If you have to pick only one Desktop Environment and use it till your computer breaks, what would you choose?
-
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.
-
It’s wild to me how GNOME evokes such strong opinions in folks. It really is a love it or hate it kind of deal (I’m in the “love it” camp).
I wonder why that is. I like KDE ok, but it doesn’t 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.
-
For those of us that expect room to breathe and make our machine work for us rather than the other way around, we feel like Gnome takes a lot of liberties away for the sake of "simplicity." There is so much missing from Gnome that is present in most other DEs and even custom WM setups.
The primary contributors who work under The Gnome Foundation also come off as controlling and arrogant in a lot of cases, and refuse to take community feedback to heart, whereas KDE has literal summits to get user feedback on major core features we want to see which then later get added to their backlogs and sprints as Epics. Gnome acts a lot like Apple in the sense that they're very much "we know what's best for you better than you do."
Now, the singular area I can give Gnome true props in is their accessibility functionality, but that's primarily it. KDE's accessibility is fairly behind by about a decade in comparison.
That's just my take, take it as you will.
-
Use Mate. It is based on the old Gnome 2
-
Glad KDE has been putting major efforts over recent years into improving stability instead of just adding features.
I mean, they added a ton of features, especially minor or niche ones, but a lot of amazing ones like KDEConnect too.
But what makes KDE the best is that the features don't get in the way of core functionality anymore, the basic DE is always safe and they generally layer stuff on such that it doesn't break anything.
So basically the opposite of most of modern software nowadays.
-
Why not use steam or arch if it's just fucking around? Arch you can at least configure easily.
I'm starting to goof around with Arch and if I turn into an "I use Arch, btw" I'm blaming you
-
I'm starting to goof around with Arch and if I turn into an "I use Arch, btw" I'm blaming you
I deserve that. But you don't deserve to be locked into any off shoot.
-
System shared this topic on
