What makes a desktop environment a desktop environment?

[shadow_code]

If you can mix and match virtually all the parts of a desktop environment (file managers, window managers, panels etc.), what makes GNOME "GNOME", or Xfce "Xfce" etc.

Would having all the parts of a desktop environment separate be better, and leave the choices up to the distributions?

[SunnyRabbiera]

This is why window managers exist...
In linux the user interface can be divided into two categories, full desktop environments and window managers.
Fluxbox is a window manager
Enlightenment is a window manager
IceWM is a window manager
and sofourth.
Most of these window managers are lightweight in terms of packages, dependencies, and sometimes features sadly.
Out of the ones I have used I feel the only real window managers that can be usable like a normal desktop environment is Enlightenment and IceWM, Enlightenment feels more close then IceWM though.
Granted Fluxbox and the others can be setup to work fairly well but it takes a lot of configuring to get what most everyday users would find easy.

Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment

[MaxIBoy]

If you can mix and match virtually all the parts of a desktop environment (file managers, window managers, panels etc.), what makes GNOME "GNOME", or Xfce "Xfce" etc.A "desktop environment" is intended to be a complete working environment, usually a graphical one. A window manager is only one component of a graphical DE. Some WMs have enough features that they can stand alone (most of the tiling WMs, as well as the *boxen, fall into this category.) Then there are WMs that are more specialized; they're designed to compliment other programs (for example, Metacity is designed to go with other GNOME components.) GNOME is simply a collection of software. Same with Xfce.


Would having all the parts of a desktop environment separate be better, and leave the choices up to the distributions?EDIT: Yeah, okay, that was a dumb mistake on my part, I see what you're saying. Do you mean to say that we should encourage mix-n'-match, each distro builds its own DE? Well, the answer is that this is already done to a limited extent, and if there were more demand for it, the practice would be more common.

Original response to what I thought you were saying is preserved for posterity:
If I interpret your question correctly, you want to know if it would be a good idea to prohibit mixing and matching of DE components. That's a bad idea. On my computer, I use GNOME-panel, the Compiz window manager, Nautilus, Thunar, Xfce4-panel, Gcalctool, gedit, and leafpad, often all at the same time. I have very good reasons for doing so, and it would be irritating to lock me out from doing these. After all, this is free software! (http://fsf.org/) (Free as in free speech, not free money.) I should have the freedom to customize my system as I wish.

[shadow_code]

Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment
but I already knew all of that...


Do you mean to say that we should encourage mix-n'-match, each distro builds its own DE? Well, the answer is that this is already done to a limited extent, and if there were more demand for it, the practice would be more common.

Yea, I guess what I was thinking was:

Why bother replicating programs for the sake of keeping the same feel?

Now I think about it, it doesn't really matter. Seeing as it's good to keep the overall feel the same. It only sometimes seems like pointless replication.

[ugm6hr]

freedesktop tries to encourage independence of all parts of a DE.

LXDE appears to have truly independent components.

Gnome / KDE - not so much.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Most of these window managers are lightweight in terms of packages, dependencies, and sometimes features sadly.

what features would you be missing in openbox, for example?

[yabbadabbadont]

what features would you be missing in openbox, for example?

The only things that I wish it had are trivialities. Pixmap themes and a toolbar like Fluxbox's. However, I can live without the themes and have found lxpanel to be an acceptable replacement for the toolbar.

[chucky chuckaluck]

The only things that I wish it had are trivialities. Pixmap themes and a toolbar like Fluxbox's. However, I can live without the themes and have found lxpanel to be an acceptable replacement for the toolbar.

i don't even use a toolbar anymore in openbox (the only reason i ever used one was for a clock and i finally guessed how to make conky do that). i've never figured out how it would be possible to use gnome without at least one panel, unless i had icons all over the desktop.

[yse]

freedesktop tries to encourage independence of all parts of a DE.

LXDE appears to have truly independent components.

Gnome / KDE - not so much.

LXDE is still X11 dependent.

In fact, we could have better WM today IF X11 could be changed.

All WM are X dependable.

X is responsible for all WM problems. X must be changed, because is full of bugs and problems, and still keep lots of bloated code, overall is a piece of garbage today.