Best *nix Desktop Environment/Window Manager/whatever

[Mr. Heavy]

I like my apps to look like they came from 1991 with an updated skin. Generally, those apps are also lighter weight and less bloated. Although that doesn't apply to Gnome, unfortunately.

As far as the heavy shiny ones go, I haven't yet found something that can beat E17 on that front.

Lean, minimalist GUI is fine, but lacking basic features like a usable, consistent file chooser widget is an egregious UI sin.

[xyzzy]

I like my apps to look like they came from 1991 with an updated skin. Generally, those apps are also lighter weight and less bloated. Although that doesn't apply to Gnome, unfortunately.

As far as the heavy shiny ones go, I haven't yet found something that can beat E17 on that front.

Lean, minimalist GUI is fine, but lacking basic features like a usable, consistent file chooser widget is an egregious UI sin.

Hm, maybe. I rarely run anything that uses a file chooser more advanced than "C-x C-f" though, so it doesn't bother me as much. Meh. YMMV

[aldimond]

Unadvanced is one thing. Flamingly broken is another. The web is damn near unusable today without a popular browser (I hate the web, but that's another rant), which on Linux pretty well means Firefox, and Firefox's method of choosing helper applications on Unix makes me cry. To the extent that I just set any file I download to save into a (big messy) directory, then open it manually when it's finished.

For one thing, if you don't tell it to do the same thing every time with a certain file type, it doesn't seem capable of saving which app you might open it in. That is, I can't get a choice between "open in xpdf" and "save to default location". I get instead "open with..." and "save to default location".

You used to have to browse through directories to get to the program you wanted. That sucks balls on Windows, and it sucks bigger balls on Unix when you have a tiny window with the entire listing of /usr/bin in front of you. These days you can type in a path, and you also get "type to find file" in the GUI window. But when you type in the path it loads up the full directory listing, which causes a major delay as it scans /usr/bin, of course.

Again, IT IS UNIX. We have $PATH. All teh pogarms go tehre lol. I should just be able to type xpdf and Firefox should do the work of finding it in the god damned path. But it won't do that. When I submitted a feature request in their Bugzilla they just said, "It's the standard GTK+ program choosing widget. Not our problem." Now since GTK+ is barely used on anything but Unix (GTK+ is not very robust, and it shows on Windows; on Unix it's well-tested enough that the obvious bugs are out of the way) it's pretty damn inexcusable to have a program choosing widget that always sucks under Unix. And if I was going to go for the full DM treatment (I may when I bother to put a different distro on this box) I wouldn't go for the one that heavily used the toolkit that did shit like *that*.

[Mr. Heavy]

Unadvanced is one thing. Flamingly broken is another. The web is damn near unusable today without a popular browser (I hate the web, but that's another rant), which on Linux pretty well means Firefox, and Firefox's method of choosing helper applications on Unix makes me cry. To the extent that I just set any file I download to save into a (big messy) directory, then open it manually when it's finished.

Nonsense. The extensions are a legitimate draw of Firefox, and they're the reason I stick with it, but Opera and KHTML/Konqueror are both well-tested and standards-compliant.

[enk]

Opera and KHTML/Konqueror are both well-tested and standards-compliant.

Well, sometimes that's not enough.

[Mr. Heavy]

Well, sometimes that's not enough.

I'm not debating that. I'm debating the notion that Firefox is the only web browser for Linux capable of providing a full-featured web experience, which is patently false at a number of levels. It's not as though your three options are Firefox, Dillo or lynx.

[aldimond]

I didn't mean to start a flamewar about Firefox. There's another thread for that. I was just justifying why in the face of that UI problem that annoys me every day I don't just switch to Konq (which I've tried a few times and usually run across some website that didn't work very well in it), as a lead-in to my main point, a rant about how poorly thought-out this aspect of GTK+ is. And how that and other stupid issues like it really turn me off of Gnome.

On the other hand I've generally liked KDE when I've tried it. I just really like my FVWM setup.

[collinstocks]

I like Gnome, but I also like the look of QT (and thus KDE). The best window manager (aesthetically) by far, though, is Compiz/Beryl. It's not the most stable thing in the world, but it is good for showing off your computer if you have a good (or at least moderate) graphics card. Don't hold me to this, but I think it can be installed on most Linux systems. It can definitely be installed as the window manager for Gnome as a replacement for Metacity.

[jamingrit]

I prefer GNOME over KDE, just because I'm more used to it, not because I think it's better. I also like how things in GNOME are a little more tucked out of the way than they seem to be in KDE.

But my favourite is definitely fluxbox. Also tried 'awesome' tiling WM before, but I just didn't quite get into it, although I might be willing to try it again later.

