13, Bret Busby a écrit : i386 is 686, and not 586 ? Yes, I think that 386 Ubuntu Linux images are build with 686 instruction set compatibility. 386 meaning here x86. Anyway, you might have a way to force enabling PAE on your Celeron in Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PAE If you have an M processor that actually doesn't have PAE support, as opposed to having it and failing to report it, then it looks like your options are pretty limited these days. Sparky Linux has non-PAE options available. http://sparkylinux.org/download/ This article has a couple of others. http://www.everydaylinuxuser.com/2014/08/5-linux-distributions-for-very-old.html Later, Seeker
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Le 13/08/2015 13:58, Bret Busby a écrit : Thank you. That is how I managed to initially install the operating system. then you should probably have a grub entry with PAE enabled (forced) I have not tried, and, do not know how, to apply that fix as part of a kernel upgrade, and thence, I can not either update, or, add packages to, that computer, within that operating system installation. 1) edit /etc/default/grub, and add forcepae to the GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT parameter for example: replace GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=quiet splash by GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=quiet splash forcepae 2) $ sudo update-grub 3) reboot 4) Ubuntu being booted in PAE mode, apt-get would probably let you upgrade your system I guess it is now just a permanent bug in Ubuntu i386, if the problem does not apply to kernels outside Ubuntu. It is not a bug in Ubuntu: it is a choice. For x86, they now support only 686 with PAE (and from what I understand, PAE support in early Celerons is deemed experimental).
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 14/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Le 13/08/2015 13:58, Bret Busby a écrit : Thank you. That is how I managed to initially install the operating system. then you should probably have a grub entry with PAE enabled (forced) I have not tried, and, do not know how, to apply that fix as part of a kernel upgrade, and thence, I can not either update, or, add packages to, that computer, within that operating system installation. 1) edit /etc/default/grub, and add forcepae to the GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT parameter for example: replace GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=quiet splash by GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT=quiet splash forcepae 2) $ sudo update-grub 3) reboot 4) Ubuntu being booted in PAE mode, apt-get would probably let you upgrade your system I guess it is now just a permanent bug in Ubuntu i386, if the problem does not apply to kernels outside Ubuntu. It is not a bug in Ubuntu: it is a choice. For x86, they now support only 686 with PAE (and from what I understand, PAE support in early Celerons is deemed experimental). Hello. Thank you. Thank you for your previous clarifications. Thank you for the solution above, which worked and solved the problem. And, thank you for your patience with me. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 8/13/2015 4:58 AM, Bret Busby wrote: On 13/08/2015, didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com wrote: Le 13/08/2015 12:13, Bret Busby a écrit : i386 is 686, and not 586 ? Yes, I think that 386 Ubuntu Linux images are build with 686 instruction set compatibility. 386 meaning here x86. Anyway, you might have a way to force enabling PAE on your Celeron in Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PAE Thank you. That is how I managed to initially install the operating system. I have not tried, and, do not know how, to apply that fix as part of a kernel upgrade, and thence, I can not either update, or, add packages to, that computer, within that operating system installation. I guess it is now just a permanent bug in Ubuntu i386, if the problem does not apply to kernels outside Ubuntu. Here is the message I missed. ;) Looks like you may have missed the '-- forcepae' part of the 'forcepae -- forcepae' that signals the installer to use the forcepae option in the installed system. Or if you did upgrade the kernel previously, could still be a bug somewhere that caused the forcepae option to be lost. There is a bug report here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1307105 With instructions /Are you still booting with the forcepae option? If not, you'll need to add it./ /gksu gedit /etc/default/grub/ /Make GRUB_CMDLINE_//LINUX_DEFAULT line look like:// //GRUB_CMDLINE_//LINUX_DEFAULT=//quiet splash forcepae/ /Save. Quit. Run:// //sudo update-grub/ /Reboot and try the update again./ Later, Seeker
Re: Fvwm2. Was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Hi, Steve McIntyre wrote: http://www.einval.com/~steve/debian/fvwm2rc.example I won't follow you with the sound effects. :)) My favorite personal customization is giving the Windows keys a decent job: Key Super_L A N RaiseLower Key Super_R A N RaiseLower On a previous machine there was no name defined for the Windows keys. So i used to map it to F34 by X means: # in ~/.xinitrc : xmodmap -e keycode 115 = F34 -e keycode 116 = F34 Key F34 A N RaiseLower On Jessie i first noticed that there is no ~/.xinitrc and then that xev tells nicely usable names for the keys. Modern times. A new necessary safety precaution in my eyes is to keep xterm from being iconized as active terminal with micro font. It's a funny new gimmick but always in danger to execute inadvertedly written and unreadably small commands. So i give it the image of a 15 screen in console mode: Style XTerm Icon display.xpm A DEC VT220 with amber text on dark gray background would be even more stylish. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Dwijesh Gajadur wrote: Hello Debian users I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Please share me your experience with Debian Gnome. I haven't used either in years. I've never used GNOME 3. It won't fully run on any of my systems since none don't have 3D capability. So, it goes into fallback mode. Years ago, GNOME used to be a fairly lightweight desktop, compared to KDE anyway. Now, they are both resource hogs. XFCE is a lightweight, full-featured desktop. I chose it to run on an old Thinkpad 240x with Debian Sarge, then Etch. Worked well. No complaints. Today, I would choose LXDE. Even lighter. Just as good. But I left desktops behind a few years ago. I now just run a window manager (Openbox) and a single LXPanel with menu. Can't get much simpler. As far as stability, they all are. Never had a crash due to any Linux desktop. B
