If you have to pick only one Desktop Environment and use it till your computer breaks, what would you choose?
-
I know Gnome is the default on popular distros: Fedora, Ubuntu, Rhel, Pop OS (it's Cosmic Desktop yes but it is still based on Gnome)...etc. But Gnome just doesnt work for me. I would pick XFCE - stable and no BS.
Before Manjaro and their cetificate shenanigan, I used to use their XFCE version. At the time, it was marketed as the "Flagship Manjaro version". I went 4 years without any problems and I did tinker a lot, just couldnt get their XFCE to break.
After a tough Arch or Gentoo installs, I just want to put XFCE on and call it a day.
What about you guys?
KDE, always
Used it since I switched to the Linux Desktop 25 years ago. Quickly tried gnome, and others, and hated it.
KDE is fast, efficient, looks awesome, is ready to work with, and highly customizable
-
I know Gnome is the default on popular distros: Fedora, Ubuntu, Rhel, Pop OS (it's Cosmic Desktop yes but it is still based on Gnome)...etc. But Gnome just doesnt work for me. I would pick XFCE - stable and no BS.
Before Manjaro and their cetificate shenanigan, I used to use their XFCE version. At the time, it was marketed as the "Flagship Manjaro version". I went 4 years without any problems and I did tinker a lot, just couldnt get their XFCE to break.
After a tough Arch or Gentoo installs, I just want to put XFCE on and call it a day.
What about you guys?
-
Oh yeah for sure. I think if Gnome works for people they should use it. I'm not stoked on the situation of Gnome Extensions being needed for some pretty basic customisations, adding instability to the DE though.
Plenty of people just don't have the brain capacity to read settings or multitask and that's fine. If that works for them, good for them.
-
which desktop env tho? Cinnamon?
Yes, Mint Cinnamon. Weird combination of names tho, I don't even want to think about combining those flavors.
-
I know Gnome is the default on popular distros: Fedora, Ubuntu, Rhel, Pop OS (it's Cosmic Desktop yes but it is still based on Gnome)...etc. But Gnome just doesnt work for me. I would pick XFCE - stable and no BS.
Before Manjaro and their cetificate shenanigan, I used to use their XFCE version. At the time, it was marketed as the "Flagship Manjaro version". I went 4 years without any problems and I did tinker a lot, just couldnt get their XFCE to break.
After a tough Arch or Gentoo installs, I just want to put XFCE on and call it a day.
What about you guys?
-
I'm a long time supporter of Xfce, but I have to say Cinnamon these days. It's light on resources while being feature rich. Also it's the default on Mint and it just works.
I use XFCE, but I like Cinnamon too. I use Nemo and Xed instead of Thunar and...whatever.
-
Bro watches videos through ASCII conversion in the cli
TBH, I've always wanted to do this.
-
it's probably gonna be plasma6 by a hair over cinnamon on a rolling distribution. as much as people shit on manjaro here and on that other site, it has never broke on me--whether i update constantly or let it go 2-3 months between them.
but if the de and the underlying os are magically compatible, and those and programs kept up to date, never obsolete, and new ones appear for it as needed or desired... then sorry, it won't be linux... i'm going back to something like 95osr2, 98se or w2k.
W2k was the best.
-
i3
best tiling on XI am absolutely with you about i3. Simply great (there is also dwm or qtile)! But it is a WM, not a DE, what OP asked about.
-
I am absolutely with you about i3. Simply great (there is also dwm or qtile)! But it is a WM, not a DE, what OP asked about.
fair
xfce+i3 i guess
-
The most popular de is no good
Baffling
ya totally
-
fair
xfce+i3 i guess
You mean switching between the DE xfce and the WM i3wm, right? Yep, this works and it can indeed make life sometimes easier to have a DE and a WM aside each other.
-
You mean switching between the DE xfce and the WM i3wm, right? Yep, this works and it can indeed make life sometimes easier to have a DE and a WM aside each other.
yeah, basically just running xfce but replacing xfwm4 with i3
i was kinda surprised how well it worked tbh, i had been using i3 on it's own for like a year before i tried it -
yeah, basically just running xfce but replacing xfwm4 with i3
i was kinda surprised how well it worked tbh, i had been using i3 on it's own for like a year before i tried itOh, I did not know about the possibility of replacing xfwm4 with i3. I too am using i3 for some years and like a lot to have a clean surface which facilitates focussing on my tasks. However, never thought about integrating it in a DE.
-
I know Gnome is the default on popular distros: Fedora, Ubuntu, Rhel, Pop OS (it's Cosmic Desktop yes but it is still based on Gnome)...etc. But Gnome just doesnt work for me. I would pick XFCE - stable and no BS.
Before Manjaro and their cetificate shenanigan, I used to use their XFCE version. At the time, it was marketed as the "Flagship Manjaro version". I went 4 years without any problems and I did tinker a lot, just couldnt get their XFCE to break.
After a tough Arch or Gentoo installs, I just want to put XFCE on and call it a day.
What about you guys?
-
Was on KDE 2, KDE 3 was absolutely incredible, ran it on Mac when it was supported on xquartz.
4 was a mess, but got better, 5 & 6 are fine, but it's overall far better than any other DE, it's just so customizable, the only other thing that comes close is xmonad or something.
-
Gnome has the apple philosophy that the user conforms to technology, not the other way around.
Apple actually had good visionaries and design decisions, sometimes.
Never been a fan of apple's hardware decisions, but their software is routinely state-of-the-art even to this day.
They value treating the user like a human instead of a programmer. GNOME values removing as many features as possible to make their jobs easier.
-
Plenty of people just don't have the brain capacity to read settings or multitask and that's fine. If that works for them, good for them.
-
Agreed. I used to be a diehard XFCE fan and hated KDE. Then I saw their resource usage came pretty close to each other but KDE had way more development behind it so they could add Wayland support (which I actually don't even use.)
KDE used to be buggy and bloated. They've been improving stability for years and their efforts really show. I used to think it was bloated, but it really isn't if you only use the parts you need. I use it pretty similarly to XFCE, it just has more dev support.
-
Itâs wild to me how GNOME evokes such strong opinions in folks. It really is a love it or hate it kind of deal (Iâm in the âlove itâ camp).
I wonder why that is. I like KDE ok, but it doesnât elicit a strong emotion from me. KDE works fine, I just really like GNOME.
There must be something about GNOME in particular that some people love, and others hate.
Personally, I'm disgusted by the "matter of fact" tone GNOME devs take to criticism only to be wrong in the end.
It's like, they did their heels in so deep on dumb shit like "the dock should be on the side because vertical space is at a premium!" Literally whoever is floating ideas like that on their team needs to be fired and blacklisted, but unfortunately they're probably promoted.