And hey, did someone want to keep bad-mouthing Slackware?!? >:(

[niko7865]

I use gnome/xfce/openbox. Mainly because they look the most elegant. I cannot stand any of the themes for KDE and I hate Amarok with a passion, why is everything KDE just so damn ugly.

KDE is for kids, it has to be. Why is everything so glossy, why are the icons so glossy, it's really annoying.

You can change them, you know that, eh? Maybe not, since you are most probably used to GNOME but ...you can change them.

I've been through a lot of KDE-look.org but I couldn't find anything I liked. I also hate the feel of KDE, feels like it was just made cheaply...I'm not sure how to describe it.

[d3adf001]

Yeah this is kind of ironic actually considering how Slackware is basically the most ill-conceived, lacking-vision distro around these days

what? spoken like a true noob. have you even tried to compile gnome yourself? i fail to see how it lacks vision or is ill conceived. i would even say that ubuntu is the most ill conceived distro out there. they package crappy software, look ugly, abuse sudo and ignore bug fixes so they can release every 6 months.

[Posi]

KDE4 > Gnome > KDE3 > rest

[zenten]

KDE4 > Gnome > KDE3 > rest

Ratpoison > rest > Gnome > DWM/Aero > Xfce > KDE

[Zoris]

I like XFCE the best, although I'm using Gnome right now. I've got a reasonably fast computer so it doesn't bother me.

KDE3 is alright, but I tried KDE4 and I don't like where they are going with it.

I've also tried fluxbox, it's nice and in my opinion perfect for slower machines.

XKCD...XFCE...Coincidence? I think not.

[zombie_monkey]

Ok, I've seen the light, and I now wish I could change my poll vote to ratpoison (of course that would be "other", as the one that made this poll is a heathen).

Heh, I have also since changed my usage patterns to using ratpoison more than xfce Also, I agree with someone else who noted that xfce has great potential but is a bit underdeveloped. It's more than adequate for most purposes, though and I prefer it to gnome or kde.

[TheGZeus]

Pretty much anything works better than GNOME.
I'm using a hodge-podge of StumpWM terminal apps, Qt4 apps, XUL-based browser, with interfaces based mainly on VI and Emacs and the interface is still more consistent than GNOME.
I was honestly shocked at the number of people who voted for it.
All that RAM for less functionality than XFCE4.

[zenten]

Pretty much anything works better than GNOME.
I'm using a hodge-podge of StumpWM terminal apps, Qt4 apps, XUL-based browser, with interfaces based mainly on VI and Emacs and the interface is still more consistent than GNOME.
I was honestly shocked at the number of people who voted for it.
All that RAM for less functionality than XFCE4.

It's cause it's better than KDE, and XFCE4 is still kind of new, so I hadn't tried it. At least why I voted (plus I never could get fluxbox to work right). It also is much better than the Mac or Windows UI, so out of everything I had used it really was the best.

[TheGZeus]

Pretty much anything works better than GNOME.
I'm using a hodge-podge of StumpWM terminal apps, Qt4 apps, XUL-based browser, with interfaces based mainly on VI and Emacs and the interface is still more consistent than GNOME.
I was honestly shocked at the number of people who voted for it.
All that RAM for less functionality than XFCE4.

It's cause it's better than KDE, and XFCE4 is still kind of new, so I hadn't tried it. At least why I voted (plus I never could get fluxbox to work right). It also is much better than the Mac or Windows UI, so out of everything I had used it really was the best.

How is it better than KDE? I mean, I gave a reason for my statements...

KDE apps generally share keybindings, interface design, are 3x~^10 more configurable, and look better.

[niko7865]

Pretty much anything works better than GNOME.
I'm using a hodge-podge of StumpWM terminal apps, Qt4 apps, XUL-based browser, with interfaces based mainly on VI and Emacs and the interface is still more consistent than GNOME.
I was honestly shocked at the number of people who voted for it.
All that RAM for less functionality than XFCE4.

It's cause it's better than KDE, and XFCE4 is still kind of new, so I hadn't tried it. At least why I voted (plus I never could get fluxbox to work right). It also is much better than the Mac or Windows UI, so out of everything I had used it really was the best.

How is it better than KDE? I mean, I gave a reason for my statements...

KDE apps generally share keybindings, interface design, are 3x~^10 more configurable, and look better.

How could anyone think that? Ever KDE theme is much worse than the worst gnome theme. KDE is more customizable though...I think, you can do a lot with gconf-editor though.

[TheGZeus]

Pretty much anything works better than GNOME.
I'm using a hodge-podge of StumpWM terminal apps, Qt4 apps, XUL-based browser, with interfaces based mainly on VI and Emacs and the interface is still more consistent than GNOME.
I was honestly shocked at the number of people who voted for it.
All that RAM for less functionality than XFCE4.

