Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Assembling a Linux Desktop Environment From Parts?

paxcoder writes "Gnome Shell ... is different. Very much so. The fallback was inadequate. I suspect that many people, like me, turned to the alternatives. My choice was LXDE, which worked ok, until (lx-)panel broke in the unstable branch of the distro that I use. Tired of using the terminal to run stuff, I replaced the standard panel with the one from Xfce. That made me realize that we really don't need a packaged desktop environment, there are pieces ready for assembly. If you customize your graphical environment, what elements do you use? Which window manager, file manager, panel(etc.) would you recommend? Do you have a panel with a hardware usage monitors, how do you switch between workspaces? Anything cool we might not know about?"

14 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. KDE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Nuff said.

    Please, no WAAA KDE IS BLOATED AND BROKEN AND INCOMPLETE AND THIS AND THAT AND THE OTHER arguments because they've been proven wrong time and again.

    It's sad that I have to post AC to defend KDE, currently one of the best desktops (okay, the best desktop) for GNU/Linux.

    1. Re:KDE. by certain+death · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow...replying to TWO ACs in one day...it's a new record for me! Anyway, I tend to agree with you. Now a days, with the average computer having 4 gigs of ram and at least a 512 meg video card, if not a full 1 gig, there is no reason to speak poorly of KDE. If I had to worry about how much video memory I was using, I might switch to xfce or something, but I don't. That excuse has been removed for all but the third world countries who can't get the latest new hardware or poor people who can't afford a computer made in the last three or four years. Just sayin'.

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    2. Re:KDE. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Using a custom desktop is not about being lightweight. It's about customizing your workflow.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:KDE. by certain+death · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you have nailed it. If your machine can't handle what you "like", then you need to do something about it, or suffer a loss of productivity due to the system not matching how you work.

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    4. Re:KDE. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only desktop environments would stick to the desktop and leave any non-gui related features to be implemented at other levels. Then we could use whatever virtual file system we want on any desktop, or without any desktop at all.

      Desktop environments run directly counter to the "do one thing, and do it well" philosphy that has served UNIX for so many years. Is it any surprise that they're a clusterfuck?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:KDE. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I am lost... one one hand I have people with the very latest greatest and likely overpriced computers telling me how much better they are than I. On the other I have people with computers several generations old telling me how much better they are than I. Its like a fight between hipsters and audiophiles, there are no winners, only losers.

      YOU ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE, SLASHDOT

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  2. Re:Haw. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, how dare he try to use software that he likes! What a fucking asshole. Everyone knows that you just take whatever piece of shit Microsoft shoves down your throat and then you say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

  3. Re:Haw. by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back up a few steps. He's asking for suggestions on apps and configurations... how is that an "everybody else is wrong" mentality? You, on the other hand, are immediately leaping to the conclusion that HE is wrong.

    It also sounds like he is experimenting just for his own personal use, not for creating a distro. His own personal configuration would hardly affect public perception of Linux.

  4. Re:Haw. by denyingbelial · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, that's harsh. I don't see why you guys are ragging on him so much. Isn't this the point of linux? We do it our way, whatever that means? Personally I never went up to gnome 3, I use the shell as much as I can, and I often use AWESOMEWM. But I'm not one to fight with things, if it works I won't bother fixing it.

  5. Re:Openbox by certain+death · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I normally don't reply to ACs, but since you say you have been using a computer for 13 years, I figured it was worth it. You are on Slashdot. If you think that saying you have been using a computer for 13 years will get you any "Cred" here, you need to look around. There are people here who have been using them for FAR longer.

    --
    "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  6. Desktop environments a dumb idea by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That made me realize that we really don't need a packaged desktop environment, there are pieces ready for assembly.

    This used to be the Unix Philosophy, before someone decided that it would be really cool to force everyone to use your own specific applications rather than building independent apps and window managers with some kind of standardised communications for anything that needed two apps to talk to each other. If developers had stuck with that I'd be able to run KDE apps in Gnome without crashing or having to continually click 'Oh my God, KBollockManager is not running' dialog boxes.

    Why they did this, I don't know. I guess they decided it was easier and shinier to build everything from scratch than to negotiate with other developers so that their apps would interoperate easily.

  7. Re:Haw. by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So we have an aspie here who would admittedly and uncompromisingly rather use an unstable mess of cobbed-together parts(including the distro itself), because that's the way baby likes it and everybody else is wrong.

    That mentality is everything that's wrong with fostering acceptance of the Linux desktop.

    It's Linux, you can have it the way you want it. When he gets up tomorrow morning he will have a desktop that he likes. And you'll still be a flaming asshole.

  8. E17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The enlightenment, dr17, is one of the finest, nicest and fastest DEs around. It's built using its own sets of libraries (the EFL libs) and it's currently in BETA state. Even when it's being heavily developed, I've been using it for the last 4 years as a main desktop and it has always been very stable (even more than the first KDE 4.x releases!)

    I salt it with some QT apps (dolphin, konsole, gwenview, kate, etc) for MY perfect Desktop =)

  9. My choices for 'Linux Desktop from Scratch' by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) WindowMaker - Very fast, very clean, very neat. Like the WM Dockapps a lot, look very neat. Let's not forget, its anchestor 'NextStep' was designed under the ruling 'Iron Fist of Design and Usability' (TM) Steve Jobs. Even in the well-aged FOSS rippoff it shows.

    2) Fluxbox - The hip and hype Linux Pro WM of the last decade. Had it's hype-highpoint around about 2005 and has since joined the grand hall of eternal Linux WMs. Very nice. The fist simple-style WM I saw with anti-aliased Fonts. Think 'modern WindowMaker' with some neat toolbar stuff, tabbed windows that can be stacked by easy drag and drop, nice shortcut defaults, easy to configure and very fast.

    3) Enlightenment. If you're going to take your time configging and setup up your homebuilt Desktop setup, you should definitely take a good look at E. Tons of very neat stuff, very powerfull and very fast. E17 has been in development for a decade, the codebase is rock solid and is the avantgarde of desktop stuff to this very day. Fun fact: Quite a few things in Mac OS X are inspired by E - E is the darling child of any professional desktop developer.

    4) 'Big' desktop environments: Since you want to build your setup 'from scratch' I see no point in getting a comparatively bloated preconfectioned package like KDE or Gnome. Since you'll be spending time checking out config files and such and will build the system to your specific needs, might aswell stick to systems that were built to be configured with textfiles, like the above mentioned. However, if you want the full package, I strongly suggest KDE. Gnome, in my opinion, only makes sense/is bearable when it comes with the work done for you, such as in the default Ubuntu distribution. ... Ubuntu is the only system where I bother using Gnome, simply because it's good enough, preconfigured and the nautilus file manager finally stopped sucking like a vacuum around about Ubuntu 8 or so.

    But since that's not what you asked for, I suggest you look into the first three WM, Fluxbox and E and chose the one you like the best.
    And good luck going back into manual xorg.configging. One of the things I really don't miss about Linux desktops - especially since I'm using Ubuntu and Mac OS X. :-)

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca