Which desktop environment do you like the best?
Displaying poll results.20833 total votes.
Which desktop environment do you like the best?
Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.
Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.
Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows. XP/2000 then perhaps 7, 95, 98.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The colors changed, some of the faux-3d effects were toned down and made more animated, and things have been moved around. Very few of these changes resulted in true increased f
Re:Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 is definitely nicer to use than XP, once you know and use the features that actually exist in Win 7 (e.g. Windows key search functionality, Aero snap/peek, etc).
If you just use Windows 7 the same way you use XP without learning how to use the new features, you'll not only miss out on the benefits of the newer UI but also have an assumption that it's all glitz and bling, which it isn't entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Explorer has lost the Favorites menu. Also, new Explorer windows open, then scroll the navigation pane so that the Favorites list is out of view, making Favorites monumentally annoying to use.
The scroll-the-navigation-pane nonsense also means that when you open a new Explorer window, you have to wait for the navigation pane to finish expanding before you can start selecting what you need; in my case, invariably either a Favorites item or a network drive, both of which have been scrolled out of sight
Re: (Score:2)
NT4 at the same level as 95? NT4 was rock solid for me, and I stuck with it until EOL, and moved to XP64. Currently prepping to move to Win7 but only because of EOL on XP. And Vista SP1 still had some quirks that put it farther down on my list.
Except for those, it's a pretty good list.
Windows 7 it is (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, Windows 7 turns out to be much more stable, consistent, faster and more productive in every way compared to the mess of Gnome, Unity etc encountered these days with Ubuntu.
The stuff is just there, where expected, working as expected, seamlessly together. And the windows have nice thick borders to grab, wiggle, maximize vertically and what not. Go M$!
This one brought to you by a daily Linux user since 1993.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 7 UI is nice, I'll agree even as a rabid BSD and Linux freak. However, what does Microsoft put in its apps? that damn ribbon, which is just the same failed ideas as Win 8.x has. At least getting away from Gnome and Unity there are some very nice UI in the open source world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More or less the same, though 98 is better than 95 and NT4 is better than both.
I preferred 2000 over XP but accepted XP once I configured it to be more like 2000. With time I considered XP to be marginally superior.
I strongly resisted 7 over XP but accepted 7 once I configured it to be more like XP (thanks in large part to Classic Shell). With these changes I consider it markedly superior to XP but remain annoyed by some changes to infrequently used tasks such as the navigating the control panel. In most wa
xfce for now (Score:5, Interesting)
this lxqt thing looks nice.
http://www.osnews.com/story/27... [osnews.com]
OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
Then Terminal if needed/when wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question.
In your own mind, do you pronounce that as "Oh Ess Eks" or "Oh Ess Ten"?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Ess Eks...although once they go to XI I think Eks will die out pretty quickly.
Re: OS X (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone in England says maths, not math. They invented the language.
Re: (Score:3)
Pssh. English wasn't invented, it's the product of a series of quick stand-ups behind the docks.
Re: (Score:3)
But they didn't invent "the airplane". They just found out how not to make one.
Re: (Score:2)
What does Apple call it?
I don't listen to Apple salesmen or spokespeople, so I really couldn't say. I work with Windows computers, and even with Unix at times. So I didn't hear anyone call the operating system by name for several years, and went by what is on the box. A big X. And since Windows had moved away from numbers to XP, it didn't seem unusual.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough, but it is pronounced "Oh Ess Ten". Here are some of the Apple salesmen saying it:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F... [youtube.com]
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The word is mathematics [sic] and it encompasses all branches. It's plural by default. There's no need to add an 's' to the end of it.
You mean the word should be mathematic.
An 's' at the end of the word is the usual marker for plurality in English. The fact that it is plural is the reason for adding the 's' at the end of it. Duh! 'Maths,' for the very reason you give, is clearly the more logical contraction. It is also the contraction used almost everywhere throughout the English speaking word. There
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Eh Sex Eye Oh point Gee
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ever heard of Mac OS 9?
I've heard of it, an old OS which, not unlike MVS, is not an ancestor of OSX. Why do you mention it?
Why the fuck would they call it OS "Eck's"?
Just to hazard a guess, it might be the 'X' at the end?
In that it is like UNIX (from which it actually does descend, Darwin is actually an implementation of Mach) which incidentally is pronounced YOU-NICKS, not YOU-NI-TEN. Secondly OH-ES-ECKS just rolls off the tongue easier than OH-ES-TEN, as the sibilant flows into the vowel with less
Re: OS X History (Score:2)
In that it is like UNIX (from which it actually does descend, Darwin is actually an implementation of Mach)
I don't want to join in the argument of how to pronounce an ambiguous acronym. Just popping my head in and doing my usual historical correction here...
Darwin is not a descendent of UNIX. However it could be called a descendent (mainly) of FreeBSD + Mach. The difference being that FreeBSD and co are all derived from 4.4BSD-Lite which contains no proprietary AT&T code (UNIX). UNIX on the other hand c
Re: (Score:3)
one way looks a bit like "O Sex", thus marketing.
Reminds me of SCSI. Some would pronounce it as "scuzzy", but I preferred "sexy"!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also a Mac user - but the poll pretty obviously was only about Linux desktop environments. So...
I picked "other" - I still prefer Enlightenment.
Enlightenment (Score:3)
Re:Enlightenment (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like it's about time to dust off and fork one of the old web browser source trees, since all the ones managed by other people seem to suck to various degrees. All the ones managed by other people also seem to evolve in the direction of sucking more, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I truly found Enlightenment - at least the early version - ridiculously cumbersome.
Imagine this: you stop your mouse cursor over any UI element and a tooltip about that element appears. Reasonable? Not quite. the desktop is considered an UI element, and if you leave the cursor anywhere over it, it opens a tooltip. With rich borders and description of every single action you can perform by clicking, right-clicking, shift-clicking etc - the tooltip was the size of your average terminal window, and "always on
Re: (Score:3)
Fun idea for a Linux distro: include multiple desktop environments and randomly pick one at startup. I used to have KDE, GNOME, and XFCE all installed together on an old dinosaur of a laptop, and you could select one at login time. It mostly worked.
A lack of Enlightenment? (Score:5, Informative)
I vote for E17.
Disappointingly Linux-centric (Score:2)
Re:Disappointingly Linux-centric (Score:4, Funny)
Disappointingly computer-centric too. My favorite desktop environment consists of a pencil, a paperweight, and a stapler.
And I can put my head on it for a nap whenever I think that will increase productivity.
(As for the survey, I voted, but I'm not sure it's correct to identify one as my favorite when I haven't actually tried all of them.)
TOPS-10 (Score:2)
DCL (Score:2)
Running on a VT-100. If you needed another "window" you just commandeered another VT-100.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
tops-20 for me
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
I used the SEO-deoptimized Awesome [naquadah.org] window manager. It is a tiling window-manager in the tradition of XMonad and Ion.
Since I started using it, I discovered how moronic is the concept of traditional window manager that allows overlapping windows: Either I want an app displayed, or I don't, and I certainly want an app to use as much screen space available automatically. I understand though that the traditional windowing approach is simpler to understand and see its point for the plebes ;)
I love its concept of "tags" instead of desktops, which gives me a powerful interface to mix and match which windows I want to display. I like that its "configuration" is actually a Lua program that allows me to precisely control how it behaves. I love that I can control it entirely through the keyboard. But I hate its stupid default keybindings: what's wrong with alt-tab nowadays?
Re: (Score:2)
I discovered how moronic is the concept of traditional window manager that allows overlapping windows: Either I want an app displayed, or I don't, and I certainly want an app to use as much screen space available automatically
I like overlapping windows when i have to switch back and forwards between apps frequently. And i don't want most apps to use all the available screen space - pdfs, for example, often display better when they're not the whole screen width. Thunderbird certainly doesn't need the whole screen width, and i usually keep the web browser a bit smaller than screen width too.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll add to that. Often I'll have an xterm open and maximised. This allows me to enter long commands or view long lines in log files, in addition to seeing lots of command or log history. However, most of the time all that space isn't required. Often the most important terminal screen space is shaped like an L - vertical to the left (so I can see commands and directory history, if a bit truncated), as well as horizontal along the bottom where I enter commands.
Because of this, traditional window managers give me options to make more effective use of my screen than a tiling window-manager would be able to. One approach would be to have the xterm semi-transparent so I can see the window easily behind it. An even better approach is to use sloppy mouse focus to position a smaller window using the free space in the top-right foreground. AFAIK, most tiling window managers don't provide windows the option to overlap in this way, which would mean that I'm often effectively wasting ~1/4 of my total screen.
Lastly, I'll point out that you can assign wmctrl commands to achieve most of the good stuff that a tiling window manager is capable of. eg. to move a focused window to the right side of the screen (assuming a 1920x___ res), assign a shortcutl to:
wmctrl -r :ACTIVE: -e 1,960,-1,960,-1
To move a focused window to the left:
wmctrl -r :ACTIVE: -e 1,0,-1,960,-1
etc. Sure this approach will only allow for a predetermined number of window arrangements, but I'm probably never going to put more than 2 windows on a single screen at the same time anyway. You can also easily do the same kinds of things that tags let you do - and because wmctrl is a command line program, you aren't limited to scripting in Lua. :)
Xmonad (Score:2)
its all you really need
something made of hardwood (Score:5, Insightful)
large, flat, a couple of nice drawers, place to keep pens, pencils, a stapler, my kneadable eraser, and room for a teevee, good loudspeakers, and a nice computer. and a comfortable chair. now that's a nice desktop environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree 100%. Also: rounded front edge so it doesn't dig into your wrists. Strong enough to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
large, flat, a couple of nice drawers, place to keep pens, pencils, a stapler, my kneadable eraser, and room for a teevee, good loudspeakers, and a nice computer. and a comfortable chair. now that's a nice desktop environment.
Don't forget a motorized standing desk. Who wants to sit all day?
Openbox (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the lack of *box (Open, Black, Flux, Hacked, etc.) options is probably the main reason the "Other" catch-all is about 1/4 of all votes.
I'm using Fluxbox, but configured to work as much like Openbox2 as possible, and I've been quite happy with it for a lot of years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Another *box user here. Fluxbox on Gentoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fvwm (well now fvwm2) (Score:3)
Fluffy light weight and plays nice with 256 colors. There are lots of things that used to expect 256 colors for the flashy stuff (seriously, LONG before the /flash tag) icewm takes a nice second place but how many of us old timers are still expected to make things work with 256 colors (vnc cc=3)?
twm (Score:4)
I don't want a "desktop environment." I just want a window manager. I still use twm because it does everything that I need and then gets out of the way.
I have found a few minor things I don't like about it, but I've written patches to correct them. (And I submitted them, but I doubt that much of anything will be accepted at this point.)
Re:twm (Score:4, Insightful)
TWM is the reference implementation. It consumes A LOT of CPU and is pretty shit.
I'd recomended a tiling window manager if you want minimilisim: i3, awesome or xmonad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can accept that twm is ugly, but I really like how it works.
I can configure any mouse button to do whatever I want. The only icons I see are from windows that I have minimized. There's no always-present status bar or extra junk. (If I want a status bar, I'll find an application that provides one.)
A tiling window manager is too restrictive. I use overlapping windows all the time.
The source code for twm is very simple. I'm currently running with four different patches that I've written: dynamic config
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
WindowMaker (Score:2)
fvwm2 ftw! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just need something simple that gives me virtual desktops and the ability to launch xterms.
Try the Linux console!
Just a WM (Score:3, Interesting)
Was a GNOME user since its infancy. We are talking pre-GTK+2 days. Think my first GNOME was 1.4.
GNOME 3 made me abandon 10+ years of muscle memory. Let me take this moment to pause and give a big FUCK YOU to the IDIOTS who TOTALLY RUINED the GNOME project. YOU SUCK.
I resigned to the fact that I'd have to re-learn my desktop environment (MATE project had not come along yet) and decided to check out a tiler. Played around with a few and settled on i3. It is awesome. I'd still be on GNOME if it wasn't for the idiocy they introduced in 3.0, but thanks to the dipshit UI people who have completely infiltrated the GNOME project, I'm using something much better now.
CDE (Score:2)
OS X (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I go back and forth between OS X and Linux daily and a lot of OS X's window management is still sub-par. Its virtual desktop management still needs work, sloppy focus is never going to be an option, and hacks for tiling window management are about as terrible as one would expect.
It has its good points, but its double-buffered windows and nice aesthetics aren't enough to make me want to use OS X full-time while Linux environments do things better.
Second? (Score:3)
When I look for a desktop, I expect a basic set of tools to come with it, and design consistency between said tools. KDE seems best in terms of tools (aka desktop accessories if you prefer). Gnome's tools seem like they are chosen by committee, rather than actually designed for that environment.
And yes, desktop environments should include Windows and Macintosh OSX as options.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel the same way about the "desktop accessories". I've tried switching to Windowmaker a couple of times, but I always end up missing KWallet, KMixer, Dolphin and a bunch of other KDE applications or accessories, not to mention the integration between them.
Some of it is admittedly shit (Strigi/Nepomuk/Akonadi in particular), but thankfully those bits can be disabled or simply not installed. And the rest of the desktop is damn solid.
C:\ (Score:2)
My favorite desktop environment (Score:2)
XFCE stays out of my way. (Score:3)
Used almost every DE since 1998 or so, flopped between KDE and GNOME.
Moved to blackbox, then fluxbox for several years, back to KDE 3.x
Moved back to XFCE around the 4.6.x days and never left.
Occasionally I'll go back and try new things but nothing seems to fit as well as XFCE.
Fast, stable, stays out of my way with little changes over time - only small feature enhancements and bug fixes.
I prefer a "classic" experience, but it still needs to be functional and look decent. I've found XFCE + Compiz + Emerald Window Decorator
the trinity for me.
A clean one (Score:2)
... with the room for me to lay out my paints and canvas allowing me plenty of room to do my Art thing. ;)
Windows 8 (Score:2)
Because I really like the idea of a desktop UI attached to a tablet UI with bungee cords (not).
Depends on the workstation (Score:2)
For my netbook (first gen/2008 Acer AspireOne), LXDE (formerly Xfce in a prev. ubuntu netbook distro).
For my VM on my gaming rig, Unity or GNOME. Largely this is due to not being particular about what's running and why. I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of Unity initially, but I've grown to appreciate it (read: not care about its issues or style difference).
Windowmaker (Score:2)
Cinnamon/GNOME except for (Score:2)
1. Having to go to that weird app if I want a keyboard shortcut not included in the default list.
2. Not being able to change the name of a file or delete a file from a File > Save As dialog box
3. Having to do major hacking to make Monday the first day of the week in the calendar applet.
I WILL complain about a lack of options (Score:2)
To not include Windows or OS X is just kinda silly.
OS X (Score:2)
Really, no Mac option? I don't even know what half of the names are, and I haven't used the rest, at least as far as I know.
Choosing and not choosing KDE (Score:2)
I prefer KDE, but not what KDE4/5/plasma are.
I still use KDE 3.5.10, the sanest, the most customizable, and the most convenient KDE that has ever existed. XFCE is my second favourite (the only sane option in new distros).
xfce (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Running Gnome 2 here on Scientific Linux and CentOS. I tried Gnome 3 briefly on Fedora and rapidly switched to Xfce. Better fit for my old laptop anyway.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:3)
Try mate, it is a fork of gnome 2.
Been happy with Xfce on the laptop. It's an old single core 64 bit Athlon CPU with 1GB of RAM so Xfce is a good match for it (light weight). It's old but sufficient when I travel to check e-mail, open a ssh session back to the server at the house, etc. I'll try mate on something a little beefier.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:GNOME 2, then 3. (Score:4, Interesting)
XFCE and LXDE are both worthy competitors (or were, the last time I checked), but a little plain and barebones for my liking.
Re: (Score:2)
Gnome 3 has its limitations, but i can use my computer for everything i used it for when i ran gnome 2 - and it's no more difficult or any more annoying (but i use a laptop). I don't believe there are any *good* window managers, but some are less bad than others and, for me, gnome 3 is the least bad. It seems silly to get stuck in the past just out of habit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, i use Gnome and voted for it, but saying i like it the best is an exaggeration - i just dislike it the least.
Re: (Score:2)
'GNOME' is really too vague. The results would probably have been more informative if the options had been:
GNOME 3
GNOME 2/MATE
since MATE pretty much is GNOME 2.
Re: (Score:3)
All the above window managers take a while to load & freaking slow. What's remarkable is people have so much patience to live with them. I for one can't bear a window manager which takes more than a second to load. Animations & other gaudy features are nice - but just keep getting in between you & getting things done.
So I have had to live with Fluxbox for over a decade now & have used the same keyboard shortcuts all this while. The desktop looks basic - but everything is fast & usable in milliseconds.
If you have a similar environment which is equally or better than FB do share it here - I would love to try.
Maybe you need to upgrade your hardware once in a while, as ALL of the choices above (except Unity - never tried it, that I can recall) seem reasonably fast to me. That, or you are a very, very impatient person.