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:07:47 -0400 (EDT), Dwijesh Gajadur wrote: Hello Debian users ?? I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Please share me your experience with Debian Gnome. I used to use GNOME (GNOME 2) because it was the default desktop in Debian at that time, but I switched to XFCE when GNOME upgraded from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3. Not only is the GNOME 3 interface very different from GNOME 2, but on a number of my machines, GNOME 3 didn't even work. GNOME 3 requires 3D graphics acceleration features in the X driver, and not all video chipsets support 3D graphics acceleration. Even for chipsets that do support 3D graphics acceleration, there may not be an X driver which exploits the chip's 3D graphics acceleration capabilities, or the driver may not be installed because it is buggy or has security vulnerabilities. The machine I am using to compose this e-mail falls into that category. There is a 3D graphics acceleration driver for my chipset, but it is not installed for reasons of reliability and security. I switched to XFCE because it doesn't require 3D graphics acceleration, and I've been happy with it. Furthermore, it is designed to run applications written for the GNOME environment. The interface is similar to the GNOME 2 interface, which I am familiar with. I'll probably stick with XFCE until there is a compelling reason to change. That's my two cents worth. Take it with however many grains of salt you think it's worth. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Thu 13 Aug 2015 at 00:07:47 +0400, Dwijesh Gajadur wrote: I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. Good to know. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. Views are two a penny. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Definitely it is. You have nothing to fear. Install.
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Wed, August 12, 2015 4:29 pm, Stephen Powell wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:07:47 -0400 (EDT), Dwijesh Gajadur wrote: ... I switched to XFCE because it doesn't require 3D graphics acceleration, and I've been happy with it. Furthermore, it is designed to run applications written for the GNOME environment. The interface is similar to the GNOME 2 interface, which I am familiar with. I'll probably stick with XFCE until there is a compelling reason to change. Familiarity breeds content (as in contentment). I started with Debian fifteen years ago, and have used a variety of desktops and window managers. Most recently, when I migrated from Squeeze (old-stable) to Jessie (testing) for daily work, I installed Wheezy (stable) on the machine I use for approx and for the weekly jigdo download of testing. I did not wish to spend time configuring xfce, so I chose the default gnome desktop. Stability never was an issue for that machine (amd64). But I generally accessed the machine via ssh, and then used screen. Now and then I sat at the machine and tried the gnome user interface, but I found the new gnome uncomfortable and inefficient. I need always-visible icons on panels, not a gauntlet of menus. In computing the challenge ought be to devise a good ways to utilize a set of tools to solve problems. But gnome-sans-panels is like a chest with many drawers, the primary challenge being to find the drawer which holds the particular tool needed. So, as soon as Jessie became stable, I installed Jessie on the machine; I chose the xfce desktop, and never considered installing gnome. For my needs, xfce provides everthing which gnome provided, and more (except for the pair of eyes, which I greatly miss). But as a matter of curiosity, has the gnome on Jessie changed significantly from new gnome on Wheezy? I suppose one can get used to almost anything; after all, I remember the single-button mouse of the Macintosh. RLH
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
I had to use xfce on my old T43 although Mate would be closer to Gnome. Original Message From: Bret Busby Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 11:38 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ? On 13/08/2015, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:38:19 -0400 (EDT), Patrick Bartek wrote: I've never used GNOME 3. It won't fully run on any of my systems since none don't have 3D capability. So, it goes into fallback mode. I assume you meant to say none have 3D capability. When GNOME 3 first came out, it had a fallback mode for systems without 3D graphics acceleration capability. Fallback mode was essentially the GNOME 2 interface. I continued to use GNOME 3 in fallback mode for a while. Changing desktops is a lot of work, and I'm lazy. But eventually, GNOME 3 eliminated fallback mode. At that point, GNOME 3 became totally unusable for me. I have at least two systems without 3D graphics capability: one desktop and one laptop. I'm not sure about the others. Anyway, elimination of fallback mode from GNOME 3 forced the issue. I had to switch to something else. I did some research, and discovered that XFCE was a popular desktop with a GNOME2-like interface and was designed to accommodate applications written for GNOME. I thought it would be a relatively smooth transition for me. So I tried it. I've never looked back. XFCE is my standard desktop now. When doing new installs on new machines, I install XFCE as the desktop by selecting it as the desktop of choice in the Debian installer. If I were to start over from scratch today, I might try LXDE. But I'm happy with XFCE, and I see no compelling reason to change at this point. Maybe it would be worth having a look at ubuntu-mate.org, downloading the iso image, and running it as a live disk. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:38:19 -0400 (EDT), Patrick Bartek wrote: I've never used GNOME 3. It won't fully run on any of my systems since none don't have 3D capability. So, it goes into fallback mode. I assume you meant to say none have 3D capability. When GNOME 3 first came out, it had a fallback mode for systems without 3D graphics acceleration capability. Fallback mode was essentially the GNOME 2 interface. I continued to use GNOME 3 in fallback mode for a while. Changing desktops is a lot of work, and I'm lazy. But eventually, GNOME 3 eliminated fallback mode. At that point, GNOME 3 became totally unusable for me. I have at least two systems without 3D graphics capability: one desktop and one laptop. I'm not sure about the others. Anyway, elimination of fallback mode from GNOME 3 forced the issue. I had to switch to something else. I did some research, and discovered that XFCE was a popular desktop with a GNOME2-like interface and was designed to accommodate applications written for GNOME. I thought it would be a relatively smooth transition for me. So I tried it. I've never looked back. XFCE is my standard desktop now. When doing new installs on new machines, I install XFCE as the desktop by selecting it as the desktop of choice in the Debian installer. If I were to start over from scratch today, I might try LXDE. But I'm happy with XFCE, and I see no compelling reason to change at this point. -- .''`. Stephen Powellzlinux...@wowway.com : :' : `. `'` `-
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/2015, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:38:19 -0400 (EDT), Patrick Bartek wrote: I've never used GNOME 3. It won't fully run on any of my systems since none don't have 3D capability. So, it goes into fallback mode. I assume you meant to say none have 3D capability. When GNOME 3 first came out, it had a fallback mode for systems without 3D graphics acceleration capability. Fallback mode was essentially the GNOME 2 interface. I continued to use GNOME 3 in fallback mode for a while. Changing desktops is a lot of work, and I'm lazy. But eventually, GNOME 3 eliminated fallback mode. At that point, GNOME 3 became totally unusable for me. I have at least two systems without 3D graphics capability: one desktop and one laptop. I'm not sure about the others. Anyway, elimination of fallback mode from GNOME 3 forced the issue. I had to switch to something else. I did some research, and discovered that XFCE was a popular desktop with a GNOME2-like interface and was designed to accommodate applications written for GNOME. I thought it would be a relatively smooth transition for me. So I tried it. I've never looked back. XFCE is my standard desktop now. When doing new installs on new machines, I install XFCE as the desktop by selecting it as the desktop of choice in the Debian installer. If I were to start over from scratch today, I might try LXDE. But I'm happy with XFCE, and I see no compelling reason to change at this point. Maybe it would be worth having a look at ubuntu-mate.org, downloading the iso image, and running it as a live disk. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
On 13/08/2015, Umarzuki Mochlis umarz...@gmail.com wrote: I had to use xfce on my old T43 although Mate would be closer to Gnome. Original Message From: Bret Busby Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 11:38 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ? On 13/08/2015, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:38:19 -0400 (EDT), Patrick Bartek wrote: I've never used GNOME 3. It won't fully run on any of my systems since none don't have 3D capability. So, it goes into fallback mode. I assume you meant to say none have 3D capability. When GNOME 3 first came out, it had a fallback mode for systems without 3D graphics acceleration capability. Fallback mode was essentially the GNOME 2 interface. I continued to use GNOME 3 in fallback mode for a while. Changing desktops is a lot of work, and I'm lazy. But eventually, GNOME 3 eliminated fallback mode. At that point, GNOME 3 became totally unusable for me. I have at least two systems without 3D graphics capability: one desktop and one laptop. I'm not sure about the others. Anyway, elimination of fallback mode from GNOME 3 forced the issue. I had to switch to something else. I did some research, and discovered that XFCE was a popular desktop with a GNOME2-like interface and was designed to accommodate applications written for GNOME. I thought it would be a relatively smooth transition for me. So I tried it. I've never looked back. XFCE is my standard desktop now. When doing new installs on new machines, I install XFCE as the desktop by selecting it as the desktop of choice in the Debian installer. If I were to start over from scratch today, I might try LXDE. But I'm happy with XFCE, and I see no compelling reason to change at this point. Maybe it would be worth having a look at ubuntu-mate.org, downloading the iso image, and running it as a live disk. Since you have mentioned an old system, I should perhaps mention that apparently, Linux has abandoned support for Celeron CPU's, as, having installed ubuntu-mate 15.09 on my HP/Compaq NX5000 which has a Celeron CPU, and the associated and subsequent problems, I have found that the Celeron CPU's are apparently no longer supported by Linux, as the kernels are incompatible with the Celeron CPU - a non-PAE issue, apparently. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Hello Debian users I am currently a Debian Jessie XFCE user. I want to have your views on Gnome VS XFCE. I want to try Gnome but I want to know if Gnome is stable and works constantly without freezing and crashing. Please share me your experience with Debian Gnome. With Kind Regards, Dwijesh
