Re: Won't complete bootup (gdm3 problem?)
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 12:44 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> If you want to avoid GNOME then I would install either 'xdm' or
> 'lightdm' and then install 'xfce4'. It is much more likely to operate
> correctly and successfully.
Confirmed!
LightDM + Xfce does cause less issues on all distros I tested. I try to
replace Xfce, because it has got some weak points, but I still recommend
Xfce and I don't know if I'll find a DE to replace it, maybe I stay with
Xfce.
GNOME3, Mate, and Cinnamon are no-gos. I suspect Enlightenment will be a
no-go forever too, but I have given up to test it again. If you don't
have high standards, just use a WM or Fluxbox, Ion or something that
lightweight. I'm testing KDE4 again and I also perhaps will take a look
at LXDE again.
My problems with large DEs, such as GNOME and KDE is, that while all DEs
have weak points, the heavy weight DEs like GNOME and KDE tend to make
dependencies hard dependencies, that should be optional and they are so
huge that it's hard to find a culprit, if something does annoy you. A
small DE usually has more optional, than hard dependencies and if
something is bad, it's easy to find and remove.
An example of such a thing that annoys me is a buggy virtual file
thingy. For Xfce it was easy to find and to remove the HDD killer. GVFS
does wake up "green" drives again and again. The same HDD killer is used
by GNOME, but for GNOME it's not an optional, but a hard dependency, so
it's a little bit more work to remove it. KDE has got such a HDD killer
too, but I still need to find it. If I should know what does kill the
HDDs (KIO, Nepomuk or whatever else), then it might be a hard
dependency, maybe easy, but perhaps impossible to remove.
Everything with GTK/GNOME dependencies has got a huge risk to fail. GTK2
is ok, but asking to switch to GTK3 and then the fun begins. each update
then will be a lottery.
Reply to: