What Constitutes a Perfect Desktop Environment?

[Mark C]

With the KDE vs. GNOME wars going on, and with many people advocating XFCE, what really constitutes a perfect desktop environment.

Please don't answer that everyone will have their own preferences, instead answer what their preferences are that they use this desktop environment over the other, aside from trying to be 'different'.

[bomanizer]

1. Integration between applications
2. Good hardware support

These are some general thins that come to my mind...

[aysiu]

I know this is really hokey, but I also believe it's true:
"Whatever works for you."

Right now the perfect desktop environment for me is no desktop environment. I prefer the window manager IceWM. It's lightweight, looks good (with the right theme, of course), has easy customization through simple text configuration files--no fuss, no muss.

From a theoretical standpoint, I know Mezzo's supposed to be good (intuitive and ergonomically sound), but I just can't get used to it.

[Tuna-Fish]

It needs to be:
a) Intuitive, you should never have to learn where things are, they should just be where you expect them to be. Note that this effectively also means that they should be very easily customizable, otherwise they cannot be intuitive for everyone.

b) Well integrated, as in i should be able to drag and drop anything from anything to anything.

Beyond those two, the only significant qualities are snappiness and lightness.

Gnome does well on b), KDE does well on a), however both are way too bloated and slow. XFCE wins on everything.

[kerry_s]

A perfect desktop is 1 that does everything "YOU" need done.

[Pugwash]

XFCE wins on everything.

Hear hear!

[jlk]

With the KDE vs. GNOME wars going on, and with many people advocating XFCE, what really constitutes a perfect desktop environment.

Please don't answer that everyone will have their own preferences, instead answer what their preferences are that they use this desktop environment over the other, aside from trying to be 'different'.

The desktop environment you choose should be the one that you are confortable with. You may get that confort fealing from:

this was the default desktop when I installed the system
I needed feature 'X' which I get with desktop 'Y'
I can't stand using window manager 'W' because it used feature 'Z'
I add you own reasons here......


Personally I use Gnome/MetaCity with a modified Human theme. Why? Habit. Gnome was the default install with RedHat, then Fedora, and SuSE for the brief time I used it, and it's the default for Ubuntu. Am I lazy being content with the default installed Windows Manager/Desktop Environment? Yes and No.

Yes because it's the default install.

No becuase I've invested the time in learning how a GTK theme works, finding alternative GDM login screens. Getting Usplash to work with my company logo.

It's the beauty of Linux. If you don't like the desktop Ubuntu/RedHat/Novell/Debian ships as a default, roll-your-own. The choices can overwhelm when first starting. I suggest you have a look at xwinman.org Some of it is dated, but it will get you started on which Desktop, and which Window Manager to use.

Given that there are 4 alternative desktop environments, 20 or more windows managers, 100's of GTK themes/blackgrounds/boot splash screens/GDM login screens/Icons, and do you use Beryl/Compiz? makes answering you question in a short reply impossible. It's more the suitable for a large web site or book and even then it would nearly be impossible to discuss all the options in a neutral manner.

If possible join a LUG and go see what other people are using. If you can't attend their meetings, join the mailing list.

[fuscia]

i'm a **** for speed (i'll even use something like flwm rather than something that does more, more slowly). i like being able to contruct my own right-click menues easily (openbox and icewm do this well and e17 did it well, but doesn't seem to be doing so lately). i also like mouse gesture changing of workspaces (scrolling for openbox, fluxbox and sliding for e17). look (it must look good, or cool to me).

for me, 'integration' means using apps i would normally not want to.

[Rui Pais]

I once read someone post that the only intuitive thing was the nipple.
I laughed a lot. Someone who says that didn't knew my daughter...
Moral of the history, I don' t believe that exist an intuitive "something", even less for such a complex task as a desktop environment.

Same goes for look. That's a taste question.
Ten people may not have ten different tastes, but will not have for sure one or two only.

For me, a perfect desktop should be:
1) unobtrusive (don't get in my way when i work)
2) configurable (everything should be easily changeable, specially the applications menu)
3) applications should be at zero distance/zero effort from launching.
4) started application should be at zero effort when (re)acceded.

Examples would fall on personal preferences, so here some counter-examples:

1) stuff like panels occupying full fixed space of screen, sometimes with nothing there (default on gnome/kde panels). Or all desktop disappear under some animation when one access another desktop (like rotating cube). Or transparent windows, keep the underneath apps visible and distracting while working (eye candy, yes, but for those who only use they box for play and show).

2) Why on earth could any dev or distro know exactly my needs, the apps i use. In my case they even change a lot as my works moves from one thing to another. I need to have my needed (note i didn't say my favorite) app easily accessible. It's a question of functionality.

Same goes for look. How can a dev or a distro match something that please anyone. And the myriad of choices. I may like a button from these theme and a scroolbar or a titlebar from another. One should have an easy way to change anything on a theme according to his/her one taste. e17, although yet too hard, it's the one i found that offer that flexibility.

3) Since Microsoft and Apple impose over they users an app menu fixed to a button, thats of course intuitive. No, not really... The main menu should appear immediately where ever you are! Why go to the top left or bottom left, to search for a button that then would allow me to access my apps :shock:
The unix way, menu at right click, it's obvious the one. All wins except Gnome and kde :(

4) 21st. century, win3.1 is forgotten. Multi task/thread on multi core cpus rules. Yet as soon as you got 5 or 6 apps running it may be hard to access one specific. Another day i ask someone i knew to open 10 browsers, on his XP, go to the desktop (minimizing them) and then trying to access one of that specific browser window... he,he; the guy was looking for the horrifying Window panel (occupying 2cm of the all bottom of the screen filled with rectangles all saying "Microsoft internet explorer..." with no clue what so ever what was on on each of them. More or less the same would happen on gnome or kde.

On Linux we have easy virtual desktop, but then, on the applets that manage those desktops, on the most popular DEs, we got little grey squares with little squares (sometimes with no icon) inside to manipulate and access our started apps. The only desktop that work good here it's e17.

[EdThaSlayer]

A Perfect Desktop Environment has to be both
a)Easy for the beginner
b)Offer more editing and tweaking for the advanced users

KDE does B very well but fails at A while GNOME does A very well but fails at B. Hopefully KDE4 will do both A+B very well. :)

[karellen]

there is no such thing like a perfect dektop environment. just only what it's best for you. what you like and you want/need to use

[rai4shu2]

A Perfect DE would require perfect input/output hardware. Unfortunately, we only have clunky peripherals that very roughly simulate what a perfect peripheral would do, so there's really no point in discussing it.

[koshatnik]

There is no such thing as "intuitive" or "easy to use". There is only familiar. Anything can become intuitive and easy to use if you use it long enough. My father-in-law keeps harping on about how "intuitive" OSX is. Well, that's because he's been a Mac user for 20 years. I've never touched one, so when I use it, it annoys me.

A desktop environment should be configurable and clean. It should be a sandbox, not a prefab. It should say, "ok, here is a basic menu, here are some tools - go create."

It should be stable and consistent. That's it. Too many desktop environments throw everything at you under the misguided premise that the more features they bombard you with, the better the experience.

[Rui Pais]

A Perfect DE would require perfect input/output hardware. Unfortunately, we only have clunky peripherals that very roughly simulate what a perfect peripheral would do, so there's really no point in discussing it.

sorry, but i find hard to understand your point of view... care to elaborate? What kind of peripheral have you in mind?



A desktop environment should be configurable and clean. It should be a sandbox, not a prefab. It should say, "ok, here is a basic menu, here are some tools - go create."
I absolutely agree with you... thats an excellent definition of a perfect desktop.

Regrettably seem to has spread an idea around Linux community that if you keep things basic and ask the users to do they basic choices and personalize they environment in a way that fits they needs, it will brain damage every new user... (but if one look at any thread with "show your desktop", everybody configs they desktop :lol:)

[detyabozhye]

A perfect desktop is one that's completely done even though the developers still have the time and money to develop further. After each new version, the 3 major DEs continue their developement, therefore they aren't perfect. Why would you need to change anything if it has already reached perfection? I doubt we will ever bring a DE to perfection, they will keep improving, but they won't be perfect.

OK, enough with the blablabla. I think the best DE is the one that has a good balance between functionality and speed. For me, that's Xfce.

[karellen]

With the KDE vs. GNOME wars going on, and with many people advocating XFCE, what really constitutes a perfect desktop environment.

Please don't answer that everyone will have their own preferences, instead answer what their preferences are that they use this desktop environment over the other, aside from trying to be 'different'.

there's no such thing as "perfect desktop environment". just the desktop environment you like/suits your needs better

[me1on]

For me, it needs to be configurable, stable, powerful, and not impossible to work with. My perfect desktop environment would look decent, feature strong and seamless integration between apps, increase my productivity, and never drop features in order to maintain ease of use. I don't really like simple "lightweight" Desktop Environments/Window Managers that much, because as cheaper, faster computers come out, speed is less of an issue. GNOME is pretty good - I especially liked its ease of use when I first started learning Linux. But now that I know my way around, I prefer a more powerful (some would call it "bloated") desktop environment like KDE. :)