Slashdot Mirror

And it doesn't have all the hideous widgets from Gtk based WMs. They sure are ugly.

Au Contraire! My favorite Window Manager, XFCE, shows how a GTK+ Window Manager can be created while still looking beautiful.

I originally chose XFCE because it had low memory requirements and had much of the same polish that existed in CDE. At the time, neither KDE or GNOME had both features. (I'd go as far as to say that GNOME had neither.) Since I first started using it, though, XFCE has become more attractive and even more polished with time. It probably won't run as well on a 16MB P120 as the original versions, but it would probably give GNOME and KDE a good run on a 64MB machine.

FWIW, I do like how far GNOME and KDE have come. GNOME can feel very pleasent to work in, but only if the distro preconfigures it correctly. The default installation is crap.

KDE, OTOH, is more beautiful than ever. It's applications are solid, its installation easy, and its capabilities top notch. It's just too bad that they've never worked the kinks out of that "too much cluttered 3D" feel it has.

I don't use slackware, or gnome, or kde, but I was a hardcore flux/fvwm user, until I found XFCE Just the good parts of a DE, without every single application in the world with a stupid gui and a G/K stuck on the front

There are way more UI's than XP/KDE/Gnome. What about the MacOSX UI? Or Enlightenment? or XFCE, the list goes on...

As if they wouldn't be using xfce :-)

You may want to try xffm from the Xfce4 desktop environment... or just completely ditch GNOME for Xfce4.2 as I did.

http://www.xfce.org/

There's options, you know. XFCE 4 is a "Gnome-lite" desktop enviroment, but i find it more confortable to use than Gnome itself, never mind much, much, MUCH more bloatless. It's been my desktop of choice for a year now, and i don't see myself going back.

Gnome is nice, but (atleast in this particular topic), Eugenia has a point. We keep hearing how Gnome focuses on usability and user-friendliness and then they come up with stuff like those awful file dialogs, or the damn bloat, which makes the system crawl running a few apps.

I haven't tried Gnome for a couple of version revisions now, but XFCE gives me what i want and does the job fine.

I didn't notice it at first, but part of the reason the ClearLooks screenshot is so appealing is the presence of dropshadows. Subtle, but definatly pleasing.

Just get your X server up to snuff and you can enjoy them too....

[May or may not be useful....]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2001 -December/msg00107.html
http://www.xfce.org/gtkmenu-shadow/
http://www.gnome-look.org/

Seriously, those screenshots (640x480, are we back in the Win 3.1 days?) look like crap. C'mon, GTK+ can look damn nice, why the hell do they use those blocky themes?

I'm kinda disenchanted with GNOME these days.

I know I should not feed the trolls, but I can inform you that Xfce works very well on OpenBSD, and so does KDE. If only Firefox could render Slashdot properly, but that is not an OpenBSD problem ;-)

I use Gnome on my Debian machine and KDE on my Suse machine. Both are b-apt-ized with the sources.

But honestly, I am more productive with KDE than with Gnome. Gnome can be a pain in the arse. I've listed a few of my quirks below.

Nautilus:
In the folder tree (left window), try moving or renaming a folder. You can't. You have click on it's parent folder and scroll down in the right window and find it to move/rename it.
Konquerer in KDE works fine.

Gnome Clipboard Manager (I know, it's not part of the Gnome project...):
Copy and pasting between GTK1/2 and Qt apps while GCM is enabled total screws up your "highlighted" and "copied" clipboards.
Klipper in KDE has never screwed up my clipboard.

Gedit:
In this Gnome 2.10 screenshot example (http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-10/images/ged it-hilite-full.png) gedit is syntax hightlighting an html file. Gedit can even do Java and Perl files. But, It can't syntax highlight simple sh/bash files? I don't understand that.
Kate/Krite in KDE syntax highlights just fine and cleverly adds an expand/collapse icon to your for/while loops.

(I have lots more, but I'll stop there before I piss someone off ;) I don't want to start a KDE/Gnome flame war... And, yes, I am aware of the whole GTK vs Qt licensing problem...)

One excuse I've been told is that Gnome is designed to be a more minimal Desktop. Then why not just use XFCE? It the best (and fastest) minimal GTK based Desktop I've ever used:
http://www.xfce.org/index.php?page=users_screensho ts&lang=en

Sometimes I think that the Gnome development team is trying so hard not to be like KDE (or even like Windows) it's development is being hindered.

Am I being rude or too honest?

-Joe

7*8*9*19*5783
http://www.thehumorarchives.com/attachment_files/w arning.jpg

I've been watching XFCE development from the sidelines for ~2 yrs.

The 4.2 releases I tried were extremely impressive, except for one little (big?) thing I couldn't get resolved.

I can't pull up the main menu or window list w/the keyboard.

Here's the baffling response I received on the XFCE forum.

I'm sure they'll get it figured out someday, but I'm a keyboard shortcut-aholic, so until they do, I'll be watching from the sidelines.

here's the installer

Go the their website and check out the flash demos

I want to stress here there are very significant changes here in our 4.2.0 release of Xfce.

I know that sometimes Slashdotters complain that "every little release" of many Open Source applications is documented on the front page, but this one really deserves it.

Be sure to take a look at http://www.xfce.org/release_notes/4.2.0_changelog. html

We added so many great features and improvements that it's impossible to list them all here. Thanks to Slashdot editors for approving the post!

-

To anyone who thinks this sounds like the best alternative to the bloated KDE and Gnome, it is. Go the their website and check out the flash demos. They show how well (and how fast) it works better than any description. The window manager has about a bazillion styles from simple to extreme. If you want to compile it yourself, the graphical installers are fabulous. Translations into 40 languages! Xfce simply rocks.

Then you'll find xfce usable :

What is Xfce 4.2 ?
Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for unix-like operating systems. It aims to be fast and lightweight, while still being visually appealing and easy to use.
Xfce 4.2 embodies the traditional UNIX philosophy of modularity and re-usability. It consists of a number of components that together provide the full functionality of the desktop environment. They are packaged separately and you can pick and choose from the available packages to create the best personal working environment.
Another priority of Xfce 4 is adhereance to standards, specifically those defined at freedesktop.org.

On an older laptop I use xfce because KDE/Gnome has such a long time to load.

http://www.us.xfce.org/archive/xfce-4.2.0/src/xfde sktop-4.2.0.tar.gz

Install XFCE, and then try to tell me that GTK2 is slow.

Just ditch GNOME altogheter and go for XFCE 4. Looks like Gnome, smells like Gnome, but without the unnecesary crud and bloat. It's growing to be an excellent DE, lightweight and to the point.

• Much smaller download
• Lower memory usage, responsive UI (ideal on P2, P3)
• Very simple to use, but powerful enough for most power users

It doesn't look too bad either ;-) My only complaint is with the file manager, so I use Xfe/Xwc instead. It comes in Fedora Core 3 if you don't already have a Linux distro installed.

Ideally, I think that such a system should be loaded with a real Linux distrobution. Then it would be a lot better.

By the way, anyone who thinks that you need a fucking kick-ass gaming system just to run OOo is wrong!! My desktop system is 566MHz with 256MB RAM, and my laptop is a 133MHz Pentium with 80MB!! Both of them run Slackware with X and XFCE just fine. (And yes, OpenOffice.org runs on both quite nicely, even with huge documents and several other programs running.) The specs for my systems are available here.

Honestly, I think that the only reason the Wal-Mart systems seem so slow is because everyone's used to Micro$oft and Lin$pire $tandard$ ...

XPDE, for one.

Mind, it's got the uncanny valley problem after a fashion. It looks, sometimes a lot, like WinXP. But it's decidedly different in subtle (and not so subtle) ways. In balance, I'd think the result is more unsettling rather than less. You're better off with an environment that uses familiar motifs, but doesn't just ape another model.

There are a large number of desktops for Linux, and most of them are highly themable. KDE and GNOME are probably the leaders, and both are highly themeable. I found XFCE4 is really popular among kids (6-18), and prefer WindowMaker myself: clean, configurable, light, stable, and out of my face.

I'd much rather see a truly modular system, so the the user is free to pick and choose a window manager, a file manager, a browser, a messenger etc. and have them all play nice together, regardless of whether they are part of KDE or GNOME or standalone projects.

I agree, that's exactly why I use xfce. For instance, I didn't like the default taskbar that comes with xfce. Its lacking in functionality, you can't even right-click on a task to minimize, close, etc. So, I just edited the startxfce4 script, commented out the entry for xftaskbar, and added an entry for gnome-panel. It even uses the gtk theme I've selected through xfce.

And the file manager that comes with xfce is... ugh... weird. So, I just use ROX-Filer. Works great with xfce.

If you like icons on your desktop, you can use iDesk. Its really really flexible. I have icons for various directories and devices on my desktop, single-left-click to open it in ROX, single-right-click to open in in an xterm. It can do a buttload of other stuff too.

In case anybody is interested, this is my setup: xfce 4, ROX-Filer (I think the link is http://rox.sourceforge.net/ but it seems to be down at the moment...), gnome-panel, xfwm, and iDesk. And it runs relatively fast on my old 366mhz laptop which is a huge plus.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread, I really like KDE as well.

FWIW, I like the NeXT UI but I'd have to say that it's still not as good as the CDE. The implimentation that Xfce has made is increadably good.

I don't see the logic behind dropping support for GNOME when considering the two primary purposes people use it: 1) Uses less resources than KDE

If you are low on resources, neither KDE or Gnome is an option if you care about speed. I use KDE on my desktop, but for my elderly PII laptop, I use XFCE that is much less resource hungry.

XFCE 4.2 Beta 1 was released a week ago. It still has some quirks, but overall quite nice. A great improvement over 4.0.6 (stable)!

Worth a look if you like GTK, but don't like the bloat of GNOME. Or if you like Fluxbox, but want something with more eyecandy.

You'd be looking for XFCE then.

XFCE is a powerful but lightweight UI for both older systems and 'power-user' implementations.

Both Gnome and KDE lead the way for moder UI implementations on *nixes and as such require modern hardware to go with them (in general).

Having said that, I've just installed KDE on a second user 1.7GHz Celeron M laptop with a piddling (by modern standards) 128MB ram and it positively flies! - No complaints here.

I wouldn't switch, because I'm perfectly happy with GNOME running on a Linux kernel.

OSX is really pretty. But GNOME is pretty enough for me. I love the clean, tidy look, and the antialiased fonts. And I have chosen a desktop theme that I like.

OSX is really stable. So is GNOME.

If you want to try out GNOME, the best way is to install Ubuntu Linux on a spare computer. (It doesn't have to be a brand-new computer, but the older and funkier the computer is, the greater the chance of a problem.)

The easiest way to try out GNOME is to get a Gnoppix CD. You boot from this CD and it will run GNOME on a Linux kernel, without touching your hard disk in any way. So you don't risk your data. And by the way, this makes a great disaster recovery tool, even if you are a Windows user and you aren't ready to switch yet.

I'll bet there is someone writing a "KDE works for me" posting right now too. KDE is also a good environment, although I personally prefer GNOME. To try out KDE, you could get a Knoppix CD. This works the same way as Gnoppix (and in fact Gnoppix was derived from Knoppix, not the other way around).

In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce, whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX.

steveha

Slower in what context? Gnome vs KDE vs the Windows DE? If you want a faster destop, you can use Fluxbox, XFCE, etc. A heavyweight DE takes serious resources, if you wanna play, you gotta pay.

I partially agree with your statement about not needing to tweak services, when I installed FC2 recently there was a boatload of unnecessary services (which are part of the base install) running by default. On the other hand, if you choose to install a server (Apache, Postfix, etc) running the service by default is only logical. Hey, if you didn't want to run it, why did you install it? :)

• X with dropshadows (from the article)
• Old X which shipped with Red Hat 5.0
• Windows 95
• Windows XP
• Mac OS X

Where the Linux desktop really shines, however, is when it comes to customization. I prefer to operate in a very Windows-like manner, with maximized windows and taskbar. KDE allows me to do that (and gives me a nice launcher command bar with autocompletion - I haven't used the "start" menu in ages). Some want a nice file manger - KDE gives you Konqueror, GNOME gives you Nautilus. Others prefer doing everything in the shell, where you can use Midnight Commander and feel like you're back in the old DOS days.

