Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Mar 2011 12:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 465640
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: In other words...
by da_Chicken on Fri 11th Mar 2011 02:11
in reply to "RE: In other words..."
XFCE is indeed a very good alternative to GNOME. GNOME apps work nicely in XFCE, and XFCE offers a stable and familiar desktop environment.
Pretty much the only thing I don't like about XFCE is its window manager, which is almost as lame as metacity. Openbox is a much better alternative, and you can easily change the WM in XFCE to openbox by typing in a terminal window this command:
killall xfwm4 ; openbox & exit
Then exit XFCE, saving the session. The next time you start XFCE, it will use openbox as its WM. 
RE[3]: In other words...
by Icaria on Fri 11th Mar 2011 02:50
in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."





Member since:
2005-07-09
Actually, Shuttleworth created Unity for precisely this reason. His only disagreement is with GNOMEshell. WRT whining, he's getting regularly attacked by people in the GNOME camp for not using GNOMEshell, so restating the reasons for not using GNOMEshell is appropriate.
Personally, I haven't tried either Unity or GNOMEshell, but from what I've seen I don't look forward to either. I am glad there are alternatives. Let the best shell win. I am willing to give both a try, but if neither work for me, KDE4 doesn't either so I'll go for XFCE since it has always "just worked".