It's cause it's better than KDE, and XFCE4 is still kind of new, so I hadn't tried it. At least why I voted (plus I never could get fluxbox to work right). It also is much better than the Mac or Windows UI, so out of everything I had used it really was the best.

How is it better than KDE? I mean, I gave a reason for my statements...

KDE apps generally share keybindings, interface design, are 3x~^10 more configurable, and look better.

How could anyone think that? Ever KDE theme is much worse than the worst gnome theme. KDE is more customizable though...I think, you can do a lot with gconf-editor though.

They have better design, insofar a aesthetics in the generally accepted sense.
They're unified, in the sense that a theme does more than change the window manager colors, and it works across all applications.
The icons look more professional. The standard GNOME icons look cartoonish, and 'square' for lack of a better term I can think of.
GNOME applications generally look 'primitive,' like a Win2k app, though Brasero(sp?) looks nice.
Again, none of the GNOME applications look alike. Some look nice, some look like a joke. Sometimes they require ALL of GNOME's libraries, sometimes they require just keyring or something. Why should installing an image viewer require keyring services?? But now I've strayed from aesthetics...

Insofar as gconf-editor... Why the hell should the user either dig through a long-ass list of config files looking for an area to edit in a specific way to get a small change in the UI, or get no customisation?
That's the problem I have with many GNU Project applications. If it's a terminal/console app, it's insanely powerful, has 1 zillion command-line options, can do everything related to it's task and 4 more things just in case, and has keybindings for half of its functions. If it's a GUI program, you get 10 buttons that do half of what you'd want the program to do, and no options for anything. "You want to use a GUI? Oh, MAN, you must be one of those stupid people who doesn't know how to make choices or actually use a computer! Heweza widdle appwiashun fow yoooo~!"
Hopefully GNOME realises this is NOT what's needed, and that the world(and computing) is not black and white. It's not an either/or situation where you either want power or ease of use. You CAN have both. It does, indeed, work The number of blog posts I've seen from GNOME users who use K3B is hilarious. There goes GNOME's claim of lower memory consumption!
DUPLICATION OF EFFORT HELPS NO ONE! Frankly I think GTK is just that, the FSF freaked out and instead of petitioning Trolltech to do what it eventually did (GPL Qt) they tried to duplicate the functionality and the entire desktop. Trollteck is helpful to, supportive of, and hands-off with the KDE project.
The GNOME foundation is being pushed and shoved around by big companies.

I promote KDE.
I use StumpWM.

[niko7865]

They have better design, insofar a aesthetics in the generally accepted sense.
They're unified, in the sense that a theme does more than change the window manager colors, and it works across all applications.
The icons look more professional. The standard GNOME icons look cartoonish, and 'square' for lack of a better term I can think of.
GNOME applications generally look 'primitive,' like a Win2k app, though Brasero(sp?) looks nice.

How much more can you change with a theme besides colors, buttons, window manager style, etc? It will also apply the theme to all Gtk applications! How about that?
I always thought the gnome (at least ubuntu, redhat/fedora) icons look way better than the KDE ones. I also think all of KDE looks very cartoonish and unprofessional, every theme seems clunky and like a toy. I like the look of most gnome apps, the only I've seen that looks windows 2000ish, is maybe totem movie player?

[TheGZeus]

By "Win2k" I mean "Grey, squared-off, and boring."
To a degree aesthetics are personal preference, and I've stated my case, so there's not much more for me to say there. *shrug*


The fact that the applications in GNOME don't work together in any significant way doesn't hurt, either.
They work together about 2% better than a Tk app and a GTK or KDE app do.
What do GNOME libs offer, other than keyring (both it and kwallet are soon to be obsolete, replaced with a unified backend) and ... to be honest I can't think of anything GNOME offers of any significant value to the end user over vanilla GTK(+/2/2+/layers of backward compatability with no breaks AKA Redmond policy).

If I met someone that preferred the look/feel of GNOME to KDE, I'd hand them a Xubuntu disk. At least you can change the settings without reading 12 man pages and a few info sheets. Other than that it seems the same. Well, it also offers a lower memory footprint... and better file manager...and more versatile default terminal emulator...

Is there anything that matters to the END USER that GNOME offers that xfce4 doesn't? I've seen things that GNOME has that helps developers, but since the applications developed are intentionally limited (because users must be coddled and given only the options developers think they deserve) why bother using the result?

I'm less frustrated by 1 hour with Windows XP than 10 minutes with GNOME.
That said, 10 seconds with Vista is enough to make me bloodthirsty.

