Linked by Neven Bijelic on Wed 24th Nov 2004 08:45 UTC
Xfce No doubt, all of you have heard of Xfce and those who haven't will hear about it soon anyway. I remember trying out Xfce for the first time back on SuSE 9.0. I am not sure if it came with the distrobution or if I downloaded it. At the time 9.0 came out I remember thinking to myself "nice, good potential, could be eyecandy, fast..." but I still logged into KDE upon booting. Sure I tried Gnome but somehow for a windows-commer KDE was more user friendly at the time. Update: More screenshots of XFce.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by LiNuCe on Wed 24th Nov 2004 19:28 UTC

> Is KDE big and slow? On older machines, somewhat. (I don't have much Gnome experience.) It has gotten much snappier with recent versions.

Snappier, probably, but far from XFCE. Give it a try and see by yourself. Maybe you will like XFCE, maybe not, but XFCE is surely faster and lighter.

> But on older machines, I'd say it's hard to beat good old FVWM. So really, what's the point of XFce?

XFCE is easier to configure and has probably 90% of configuration settings most users need. And there is no need to spend time in a huge man page just to configure it's behavior : XFCE is configurable only with the mouse in a few minutes. Sure, it does not have all FVWM configure options, but this is not XFCE goal.

> And if standards are the goal, then why not work directly with Gnome and KDE teams to make it happen, instead of staying in the middle? Sounds like some effort is being wasted to me...

You can go even further : why are there two desktop environments, KDE and GNOME, whose distinct developments is waste time for their developers ? Why not a unique desktop environment, let's say KNOME ... or GDE ? ;)