Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2005 13:01 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 76031
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Apples vs. Oranges
by Ringheims Auto on Wed 21st Dec 2005 12:45
in reply to "Apples vs. Oranges"
XFCE is simply a speedy/responsive answer for some folks who dislike GNOME's "bloat" and lagginess but love GTK...and don't mind a few less features.
Hmmm...I've gone through lots of DEs, finally landing on XFCE. But, can someone tell me, what are these missing features people's talking about? With XFCE I've got more features than anytime before, given all plugins available for XFCE. Also, since everything is so lightweight and fast, you allow yourself to run more 'unusable' stuff like the weather-plugin than on a heavier DE.
KDE's moving along very nice lately, though, but I can't quite see what desktop-features I'm missing on XFCE.






Member since:
2005-07-18
Comparing KDE to XFCE is like the old Apples/Oranges adage. If you rewrote XFCE using the Qt toolkit....and then compared its startup time to KDE...that might have some comparative meaning.
XFCE is simply a speedy/responsive answer for some folks who dislike GNOME's "bloat" and lagginess but love GTK...and don't mind a few less features.
KDE has a bazillion features/options... more so than GNOME, and inarguably more so than XFCE. Maybe it's worth it; maybe it's not.
It really comes down to ones needs. Does KDE supply me with features that are personally relevant? Is the 2-second startup difference worth suffering? Will the world stop turning if I use this product?
Build a bridge and get over the nitpicking. Use what works for you, and stop shoving your personal preferences down everyone elses throat.