I wouldn’t recommend installing a distro just to install a different DE. IMHO, you should be fine with cinnamon. I’m using Linux Mint 21.3 with cinnamon on an x201 (Thinkpad released in 2010), though I did up the RAM to the 8GB max. However, if you want XFCE, is there a reason you don’t want to use Linux Mint 21.3 with XFCE? If that’s no good for you, I’d recommend finding a distro that fits most of your needs right out of the box, maybe Peppermint Linux or MX Linux?
However, if you want XFCE, is there a reason you don’t want to use Linux Mint 21.3 with XFCE?
I’m still unsure about the differences: LMDE is based on debian, the OS I now use the most, whereas LM (linux mint) is based on ubuntu. Several posters have argued that LMDE, like debian, is barebones, whereas LM is ideal for an end user with not much idea about linux, but my main issue is speed: I don’t want the notebook to be painfully slow: this is a notebook with an Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz (2 cores, 4 threads) with 8 GB RAM and installing and upgrading on xubuntu 23.10 was already really, painfully slow.
I either save on resources using a lightweight DE like xfce or using a barebones OS like LMDE
I also want to future proof it as much as possible, which would mean using the OS/DE that uses less resources.
this is a notebook with an Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz (2 cores, 4 threads) with 8 GB RAM and installing and upgrading on xubuntu 23.10 was already really, painfully slow.
Have you put an SSD in there, or are you still running on spinning rust? In my experience, even a cheap SSD will make a huge difference.
Several posters have argued that LMDE, like debian, is barebones, whereas LM is ideal for an end user with not much idea about linux
I believe I’m the only one in the previous post that used the term. But, I believe a misunderstanding has occurred. Debian, plain old Debian, is (relatively) bare-bones. And with this, I mean that extra tooling and what not is absent. Sure, these extra tooling etc come at the cost of what some might regard as bloat. But, ultimately, its absence should not affect performance in any significant way (so not positively, nor negatively). Thus, LMDE and Linux Mint are actually pretty close to one another. LMDE is basically just Linux Mint (Cinnamon edition) but with a Debian base instead of being based on Ubuntu.
I also want to future proof it as much as possible, which would mean using the OS/DE that uses less resources.
Excellent OP. Thank you for providing this insight on what’s important for you. With this information we’ll be able to offer better help. So, as you’ve excellently noticed already, Xfce is pretty good if you want a very functional machine that doesn’t suck a lot of resources. So, I totally support your decision for Xfce over Cinnamon as Xfce is simply less resource intensive. However, 8 GB of RAM should be pretty fine. Even GNOME should run wonderfully on 8 GB of RAM, so Cinnamon should not cause any troubles. But, if you’ve still got concerns and if you’re already on an SSD, then continue using Xfce as it’s otherwise one of the better DEs out there. But, if you’re not on an SSD yet, then consider slipping one inside; it will matter a lot.
Regarding your actual query, installing Xfce in retrospect to LMDE should work, but you might get yourself into more trouble than it’s worth. Therefore, I’d advice you to simply get Linux Mint Xfce Edition and call it a day. Going for the Edge ISO (which by default comes with Cinnamon) for the latest (and greatest) kernel and retroactively trying to setup Xfce should (once again) cause you more troubles than it’s worth it. So, in the end, I’d like to recommend you either Linux Mint Xfce Edition or MX Linux (which is based on Debian Stable (so not Ubuntu) and actually defaults to Xfce). Honestly, they’re mostly two flavors/interpretations that try to accomplish very similar goals. So, you should be fine with either one of the two.
Out of curiosity, what’s the issue with installing a different DE?
There doesn’t necessarily have to be an issue. Heck, this simple operation (i.e. installing an additional DE on an existing system) works pretty fine on Arch/Debian etc.
However, as Linux Mint (and its family/brand of related distros) are designed/setup/opinionated in a certain way with a specific scope/vision, just installing Xfce on top of Linux Mint (proper/regular) doesn’t just give you Linux Mint Xfce Edition; you can try this out for yourself if you’d want to. Instead, you get something that looks more akin to Ubuntu with Xfce installed and some Linux Mint tools. Similarly, installing Xfce on top of LMDE doesn’t give you a proper LMDE Xfce edition. Which, to be fair, isn’t the worst thing out there and I’m pretty sure that someone out there will be pretty happy with it. But, one might also argue (as I certainly am) that, instead of that amalgamation (read: FrankenDebian), one would simply be better off with the Linux Mint Xfce Edition for which the ISO can be acquired directly from the Linux Mint team.
model is a MacBook Pro, Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz, model A1502 (EMC 2875), Retina Mid-2014 13" with an embedded SSD
Incidentally, I got the notebook as a present, got rid of mac OS and installed xubuntu 23.10 on it. Some mac OS users mean this company deliberately slows down old computers so users feel compelled to buy something newer. Can it be that’s why this notebook is so slow? I didn’t do anything fancy to install xubuntu, just used the whole space to install from a usb stick so I wonder if some residual software is still present.
model is a MacBook Pro, Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz, model A1502 (EMC 2875), Retina Mid-2014 13" with an embedded SSD
Unfortunately, I don’t have any first-hand experience with this device. But, I do own the following potato; an Acer laptop with Intel Celeron, 2GB of RAM and no SSD from 2014-2016. And while the experience is pretty bad (on Zorin OS lite), it does its job as a backup laptop every once in a while. Compared to this potato, your device should be a lot more capable. So, either your expectations are off. Or, there’s something legitimately wrong with the hardware found on the device. Have you done any benchmarks to see if they work as expected?
