I used to run F-15 LXDE on my notebook. the LXDE Panel was 0.56. I had so many issues with it on my system, I had to install the XFCE panel, and a few other XFCE dependencies (e.g. Thunar). I am not running a light LXDE DE anymore, which I miss.
How about F-17 LXDE? Are the panel bugs fixed? And what's the minimum RAM requirement?
If the F-17 LXDE feedback is good, I will give it a try. If the panel is still so problematic on some machines, I will install the XFCE Spin this time.
Thank you.
Hi,
the best place for your questions is the Fedora LXDE mailinglist at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/lxde - but I'm going to respond to your questions here nevertheless. :)
Am Donnerstag, den 31.05.2012, 17:29 +0900 schrieb nomnex:
I used to run F-15 LXDE on my notebook. the LXDE Panel was 0.56. I had so many issues with it on my system, I had to install the XFCE panel, and a few other XFCE dependencies (e.g. Thunar). I am not running a light LXDE DE anymore, which I miss.
For the record: There was not much for me to do as your issues were rare and hard to reproduce.
How about F-17 LXDE? Are the panel bugs fixed?
F15 had 0.5.6 as latest version, F17 comes with 0.5.8. I just built 0.5.9 for all branches from F15-rawhide. Please test it.
And what's the minimum RAM requirement?
According to the release notes it is still 768 MB [1]. I am a little surprised because I thought that it was just an anaconda bug in F16 that cause this high requirement and I expected that bug to be fixed. Seems that did not happen, but IIRC it should install on 640 MB, too.
If the F-17 LXDE feedback is good, I will give it a try. If the panel is still so problematic on some machines, I will install the XFCE Spin this time.
Long story short: The panel has improved but is still buggy. Please give the F17 spins a try, update it completely and if you are still unhappy, you can switch to Xfce easily with yum and without re-installing.
Kind regards, Christoph
[1] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/17/html/Release_Notes/sect-Releas...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 23:58:43 +0200, Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com wrote:
According to the release notes it is still 768 MB [1]. I am a little surprised because I thought that it was just an anaconda bug in F16 that cause this high requirement and I expected that bug to be fixed. Seems that did not happen, but IIRC it should install on 640 MB, too.
I have done installs with only 512 MiB available for 17 prior to release and they worked. I had to turn off memory size checking at the time. I don't know that this was tested well enough to be sure it would always work, but I did hear a few other people say there were able to install with only 512 MiB.
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Christoph Wickert -
nomnex