When did Xubuntu become so awesome?

[mreq]

I don't have a reason to use xubuntu really. For machines that are relatively new and with at least 2 G of ram I can run a modern DE like Unity or Gnome-shell comfortably (or kde if I want a more 'traditional' feel). If I want a truly light *buntu for older and weaker machines I would choose lubuntu instead.

I have to disaggree as well. I have a top-notch laptop, which could run Unity/Gnome-shell but I still use Xubuntu. Once I tried it and saw how FAST it is, there was no way back. A few hours of bash scripting with wmctrl gave me some features I missed from Unity/Gnome - namely Win+Num shortcuts for switching apps and snapping windows to half of the screen.

[Copper Bezel]

I was surprised to see that XFCE now supports window snapping, at least if you have the behavior to drag windows over to the next workspace turned off. It's a nice feature, and I'm glad to see it becoming more or less universal.

The vertical window snapping that XFCE supports is slightly weird to me, though. I get the logic that if dragging the window to the right side of the screen makes it snap to the right half, dragging the window up should make it snap to the top half, but I'm used to that being a way of maximizing a window, and it just seems like they've taken the "logical" behavior past the point of usefulness. I guess I've actually seen people stack windows that way, but most applications have horizontal toolbars, so splitting the screen top-to-bottom normally means losing a lot of screen real estate to toolbars and not having a lot of window content visible.

[mreq]

@Copper Bezel: I was talking about keyboard shortcuts. I don't use mouse often. As for the vertical snapping, I agree. Find it useless for widescreen monitors which I'm using.

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, I should have specified - I knew you were referring to keyboard shortcuts for snapping, but it reminded me of my surprise when I noticed that XFCE had implementing the mouse-driven snapping.

[neu5eeCh]

I respectfully disagree. Lubuntu crashes constantly on my very old Dell desktop with 512 RAM and an old Celeron processor. Xubuntu (Precise) is snappy and responsive and trouble-free on the same computer.

According to what I've read, this whole notion that Lubuntu is lighter weight than Xubuntu is an urban myth. According to the devs at XFCE, both DEs are built on the same "stacks". There may be a reason to use Lubuntu (many in fact) but one of them is not that it's lighter weight than XFCE or Xubuntu.

[Copper Bezel]

Same memory at login, right? But I notice that Xfce takes longer to log in - and then you start to do things after you've logged in. = ) Openbox is surely lighter than xfwm4 in actual use, and the default apps (like PCManFM in place of Thunar) are ridiculously lightweight and zippy.

That's because they're awful, featureless applications that sacrifice cycles for manhours, but they're definitely lighter-weight. = )

(Which parts of the stack are shared? I know that Xfce has its own settings system styled after dconf now, the wm isn't even close to being the same, and the desktop environment bits are all very different programs - what do they have in common?)

[mikodo]

Once I tried it and saw how FAST it is, there was no way back. A few hours of bash scripting with wmctrl gave me some features I missed from Unity/Gnome - namely Win+Num shortcuts for switching apps and snapping windows to half of the screen.

Must be nice! Yes, I am envious. I wish I had learned to do that before I reached 60. I am not going to learn now. Not that I have any faults to list about Xubuntu. A little searching on google, reading of wiki's, asking here, can transform Xfce to a very pleasant experience, even for the unknowledgeable <-- (I guess a little confabulation, but it seems apt)..

[mreq]

Must be nice! Yes, I am envious. I wish I had learned to do that before I reached 60. I am not going to learn now. Not that I have any faults to list about Xubuntu. A little searching on google, reading of wiki's, asking here, can transform Xfce to a very pleasant experience, even for the unknowledgeable <-- (I guess a little confabulation, but it seems apt)..

It's easy if you're a programmer. Once you know a language, you know 'em all If you're referring to those I mentioned I've written a tutorial on app switching here on forums or on my blog and can share the window snapping script if anyone's interested

[mips]

According to what I've read, this whole notion that Lubuntu is lighter weight than Xubuntu is an urban myth. According to the devs at XFCE, both DEs are built on the same "stacks". There may be a reason to use Lubuntu (many in fact) but one of them is not that it's lighter weight than XFCE or Xubuntu.

It's very much down to the distro, Lubuntu is lighter than Xubuntu but that's due to what's included in the distros and not a lxde vs xfce issue. You can install xfce and lxde on a base install they will be the same, they use the same underlying gtk stuff. What the xfce dev said is that xfce is no heavier than lxde and that people should compare apples with apples.

The article is here, http://blog.xfce.org/2012/05/questio...-4-10-release/

LXDE still consumes less memory

*sigh* I’m not going to rant on this because as a user you should choose the desktop that makes you happy, but anyway it annoys me a tiny bit. So just to throw some information:
LXDE and Xfce are both based on the same toolkit and provide roughly the same set of features. That as a start makes it technically almost impossible to be much better or worse regarding memory usage. I think this whole myth started by comparing two distributions (clue: strcmp (distro_a + 1, distro_b + 1) == 0).
I’m sure Xfce consumes a bit more memory, because more processes are started. Especially when external plugins are added to the panel: a design decision to make the panel more stable.
I don’t know or care where this comparison started, but if somebody does this again the the future, please compare the actual memory usage and don’t use free. Or even better: don’t compare memory usage at all because it is pretty useless.
That said: if I start a default LXDE and Xfce 4.10 desktop (default Arch Linux packages) and use ps_mem.py, Xfce consumes 2 MiB more memory (same or desktop-equal applications are started). Do whatever you want this is number, as long as you compare apples and apples.

You can do a minimal xfce install which in all honesty is not much heavier than openbox (with a panel etc) I have found.

[BrokenKingpin]

Have been using Xubuntu/Xfce as my default desktop for many years, and it only seems to get better and more polished. For me, it strikes the perfect balance between a lightweight DE and a feature heavy DE. It has all the features you need any everything is easily configured through the UI.