Re: (Score:3)
dpends on the app and very little to do with the window dressing
Re:These are all slow (Score:4, Informative)
I take it you haven't actually used XFCE. I prefer KDE but XFCE is probably the fastest of all those mentioned in the survey.
Re: (Score:3)
LXDE is faster in my experience, but it's not as polished. It has a place for very low resource machines, but XFCE is a better choice if some CPU cycles can be spared.
I personally used KDE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How's multi monitor support in Mate? Does it work properly? That seems to be a serious problem with many a WM these days.
Just asking in case Xfce4 ever dies...
Re: (Score:2)
I use Mate on my eeepc for exactly the same reason. It's been a while since I gave other DE's a chance on there, maybe it's time to look at icewm.
Re:icewm (Score:4, Informative)
I'm going to get modded down for saying this, but the funny thing is that full Windows 7 runs very smoothly on that same Eee PC, including all the desktop effects turned on. With Linux you have to downshift to super lightweight desktops on the same hardware, as the full-blown DEs like KDE or GNOME are very choppy.
We will see if Wayland improves things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to get modded down for saying this, but the funny thing is that full Windows 7 runs very smoothly on that same Eee PC, including all the desktop effects turned on. With Linux you have to downshift to super lightweight desktops on the same hardware, as the full-blown DEs like KDE or GNOME are very choppy.
This may have a lot to do with proprietary display drivers, sometimes not available at all for Linux (what's the status of Linux PowerVR drivers anyway?), forcing them to do everything with CPU, and Atom isn't sold for it's processing power.
Also, if you don't mind, I'll take that "all effects turned on" + "very smoothly" with a grain of salt...
Re:icewm (Score:5, Informative)
This may have a lot to do with proprietary display drivers, sometimes not available at all for Linux (what's the status of Linux PowerVR drivers anyway?), forcing them to do everything with CPU, and Atom isn't sold for it's processing power.
If talking about the typical Atom N270 and 945GSE chipset, this platform uses GMA950 graphics core which has fully open source drivers. This applies also to the GMA3150 GPU. The PowerVR technology was included only in the very last generation of netbooks, and these chips are GMA500, GMA600, GMA3600 and GMA3650. You are correct that one should not expect very good performance from these under Linux, and they are problematic under Windows too.
Also, if you don't mind, I'll take that "all effects turned on" + "very smoothly" with a grain of salt...
Hey, of course you don't have crazy stuff like wobbly windows, but all desktop effects are fully smooth on all those low-power 10" netbooks under Windows. I have done extensive testing and know this. Under Linux, you put there KDE/GNOME/MATE/Unity and even the simple window minimize/restore animation is choppy.
Re:icewm (Score:4, Funny)
Intel has probably spent an order of magnitude more engineering time in optimizing its Windows display drivers specifically for smooth motion under Aero.
Also, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Windows Aero is (slightly) inherently more efficient, for the simple reason that they developed DirectX 10 to do Aero well, while in Linux the developers of the various desktop effects options had to make use of software developed by other people, and hope that the Khronos Group would advance OpenGL in such a way that desktop effects become more efficient.
Linux is also inherently more difficult to optimize for because it is far more diverse. This isn't a problem for more powerful CPUs and graphics cards, but those with less powerful devices are going to feel some pain.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been testing out various distros since 1998, and that's been my experience all the way back: to run at the same clip as the concurrent Windows, linux (at least with the desktops of equivalent competence and featureset) needs about 3x the hardware under it. I ended up using my fastest box as the linux tester. Which is annoying because I've yet to find one I want to keep for everyday use. I keep looking, tho. :/
That it might be shit drivers, I can believe. I've seen "wrong network driver" cause a Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is what I'm talking about. I do not see terrible performance problems in Linux in general, but a composited desktop needs a lot of horsepower. If one wants something fast, XFCE+Compton is a nice compromise, but one also loses a lot of shiniez when compared to Win or Mac on the exact same hardware.
Of course world is absolutely full of weird situations which make Windows go on knees too, but those can be pinpointed to specific components, like the "wrong network driver" you mentioned. They are not a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So I have to agree here.
Unity has been improving greatly lately. It is very stable, there are no weird glitches, and the UI feels good and natural. Also, it is by far the best-looking Linux desktop.
Another good thing is that, as things have been stabilizing, Unity is the desktop that stays solid from version to version. You find things from their expected places, the user experience stays the same.
My remaining gripe, however, is the extremely laggy Dash. Especially when the system is under some extra CPU or