Some mac OS users mean this company deliberately slows down old computers so users feel compelled to buy something newer. Can it be that’s why this notebook is so slow?
Slowing down of devices is AFAIK done (un)intentionally through updates. In a lot of cases either some functionality is removed post release for security reasons or (through technological advancements) more is expected from your average device and hence older devices fail to compete. I don’t think you should suspect anything else. Nonetheless, as previously alluded to, maybe some hardware failure is the cause.
I didn’t do anything fancy to install xubuntu, just used the whole space to install from a usb stick so I wonder if some residual software is still present.
This description of the installation seems fine. If it makes you feel better, you could consider deleting all partitions through something like GParted. But, usually, no residual software should be left behind.
That’s weird, I have a laptop that probably even weaker (Pentium 2020M with 4 GB of RAM) that used to run Ubuntu fairly ok until about 4 years ago (but it has a SSD).
It’s now running Manjaro pretty well, just can’t compile some Rust-based apps because it runs out of RAM. 😄 But I get them from Flatpak instead.
If Ubuntu went off the rails during these last few years it’s a pity. Anyway, it should not be indicative of how well Linux runs on such a machine, just try another distro.
Some mac OS users mean this company deliberately slows down old computers so users feel compelled to buy something newer. Can it be that’s why this notebook is so slow? I didn’t do anything fancy to install xubuntu, just used the whole space to install from a usb stick so I wonder if some residual software is still present.
The specific distro doesn’t really matter. What matters is package choice (being able to do the few things you listed with the apps you would like to use). I guess if you’re among the Debian evangelists you probably value stability more than any other consideration. Just pick some server distro or Debian again.
Just a suggestion…if you’ve enabled disk encryption during installation, consider enabling autologin for SDDM so you’re not having to enter two credentials at boot. You’ll rarely ever see your greeter again, so it won’t really matter which theme is used.
And if you did not enable disk encryption, consider doing so as the security and privacy benefits are significant for most users.
i do have encryption enabled as security was one of the main reasons i moved to linux. however im going to keep autologin disabled as i like requiring a password after waking from sleep.
No worries, the screen should always lock after sleep or idle regardless of SDDM. KDE uses a separate kscreenlocker app for that functionality once your desktop session has started. It’s worth noting the kscreenlocker doesn’t rely on the SDDM theme in any way, as the two are completely separate processes. So, your lock screen will always match your active KDE theme.
You got a Debian vm in all Chromebooks, so any of them with stylus support should do. However I didn’t try if the Debian VM supports the stylus. Try google it. You could stil replace ChromeOS with any Linux distro If necessary
It’s sort of annoying that they removed that feature in the first place. Recently, I’ve been using the Nala frontend for APT, since it maintains history similar to DNF/yum, so I try to install all packages through the command-line. The Ubuntu App Center has always been a mild disaster…
After being talked about for years of DRM panic handling and coming with a “Blue Screen of Death” solution for DRM/KMS drivers, Linux 6.10 is introducing a new DRM panic handler infrastructure for being able to display a message when a panic occurs.
With Linux 6.10 the initial DRM Panic code has landed as well as wiring up the DRM/KMS driver support for the SimpleDRM, MGAG200, IMX, and AST drivers.
For those curious what DRM Panic can look like in action, Red Hat engineer Javier Martinez Canillas shared a photo of the DRM Panic “Blue Screen of Death” in action.
A BeaglePlay single board computer was used and Javier posted to Mastodon of an example implementation:
It could be extended in the future with some operating systems having looked at QR codes for kernel error messages and other efforts for presenting more technical information while still being user-friendly.
On Linux 6.10+ with platforms having the DRM Panic driver support, this “Blue Screen of Death” functionality can be tested via a route such as echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger.
The original article contains 231 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 23%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Been following the wiki, but when I try to flash for root partition, I get “data too large” . I’ve tried to wipe everything with TWRP, but it still shows the same error. Not sure how to proceed next.
Glad you found it easily. It’s not hard to do but you need to follow the guide exactly and be cautious. Unless it changed, the script was taking care of almost everything as I remember.
It’s not just about the verification/reproducibility, these random ass .deb files sometimes don’t have proper dependency information and/or repository support. So it may work for now and might stop working on the future when some library upgrades on your system. Or even worse, they may fucking block system library upgrades leaving you insecure at worst and out of support at best.
It is not informative yet, but I like that it’s blue. It’s a quite recognizable color. Windows made it recognizable by having a lot of BSODs. People are asking why it couldn’t be just black, but with non-black BSOD one can recognize it instantly without reading the text.
Just for reference, a few years back, (ex-Microsoft) David Plummer had this historical dive into the (MIPS) origin of the blue color, and how Windows is not blue anymore: youtu.be/KgqJJECQQH0?t=780
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.