[Berengal]

I agree that KDE looks nicer compared to metacity, especially KDE-4. However, KDE doesn't work on my machine. It's just too buggy. In KDE-4 I've not once opened the settings manager without the screen going black on me except the pointer, and all keyboard events being swallowed so I can't even change terminals, forcing me to restart. It also has a very buggy or very lacking in features panel. You can't move items around on it, and every item you add is put on the right. If you somehow manage to remove the panel you better had mapped a keyboard shortcut to open a terminal, because there's no other way you can start a program. And whatever you do, don't close any of the terminals you open, because the shortcut only works five times anyway. Oh, and only about half of the Kwin settings actually work, and if you select the wrong one you'll never be able to restart X ever again. Which one seems to vary, but the last time it was mouse trail (no, I don't normally use it. I just wanted to see if it worked). Fun times.
I tried KDE-3.5 as well, because I figured KDE-4 might be suffering from just-released-syndrome. It was even worse. I never really got to try it out, because windows would randomly lock up or bug in the weirdest ways. Sometimes it would refuse to change the focused window no matter what I did, so I was forced to work in the only window that was focused at the time the bug happened. Interesting things happen when an unfocused modal window pops up. Other times it would refuse to move windows. Well, they would for all intents and purposes be moved, except their position on the screen remained the same. They would be redrawn, but not moved or change position in the stack. Fun things happened when other windows got wrong information about which parts of it were visible. Not redrawing visible parts we've all seen before, but redrawing invisible parts on top of a window that should be in front of it, but isn't, is a first.
Also, neither version seemed to have as many configuration options as GNOME available from the launcher menu. Maybe if I had known about the specific programs to run, or packages to get, I would've found them, but it's a problem I didn't have in GNOME.

GNOME with Compiz looks wonderful on my machine, and behaves just the way I want it to. Emerald has some pretty neat themes available for download, and I absolutely love the wall. Combined with expo it's like I've got eight screens at once. Also, wobbly windows and other effects makes it so much nicer that other window managers I've tried (as long as you don't overdo it. I've found the settings perfect for me). When I enabled wobbly windows in KDE absolutely nothing happened, and then it crashed. Overall it felt like ME.
The only thing that bothers me about GNOME right now is that Tk, and to a lesser extent, wxWidgets, look ugly. Tk looks like win 95, and wx looks, well... confused. Tk didn't look especially good in windows either, but at least it had most of the look and feel, except for a few buttons that were slightly off. I don't know if this is actually GNOME's fault thought. Seems to me like it's the toolkits' responsibility thought.

Finally I must say that I agree with the KDE philosophy more than I do GNOME, but thus far I haven't seen any of it. I'm also probably the odd man out when it comes to bugs, but that still doesn't change the fact that KDE is absolutely useless on my machine.
(I've only tested KDE with Kubuntu. I've testen GNOME both on ubuntu and Gentoo, but it was basically identical.)

By "Win2k" I mean "Grey, squared-off, and boring."
To a degree aesthetics are personal preference, and I've stated my case, so there's not much more for me to say there. *shrug*

If I remember correctly, metacity is designed to be grey and square.

Metacity's focus is on simplicity and usability rather than novelties or gimmicks. Its author has characterized it as a "Boring window manager for the adult in you. Many window managers are like Marshmallow Froot Loops; Metacity is like Cheerios."

As I've said, I use compiz, so this isn't an issue for me.

[fatherdaly]

I've only ever used Gnome and KDE. I might give XFCE a try.

I prefer KDE to Gnome just because I think it looks nicer and has some good custom built apps.

Apart from that I have no other reasons really.

[TheGZeus]

I agree that KDE looks nicer compared to metacity, especially KDE-4. However, KDE doesn't work on my machine. It's just too buggy. In KDE-4 I've not once opened the settings manager without the screen going black on me except the pointer, and all keyboard events being swallowed so I can't even change terminals, forcing me to restart. It also has a very buggy or very lacking in features panel. You can't move items around on it, and every item you add is put on the right. If you somehow manage to remove the panel you better had mapped a keyboard shortcut to open a terminal, because there's no other way you can start a program. And whatever you do, don't close any of the terminals you open, because the shortcut only works five times anyway. Oh, and only about half of the Kwin settings actually work, and if you select the wrong one you'll never be able to restart X ever again. Which one seems to vary, but the last time it was mouse trail (no, I don't normally use it. I just wanted to see if it worked). Fun times.
I tried KDE-3.5 as well, because I figured KDE-4 might be suffering from just-released-syndrome. It was even worse. I never really got to try it out, because windows would randomly lock up or bug in the weirdest ways. Sometimes it would refuse to change the focused window no matter what I did, so I was forced to work in the only window that was focused at the time the bug happened. Interesting things happen when an unfocused modal window pops up. Other times it would refuse to move windows. Well, they would for all intents and purposes be moved, except their position on the screen remained the same. They would be redrawn, but not moved or change position in the stack. Fun things happened when other windows got wrong information about which parts of it were visible. