A new Desktop Environment?

[BigBig5]

Would it be cool to have a new Desktop Environment for Ubuntu thats meant for powerfulf computers.

[Bucky Ball]

?

DEs are a matter of taste. I run XFCE on all my computers, powerful and otherwise. With a twist ... they all dual boot with Windows and they all have various blends and options as far as DEs go. On my laptop I have Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Openbox, ICE and a couple of others, too. But it all sits on Xubuntu original kernel so I'm not using Kubuntu artwork, just other bits I want (like the DE).

I install Xubuntu first then work up a blend from there over time. Whatever suits. :)

To me, that's what it's about, not really whether a machine is powerful or not. DEs are about what suits the way you work and how you want to interact with your machine.

[gastly]

Powerful as in? If you want a resource hog, then try KDE or even Gnome uses a lot of resources. If you want everything fast, try XFCE.

I just switched from Gnome to XFCE and it's pretty cool :)

[keithld]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/KeithLDick/5lardh.gif

Well you could just buy a MAC... hehehe


j/k

[Dullstar]

There's also I really cruddy one called LXDE.
I don't recommend it.

[akbrucke]

I just installed Jaunty today, and in the process switched from XFCE to GNOME. I have to say I like GNOME better.
I haven't experienced KDE as of yet.

[binbash]

C'mon XFCE is not a light desktop manager anymore.It is just same as KDE and Gnome.

[ktechkio]

Personally I like KDE looks good and runs fine on my Pentium D 2.8 Ghz 2gb ram and Geforce 8500 1Gb

[unknownPoster]

There's also I really cruddy one called LXDE.
I don't recommend it.

Personal taste of course.

It's not really cruddy, it's just really Openbox and a panel with a few nice system tools thrown in.

As of now, it's the lightest of all the full-blown DE's I know of.

If you want REALLY light, look into dwm, ScrotWM, EvliWm, wmii, or any of the other tiling WMs. :)

[Tomatz]

Its called kde4


sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

It really is quite stable now. Provided u have a recent nvidia card. If you dont, ATI support pretty much sucks as only the nvidia drivers have proper support for KDE4 instructions.

[Tipped OuT]

Its called kde4


sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

It really is quite stable now. Provided u have a recent nvidia card. If you dont, ATI support pretty much sucks as only the nvidia drivers have proper support for KDE4 instructions.

*cough KDE 4 Bloat *cough*

[unknownPoster]

*cough KDE 4 Bloat *cough*

I agree, even on a custom compiled, modularized version the resource usage was completely unacceptable by my standards.

[stwschool]

Personally I see no need for a massive DE that eats resources (Vista anyone?). I want a DE that improves my workflow. Gnome (top panel only) + Compiz (Scale and Expo mapped to corners) + Gnome-Do gives me that.

[stwschool]

PS yes it's a matter of taste but I can't stand KDE. It's just too gimmicky.

[LarsKongo]

Gnome would be perfect if the developers just fixed gnome-panel and the window decorator. It's a pain to style both to look modern.

gnome-panel can only tile the background image. No sizing-margins or no way of stretching it. :(

The window decorator metacity is the opposite. It stretches the background image instead of tiling it. As a designer I need to be able to do both. And I can't use alpha-transparent PNG images to get smooth rounded corners, I can't even make one pixel round, it somehow needs to be 5 pixels. :/

Emerald however can do that, but it isn't even developed any longer and it's also a pretty bad window decorator compared to what can be done in WindowBlinds for example.

Also, I somehow wish Gnome would force application programmers to follow UI guidelines so that the desktop consistency doesn't break.

[Tomatz]

*cough KDE 4 Bloat *cough*

It all depends how fast your PC is. KDE4 is rapid on my box and it uses relatively a small amount of disk space but if you have older hardware then stick with a lighter wm.



Personally I see no need for a massive DE that eats resources (Vista anyone?).


Isnt this why we run linux and NOT MS/Vista? We have choice. Never mind the fact KDE uses less than half the resources Vista does.



PS yes it's a matter of taste but I can't stand KDE. It's just too gimmicky.

See... This guy gets the picture. It is all a matter of taste ;)

[unknownPoster]

Isnt this why we run linux and NOT MS/Vista? We have choice. Never mind the fact KDE uses less than half the resources Vista does.



Actually, on my hardware, they are roughly the same...

[stwschool]

Of course, and that's one of the reasons I love Linux. I'm a relative noob and I've still played with Openbox, fluxbox, LXDE, XFCE, KDE, Gnome, E16, Enlightenment 17, and probably others I've forgotten. The choice is good.

[chucky chuckaluck]

C'mon XFCE is not a light desktop manager anymore.It is just same as KDE and Gnome.

a basic installation of xfce4 is about half to two thirds of the size of gnome and even just kdebase4 now is wicked huge, dwarfing both.

[kpkeerthi]

C'mon XFCE is not a light desktop manager anymore.It is just same as KDE and Gnome.

Is XFCE a light DE? Ofcourse yes.
Is Xubuntu light? Ofcourse not.

[p0cky84]

Would it be cool to have a new Desktop Environment for Ubuntu thats meant for powerfulf computers.

Lol, Ubuntu isn't meant for powerfulf computers.

And define your so-called "powerfulf computers".

[Tipped OuT]

It all depends how fast your PC is. KDE4 is rapid on my box and it uses relatively a small amount of disk space but if you have older hardware then stick with a lighter wm.



*cough* Vista *cough* :lolflag:

[Tomatz]

Actually, on my hardware, they are roughly the same...

What GPU do you have?


*cough* Vista *cough* :lolflag:

XD


I can see this turning into the age old KDE vs Gnome flamewar lol. All i will say is that i love Gnome for its speed, flexibility and light footprint but i equally adore KDE4 (though i didn't always) for its UI consistency, beauty and boldness in design.

OSS ROCKS!!! :guitar:

[SunnyRabbiera]

There's also I really cruddy one called LXDE.
I don't recommend it.

I kinda like LXDE though, its still in its early stages so I give it a lot of leeway.

[Dysphoria]

Personally I see no need for a massive DE that eats resources (Vista anyone?). I want a DE that improves my workflow. Gnome (top panel only) + Compiz (Scale and Expo mapped to corners) + Gnome-Do gives me that.

I totally agree with that. To me that is the best DE ever. Especially with the Compiz scale and expo plugins mapped to the corners and very important: all animation times set to minimum. The scale plugin I use to select windows, my mouse wheel to switch desktops. Gnome-Do is pretty addictive as well, it even beats Firefox's url completion.

[Tomatz]

I kinda like LXDE though, its still in its early stages so I give it a lot of leeway.


+1

Works great on my Daughters eeepc too ;)

[XubuRoxMySox]

I kinda like LXDE though, its still in its early stages so I give it a lot of leeway.

LXDE (http://lxde.org) is under heavy development right now. It's appeal (besides simplicity and "familiarity" for ex-Windblows users) is that it doesn't come with a bunch of dependencies. You can pretty much mix and match.

It's not perfect yet. I use it because I share this computer with several people and they need (at least at the start) a somewhat familiar desktop with icons and super-simple navigation. It's very lightweight (so much so that it has been "accused" of not being a true D.E. at all) and very fast even on older hardware.

No bells, no whistles, no frills, no window dressing. Which is why it's perfect for what I use it for. It has won more than one person over from Windblows who used it and was delighted with its speed and ease.

My desktop is Crunchbang - no DE at all. But even with no DE at all, it's no faster than the LXDE machine.

But it is still under development and still has a few issues that are too trivial to keep me from using it on the "community laptop" that gets passed around the dance studio all the time.

-Robin
(still a LXDE fanboi)

[spencercarran]

There's also I really cruddy one called LXDE.
I don't recommend it.

LXDE is awesome. It's fast and lightweight, with a clean, efficient user interface and all the power and flexibility of Openbox underneath. It doesn't clutter up your hard drive or waste your RAM with random crap you don't need. It has a great, easily configurable panel app and the best file manager known to man (PCManFM owns).

That said, I sometimes like a little convenient feature bloat when I can afford it, so on my more powerful laptop I use GNOME. But on my ancient desktop (a 400MHz powerpc) a stripped-down version of LXDE runs quite nicely.

To each his own. I tried to switch to KDE, but it ended up being too much of a pain (why do all my favorite GTK apps look so fugly?) and I'm now back home in GNOME. Some like KDE or XFCE or one of the bizarre WMs out there, and that's fine. That's why they exist- choice is good.

[doorknob60]

There's also I really cruddy one called LXDE.
I don't recommend it.

Why, it's one of my favorite DEs. I'm using it right now, and my computer is the opposite of low end (see siggy). I also use it on my craptop. It's quick, and it does everything I need, and does it well. My second favorite would probably be KDE, followed by Xfce, then Gnome. I like them all just fine though.

[Skripka]

a basic installation of xfce4 is about half to two thirds of the size of gnome and even just kdebase4 now is wicked huge, dwarfing both.

Both Gnome and a KDE4 minimal install are 300 or so MB of packages, with Gnome being slightly larger actually. Why spread non-truths?

[windows-killer]

Would it be cool to have a new Desktop Environment for Ubuntu thats meant for powerfulf computers.

I would prefere to have only two main DEs

one of them for low end PCs (XFCE)
one of them for powerful PCs (KDE)

I think thats very logical, other than that all other non-popular DEs are useless

[CJ Master]

There's also I really cruddy one called LXDE.
I don't recommend it.

So, how many skill points left for level 99 trolling? ;)

KDE is as big as I care for it, and it's about 200megs of ram.

[arcdrag]

*cough KDE 4 Bloat *cough*

Wasn't the OP talking about powerful computers? People with powerful computers generally don't care about having to install a few extra megabytes of dependencies, or using an extra 500 MB of RAM.

These days a powerful computer equates to a quad core processor, 8+ GB DDR3 ram, and more than 1TB HD space. Bloat really doesn't matter on these types of rigs.

[DeadSuperHero]

So, how many skill points left for level 99 trolling? ;)

KDE is as big as I care for it, and it's about 200megs of ram.

I've really come to love KDE 4.x. With every subsequent release, I fail to understand the remaining arguments against it.

"It looks ugly!"

"It doesn't have this feature!"

"Amarok looks wrong!"

"Grrraaaah!"



I'm personally really glad that I run it on my laptop. Granted, mine is an older circa 2004 Compaq Presario r3000, and I only have 512 Mb of RAM, but the fact that KDE 4.3 runs smoothly, doesn't drain my battery thanks to cpufrequtils, and gets the job done is enough to satisfy me.

On the other hand, I have yet to see how it runs on a brand new laptop.
*puts on apron, goes to flip patties at a fast food joint*

[Tipped OuT]

Wasn't the OP talking about powerful computers? People with powerful computers generally don't care about having to install a few extra megabytes of dependencies, or using an extra 500 MB of RAM.

These days a powerful computer equates to a quad core processor, 8+ GB DDR3 ram, and more than 1TB HD space. Bloat really doesn't matter on these types of rigs.

There's a difference between a bloated desktop environment, and an operating system made for powerful computers. If what you say is true, might as well use Vista.

[DeadSuperHero]

There's a difference between a bloated desktop environment, and an operating system made for powerful computers. If what you say is true, might as well use Vista.

I'll play the Devil's Advocate for the moment: "Might as well use Vista."

Really, that's a pretty pathetic philosophy to build upon. If one has the capability of using a desktop one already loves, then if one has the chance to jump on that opportunity, one would.

I don't know about you, but the "Just switch to Vista", is a silly argument. Use whatever you want to, on whatever hardware you want to.

[Tipped OuT]

I'll play the Devil's Advocate for the moment: "Might as well use Vista."

Really, that's a pretty pathetic philosophy to build upon. If one has the capability of using a desktop one already loves, then if one has the chance to jump on that opportunity, one would.

I don't know about you, but the "Just switch to Vista", is a silly argument. Use whatever you want to, on whatever hardware you want to.

That's all fine and dandy for you, because you love KDE. But to use it because it's made for "powerful computers" is just a load of bull. It's just a resource hog, comparable to Vista. In my opinion.

[Skripka]

That's all fine and dandy for you, because you love KDE. But to use it because it's made for "powerful computers" is just a load crud.

So is your attitude, that is founded in ignorance.

Mr. Psychopath, Do not argue with the Ubuntu Linux Youth-it is a lost cause that is only a waste of electrons.

[Tipped OuT]

So is your attitude, that is founded in ignorance.

Mr. Psychopath, Do not argue with the Ubuntu Linux Youth-it is a lost cause that is only a waste of electrons.

Go back to Linsux then. It's not my problem you can't accept other peoples opinion just because there "Linux Youth"? Now who's ignorant.

Bye.

[Greg]

That's all fine and dandy for you, because you love KDE. But to use it because it's made for "powerful computers" is just a load of bull. It's just a resource hog, comparable to Vista. In my opinion.

X is just a resource hog. I see no reason why anyone should use it. If you're not going to be reasonable and just use a vt with screen and emacs, then you might as well go all the way and use Vista.

[DeadSuperHero]

Mr. Psychopath, Do not argue with the Ubuntu Linux Youth-it is a lost cause that is only a waste of electrons.

Don't worry about it. I was really just pursuing idle conversation, and I got it.

Besides, 9 out of 10 spin doctors could say that wasting electrons is good for the neutron economy. Well, my income is that miniscule anyways.

But in all seriousness, I did not intend to offend Mr. Tipped_Out. We all have different opinions and experiences.

[Tipped OuT]

Don't worry about it. I was really just pursuing idle conversation, and I got it.

Besides, 9 out of 10 spin doctors could say that wasting electrons is good for the neutron economy. Well, my income is that miniscule anyways.

But in all seriousness, I did not intend to offend Mr. Tipped_Out. We all have different opinions and experiences.

Same here Mr. Psychopath. You have a nice day. :)

[spencercarran]

I've really come to love KDE 4.x. With every subsequent release, I fail to understand the remaining arguments against it.
While I like some things about KDE4 (a very tightly-integrated system, and also very polished and attractive, an excellent selection of native apps) I ran into several frustrations with it.

The reliance on Qt when everyone else uses GTK means that if you aren't running a KDE-specific app, it will likely look like complete garbage. Iceweasel was simply hideous when I first installed it- there is a workaround to this, but it's not perfect. My tabs always looked a bit funny.

The configuration menus are cluttered and unintuitive. The default settings in a lot of places are just silly (why would I want all my windows from four desktops to show on the taskbar in the one desktop I'm looking at now?) and in some cases it is not obvious how to change things.

It is a resource hog. GNOME with eye-popping Compiz effects is noticeably faster on my system than KDE with effects disabled. In fact, I can't even enable compositing in Kwin without taking an extreme performance hit, and my system is fairly new.

The "Kickoff" menu style is pretty, but hilariously impractical. The "classic" menu style is fairly practical, but not as good as the old KDE3.5 menu. Also, it's too barebones- it looks and feels way out of place in such a beautiful, polished desktop. And the classic menu style appears to forfeit the search box that Kickoff has.

Overall, it just doesn't feel like it's fully matured yet (this from a guy who usually uses software while it's in beta). I have yet to try KDE4.3, and I have been encouraged by seeing the dramatic improvement they've made in each release, but as of 4.2.4 it still did not really feel quite "ready" to me. Some of the lack of readiness I percieve is where features actually are missing or not completely working yet, and some of it is where I just disagree with the way KDE does something, so take this with a grain of salt.

In contrast, I don't have any actual objections to GNOME. The only criticism I can think of is that it's a bit heavy, but KDE4 is certainly even worse there. There are some places where I think KDE has a little more polish, a little more style, and provides a better, more unified desktop experience, but GNOME gives me a very efficient, intuitive system where I have almost never wondered "how do I do [x]?"



I'm personally really glad that I run it on my laptop. Granted, mine is an older circa 2004 Compaq Presario r3000, and I only have 512 Mb of RAM, but the fact that KDE 4.3 runs smoothly, doesn't drain my battery thanks to cpufrequtils, and gets the job done is enough to satisfy me.
You're able to run KDE4 on that rig? Dang. I have 4GB of RAM and a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, and KDE still feels sluggish to me, even with no desktop effects. With desktop effects, KDE4 is unequivocally slower than Vista.

[starcannon]

Would it be cool to have a new Desktop Environment for Ubuntu thats meant for powerfulf computers.

Ubuntu with compiz-settings-manager isn't enough???
What are your expectations, and what are they compared against?
This is one area where I know Linux has the win; hands down, no contest.

[Tipped OuT]

Ubuntu with compiz-settings-manager isn't enough???
What are your expectations, and what are they compared against?
This is one area where I know Linux has the win; hands down, no contest.

Maybe he means a desktop environment, that's completely 3D and has other crazy things, and requires a powerful computer to run it (of coarse). That would be my guess.

[starcannon]

So is your attitude, that is founded in ignorance.

Mr. Psychopath, Do not argue with the Ubuntu Linux Youth-it is a lost cause that is only a waste of electrons.

Linux Youth is a linsux.org term, like a $ in Microsoft, it made your post meaningless to me.

[matthew.ball]

X is just a resource hog. I see no reason why anyone should use it. If you're not going to be reasonable and just use a vt with screen and emacs, then you might as well go all the way and use Vista.
Reductio ad absurdum!

[Dullstar]

Reductio ad absurdum!
What?

[starcannon]

What?

It means its been argued/explained/talked about to the point of absurdity; google is your friend when dealing with vocabulary of all sorts and kinds. Hint, you'll learn this term in any intro to logic class.

[matthew.ball]

^^

I love it, I was waiting the whole thread for that :lol:

[Skripka]

You're able to run KDE4 on that rig? Dang. I have 4GB of RAM and a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, and KDE still feels sluggish to me, even with no desktop effects. With desktop effects, KDE4 is unequivocally slower than Vista.

Crimeny. I can play this game too-I used to run KDE with a 2.2gHz AMD dual core-and it was faster than Vista. "Unequivocally" my derrière.

Try KDE on ANYTHING other than Ubuntu people. Kubuntu is to KDE what Chrylser is to car manufacturers-the bottom of the barrel. If *buntu spent half the time they spent trying to improve the default Gnome Ugly Theme instead on KDE, it would be an improvement. My money is that is your problem right there.

[Tomatz]

Crimeny. I can play this game too-I used to run KDE with a 2.2gHz AMD dual core-and it was faster than Vista. "Unequivocally" my derrière.

Try KDE on ANYTHING other than Ubuntu people. Kubuntu is to KDE what Chrylser is to car manufacturers-the bottom of the barrel. If *buntu spent half the time they spent trying to improve the default Gnome Ugly Theme instead on KDE, it would be an improvement. My money is that is your problem right there.


It should be noted, unless you have a Nvidia GPU (which i do :)) KDE4 is pretty slow.

Though i do agree with others that Gnome is fast and flexible. The Gnome UI has become stagnant, boring and has long standing problems which need to be addressed.

[Skripka]

It should be noted, unless you have a Nvidia GPU (which i do :)) KDE4 is pretty slow.

Though i do agree with others that Gnome is fast and flexible. The Gnome UI has become stagnant, boring and has long standing problems which need to be addressed.

Anything is slow with an ATi card in linux, not just KDE.

[Tomatz]

Anything is slow with an ATi card in linux, not just KDE.


Dunno... Gnome aint too bad. Provided you use the fglrx drivers.

[Skripka]

Dunno... Gnome aint too bad. Provided you use the fglrx drivers.

Presuming your card is one of the few that pitiful excuse for a driver actually supports. There are several good reasons why Arch dropped official support for fglrx.

[Tomatz]

Presuming your card is one of the few that pitiful excuse for a driver actually supports. There are several good reasons why Arch dropped official support for fglrx.


Nah i have an Nvidia 8800 GTX. I used to run ati about a year ago though.

[spencercarran]

Crimeny. I can play this game too-I used to run KDE with a 2.2gHz AMD dual core-and it was faster than Vista. "Unequivocally" my derrière.

Try KDE on ANYTHING other than Ubuntu people. Kubuntu is to KDE what Chrylser is to car manufacturers-the bottom of the barrel. If *buntu spent half the time they spent trying to improve the default Gnome Ugly Theme instead on KDE, it would be an improvement. My money is that is your problem right there.
I have tried KDE in Kubuntu, Debian, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Sabayon, and PC-BSD. Most of my KDE experience comes from Debian. Way to make unfounded assumptions. Without desktop effects, yes, KDE is faster than Vista, but turn on desktop effects and my machine grinds to a halt with KDE. It may be my integrated graphics, but I never ran into such problems using GNOME and Compiz, and the graphics card should have limited Vista's performance as well.

OpenSUSE was probably the worst. Even without desktop effects, it crawled. Kubuntu can at least limp.

[Greg]

Reductio ad absurdum!

Well, that was pretty much the whole point...

[Skripka]

I have tried KDE in Kubuntu, Debian, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Sabayon, and PC-BSD. Most of my KDE experience comes from Debian. Way to make unfounded assumptions. Without desktop effects, yes, KDE is faster than Vista, but turn on desktop effects and my machine grinds to a halt with KDE. It may be my integrated graphics, but I never ran into such problems using GNOME and Compiz, and the graphics card should have limited Vista's performance as well.

OpenSUSE was probably the worst. Even without desktop effects, it crawled. Kubuntu can at least limp.

Then go off and get a real graphics processor, and then come back here. I don't know why folks waste their time with integrated graphics anyway-especially if they've spent any time in Windows. Of COURSE eye candy will be slow with an integrated card.

[spencercarran]

Then go off and get a real graphics processor, and then come back here. I don't know why folks waste their time with integrated graphics anyway-especially if they've spent any time in Windows.
Integrated graphics aren't easily replaced without just getting a new laptop, which is unnecessary when my current one runs just fine. I don't really do any gaming, so I don't need a high-powered graphics card. I haven't spent much time in Windows- I use a MacBook, and Vista was only on there briefly before I decided I had no use for it.

The fact that KDE requires a powerful graphics card to run smoothly, whereas GNOME runs great with desktop effects on integrated graphics, is definitely a point in GNOME's favor. KDE is a resource hog, there's no way to deny that and keep a straight face. That doesn't mean KDE is garbage or worthless (as I already said, I think it's a very nice DE), but it does have high hardware requirements and this hinders its adoption for many people.

[Skripka]

Integrated graphics aren't easily replaced without just getting a new laptop, which is unnecessary when my current one runs just fine. I don't really do any gaming, so I don't need a high-powered graphics card. I haven't spent much time in Windows- I use a MacBook, and Vista was only on there briefly before I decided I had no use for it.

The fact that KDE requires a powerful graphics card to run smoothly, whereas GNOME runs great with desktop effects on integrated graphics, is definitely a point in GNOME's favor. KDE is a resource hog, there's no way to deny that and keep a straight face. That doesn't mean KDE is garbage or worthless (as I already said, I think it's a very nice DE), but it does have high hardware requirements and this hinders its adoption for many people.

Well, your first mistake was getting a laptop, and your second was getting one without a dedicated gpu card.

It doesn't need a "powerful" card-it just needs a dedicated card. Jeeebus. It ran fine on the Asus built Nvidia 8500GT I had plugged into my rig a while back (mated to an MSI K9N Neo, and AMD4200+ x2 CPU), and fine even with the gawd-awful AMDcccle fglrx drivers and a 5 year old Radeon 1900XTX.

[spencercarran]

Well, your first mistake was getting a laptop, and your second was getting one without a dedicated gpu card.
A laptop was a better choice than a desktop for me, and getting a dedicated graphics card would have cost a lot more. I'm getting a bit sick of your hardware snobbery. The fact remains: on my hardware, GNOME runs great and KDE is slightly sluggish without desktop effects, unusable with. The answer to this is not going out and blowing $1000+ on a new computer, it's using software that does run well.

[Skripka]

A laptop was a better choice than a desktop for me, and getting a dedicated graphics card would have cost a lot more. I'm getting a bit sick of your hardware snobbery. The fact remains: on my hardware, GNOME runs great and KDE is slightly sluggish without desktop effects, unusable with.

You're missing the point, completely. It may be unusable on YOUR hardware. YMMV, as the saying goes. That is the overriding fallacy people commit blatantly and repeatedly on this board. I can tell you that personally, KDE runs great under Arch, and great on my hardware--and runs great on much lower-power hardware that I have used. YMMV of course.

The other one that most folks on this board commit-is they assume that since Kubuntu is unstable and runs awful (something that I openly tell folks)-that it is somehow KDE's fault that Canonical et al staff more people to redesign the default Ugly Gnome Theme, than they do to do a quality job packaging KDE for Kubuntu.

[DeadSuperHero]

Off-topic: Is it just me, or has this community gotten a lot meaner lately? Suddenly everyone wants to validate their views as not only being "Correct", but also as being the "Only" proper view to have.

Like posted above, "Your Mileage May Vary". Indeed, I had to do some tweaking to make KDE run better on my laptop. My main problem was the fact that my battery seemed to drain faster -this was remedied by installing cpufreqconfig or something like that. It allows for Frequency Scaling, and for some odd reason it's way better for me now.

But remember, use whatever works best for you. There's no point in arguing "which desktop is better", it always ends up as "Which desktop is better for ME?"

[arcdrag]

But remember, use whatever works best for you. There's no point in arguing "which desktop is better", it always ends up as "Which desktop is better for ME?"

This is the beauty of the open source world...if you don't like what one piece of software does, there's generally at least 2 other viable choices you can try out.

The problem with this is that generally, without any proof that says otherwise, people like to believe that they are doing things the correct way. However, the flip side to this is that it creates the belief that everyone else must be doing things wrong. You see the same types of arguments everywhere. Ford drivers can't understand how anyone could drive a chevy. Cardinals fans can't understand how anyone could be a Cubs fan. World of Warcraft players can't understand how anyone could play Warhammer. Vim users can't understand how people could enjoy using Visual Studio...and the list goes on to infinity. Desktop Environments seem to be no different.

[paullinux]

Actually, performance or "snappiness" of the desktop depends also on the theme (or theme engine) used. Look here (http://blogs.gentoo.org/nightmorph/2009/06/12/benchmarks-gtk-engines-revisited) for the benchmarks. On my MSI-Wind netbook with a slow Atom-processor it makes a big difference. Pixmap-themes are much slower then for example the Mist-theme.

[RiceMonster]

Suddenly everyone wants to validate their views as not only being "Correct", but also as being the "Only" proper view to have.

The above bolded is correct about my viewpoints

[DeadSuperHero]

The above bolded is correct about my viewpoints

In what way?

[RiceMonster]

In what way?

Every way. I speak in fact, never opinion.

Ps. I'm being sarcastic

[DeadSuperHero]

Every way. I speak in fact, never opinion.

Ps. I'm being sarcastic

Oh, I didn't realise it was You, Master of the Universe. I can't stand living a lie anymore, so I think I'll just off myself in a moment so as to not be a nuisance.

Two can play this game, you know.

[Tipped OuT]

Oh, I didn't realise it was You, Master of the Universe. I can't stand living a lie anymore, so I think I'll just off myself in a moment so as to not be a nuisance.

Two can play this game, you know.

:lolflag: Relax, he's just messing with you... or... is he? *DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN*

[Tomatz]

Oh, I didn't realise it was You, Master of the Universe. I can't stand living a lie anymore, so I think I'll just off myself in a moment so as to not be a nuisance.

Two can play this game, you know.


http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/he-man/he-man-vol1-1.jpg

No HE^ is the master of the universe XD

[starcannon]

Off-topic: Is it just me, or has this community gotten a lot meaner lately? Suddenly everyone wants to validate their views as not only being "Correct", but also as being the "Only" proper view to have.

Like posted above, "Your Mileage May Vary". Indeed, I had to do some tweaking to make KDE run better on my laptop. My main problem was the fact that my battery seemed to drain faster -this was remedied by installing cpufreqconfig or something like that. It allows for Frequency Scaling, and for some odd reason it's way better for me now.

But remember, use whatever works best for you. There's no point in arguing "which desktop is better", it always ends up as "Which desktop is better for ME?"

Hmm, yeah, I noticed the changes occurring about the same time the linsux.org raids happened. I'm pretty sure there are still a few of them that come here to keep things stirred up; a quick look through their forums certainly suggests as much.

[sertse]

Well after a certain amount of time viewing threads and participating in the same discussions on same stuff, you get a sense of what "meant" to be generally, and anything else is an "exception".

It's not much of a stretch onwards to argue that the "meant to be" view is the one true proper view; a logical argument is that it actually/objective *is* more "valid" in that it's the sum total of *all* experiences, as opposed on "one puny subjective opinion".

From there; We get your "your experience is wrong, and discredited" hahaha ;), but you can see where it comes from, and why looking at it another way, the statement can be true.

[DeadSuperHero]

Hmm, yeah, I noticed the changes occurring about the same time the linsux.org raids happened. I'm pretty sure there are still a few of them that come here to keep things stirred up; a quick look through their forums certainly suggests as much.

Honestly, we haven't done a "raid" since...when was the first one? March? April? Even then, I've been part of this community since I had Ubuntu Edgy, so it's not like I'm the one doing anything.

It is a curious occurrence that the rowdiness of this place has stepped up so much. I'm a little worried...

[Twitch6000]

C'mon XFCE is not a light desktop manager anymore.It is just same as KDE and Gnome.

Maybe on ubuntu,but xfce itself is still very light.

I tried it on dream linux and it could run a 256mb ram system.

[WaveMyBlackFlag]

C'mon XFCE is not a light desktop manager anymore.It is just same as KDE and Gnome.

Tru dat. Installed Xubuntu on an old laptop (Duron 1ghz 256mb 15gbhd s3 somethinorothersharedvideo32mb)... crawled... older versions made a PIII 1.3ghz seem fast, no joke.

[starcannon]

Honestly, we haven't done a "raid" since...when was the first one? March? April? Even then, I've been part of this community since I had Ubuntu Edgy, so it's not like I'm the one doing anything.

It is a curious occurrence that the rowdiness of this place has stepped up so much. I'm a little worried...
Like I said, that was the beginning of it all; and like I said, there are those from linsux that like to keep things stirred. Anti-zealot zealots /sigh. And trying to talk to any one from linsux about it, is like talking to a brick wall. The linsux.org community makes even the hardest line OS zealot look mild, talk about pointing fingers and having them point back eh?

[jespdj]

Would it be cool to have a new Desktop Environment for Ubuntu thats meant for powerfulf computers.
This is not the first time this question is discussed here.

Why would we need a new desktop environment? Are GNOME / KDE / XFCE not good enough in some way? What are you missing? Is it impossible to have that what you're missing in the existing desktop environments?

Do you realize that a completely new DE means that people are going to write programs that run only on that DE and not on the regular GNOME / KDE / XFCE unless compatibility libraries are also written? Do you really want developers to spend all that effort on something we don't really need? Wouldn't it be better if they improve the existing DE's?

[DeadSuperHero]

trying to talk to any one from linsux about it, is like talking to a brick wall.

Surely I'm not like that most of the time, am I?

[starcannon]

Surely I'm not like that most of the time, am I?


Well.... at the moment....

[XubuRoxMySox]

Do you realize that a completely new DE means that people are going to write programs that run only on that DE and not on the regular GNOME / KDE / XFCE unless compatibility libraries are also written?

Whoa there now. For people who use only a window manager (Openbox, Fluxbox, Awesome, etc) instead of an entire desktop environment (and they are not the same thing), compatibility is rarely an issue at all. Most Gnome apps run fine in KDE and vice versa. One of the reasons I'm such a fan of LXDE is that it has almost none of the dependencies and extra libraries to run just about any Linux software.

I understand the "stick with what works and if you don't like something improve it instead of replacing it" sentiment. Really. But Linux is about choice, and about freedom, and innovation. Every innovation made by one, makes all the rest better as well, because everything is shared so freely and everything is a collaborative effort.

It's a beautiful thing.

-Robin