Some want virtual desktops or virtual screens (larger than the physical screen size). Any decent window manager provides that. Some want a very efficient, slim system - they use something like Windowmaker or XFCE. Others want all the bells and whistles and install KDE or GNOME with lots of applets. Some like to experiment with innovative new UIs and try out window managers like ion. Others are happy just using a cloned Windows or Mac interface.

If you're willing to experiment, no system offers you as many possibilities as Linux. If you just want a clean, working desktop, all the major distro makers provide that by now.

There's room to improvement, and the devil is in the details: clipboard interoperability is still buggy and incomplete, performance in some areas can be improved (try resizing your window very fast with content visible), the driver situation is unsatisfactory etc. But none of the problems before us is unsolvable. It's just a matter of time.

Honestly I'm getting a bit tired of this march towards boring copied GUIs that only half-work. I mean, KDE is becoming almost unusable with all the crap in the menu and little parts and whatnot. I mean, I suppose it's nice for new users but I really don't like it.

That's why I went with the little mouse.

No disrespect to the GNOME and KDE hackers, but it's good to have choices. The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.

Anybody who still hasn't settled on a wm, take this advice: try xfce. It's fast, it's customizable, it's simple, but it still feels like a desktop environment, not just a window manager like fluxbox. It's the middle ground between the two huge desktop envirnments and the dozens of ultra-lightweight window managers.

It's gnome without the bloat.

Xfce4 is built with GTK2, so it will display pretty antialiased fonts. It already has an Enlightenment-ish desktop root menu and pagers, and it can be easily configured to behave more like E as well. For example, you can turn off the taskbar and replace it with an iconbox. In my experience, Xfce4 is quite stable, and it doesn't seem to hog system resources, either.

Try xfce. A lightweight desktop environment.

>I was a bit taken aback that the install ran slower >then windows 2k on my celeron 400.
>When i say slower, i mean that browsing the web >took longer and programs took longer to load and >execute. Windows took longer to move around the >screen. Menus took longer to "pop up." Basic stuff,
>really.

I've got the release of KDE that came with RedHat 9, and I will say that it has gradually been winning me over, lately. Konqueror is a very useful file manager when in twin-pane mode, and Konsole also makes my life a lot easier.

That said, one thing I have noticed is somewhat poor performance on slower machines, and even on my own setup (Celeron 1.7, 512 Mb ram) things can get a bit choppy at times. I would tend to conclude that KDE is built primarily for aesthetics and secondly for functionality, with efficiency being a fair way down on the list of priorities.

If you're sufficiently computer literate that a few less frills won't bother you, I'd recommend Fluxbox, a smaller and lighter window manager which from what I've seen has become rather popular with the LFS crowd in particular. XFce is another possible choice, and personally I've always been a huge fan of Enlightenment. E can be a bit slow initially, though...you'll need to turn off some of the more frivolous additions such as the desktop micro-window and so on, but I used to run that on a Celeron 400 myself and had no problems.

I didn't used to like KDE at all I will confess, but I've learned recently that it does have it's place. Resource efficiency however is not what it was designed for, so you really need to have the horses to drive it.

That's what XFCE is supposed be for.

• Netscape Communicator 4 for the web. This is what I used before upgrading my P100. If you use Linux, Dillo is a leightweight web browser (don't know how well it hacks the modern web).
• GAIM for all your IM needs. Supports AOL, Yahoo IM, etc. Available both for Windows and for Linux.
• If using Linux, don't use KDE nor GNOME. XFCE or FVWM are far more snappy and memory-efficient.

Just install some random distro and then install/run a lightweight window manager; I use XFCE but there are better examples.

If you like RedHat, there are RPMs for XFCE here. Installation is a breeze that way. Start with startxfce instead of your regular startx.

I started with RH 5.2, which means that graphical file management on Linux for me is a non-starter. Thus I turned to XFce 4.0.5 at www.xfce.org, and haven't looked back.

For all you moderate to advanced folks out there who want the simplicity of managers like FVWM combined with modern features and GTK2, you ought to take a look at XFce 4.0.5. And the best part is that there are a wealth of plugins available for XFce's panel, appropriately referred to as goodies.

• Security
• Stability
• Flexability
• Better user interface (especially with XFce)
• Compatability
• A bunch of other "-ability" adjectives I can't think of off-hand 'cause my brain is fried from work

When forced to choose between KDE and GNOME, the decision is obvious: XFCE.

BTW I thought I read that the new spatial mode could be turned off, and the filemanager could return to normal operation... Ah yes, according to a post on Linux Today:

I actually have tried spatial mode in Garnome. i don't like the clutter either. But it definitely does make browsing the filesystem easier. All they need to do is add a button to 'close all windows' and I'm happy. You should really give spatial an chance before you turn it off. BTW you can turn it off with the --browser option.

I'm also going to wait for Fedora 2 to be released so I can upgrade. Gnome is really starting to rock!!!

I haven't tried gnome 2.6 yet, as it hasn't been packaged for Mandrake 10, and I don't want to mess with source, so I haven't tried this recommendation.

If you're stuck on nautilus, perhaps this will help. I've never been a big fan of nautilus (hence my ROX-Filer usage =).

Actually, I believe Morphix uses XFce, not XPde.

Or grab XFCE 4.0.4 if you can live without the bloat.

As for a low resource using window manager, check out XFCE4. It has the look and feel of Gnome but is far more zippy on old hardware. I run it (and occasionally fluxbox) on a P2 300 laptop with 128 MB RAM.

I can see tumbleweeds rolling through this thread. Too "Just woke up" to link, google for this stuff. xfce - Nice little window manager for X, a slight hassle to build but otherwise a great WM for those who want something that screams "minimalist". If only they'd allow me to shove the menubar into the taskbar so I don't have to have two bars on autohide then I'd be using it right now. Ruby - Goddamn, this is a wonderful language! It's as close to "I think, it does" as you can get without having neural implants. That's about all that I can think of. Ignoring the usual (gaim, etc) because they're very well known.

I've seen some pretty unusual Windows desktops at Customize.org which use third party applications to replace everything from the Windows shell to system fonts. There's a handy little utility called Resource Hacker which lets you edit Windows executable files, allowing almost infinite customization. Some of the finer results of using Resource Hacker can be seen in the tutorials here.

As for the UNIX desktop front, everything these days seems to want to copy the better points of the MacOS and Windows. A notable exception is XFCE which is a Gtk2/Gnomed clone of CDE. If you wanna see some odd attempts at user interfaces, I urge you to check out some of the others at http://www.plig.org/xwinman/ (yes the site still exists and is actually fairly recent). I honestly believe this site is a MUST READ for anyone that is going to use UNIX on the desktop).

Ive been most impressed by the 'other' WMs though, the little guys. Some of the Fluxbox or icewm 'minimalist' desktops are cool.

My favourite, the one that I use at home, is XFce.

It's about as fast and small as fluxbox, but looks better and has a few features that I can't live without anymore (ie. switching between virtual desktops with the mouse wheel, from anywhere in the background.)

Well for my tastes gnome is a little too bloated, sure this is fine if you want all the menus and (ugh) nautilus. But I prefer a desktop based on the nice light gtk based XFCE4 and replace it's desktop module with the sweet gtk based rox desktop/filer. But I guess it's all about personal taste.

OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.

Maybe you should try Linux again, has it been 3 years? I've had very few problems with the latest hardware and software. Now I do have an ibook laying around, its a nice machine and fink+osx is powerful, but I have yet to see a good reason to switch to OSX from Linux. Yes the gui is prettier and there are more solid desktop apps but strangly enough, I actually prefer XFCE 4 to more fully featured desktop enviroments.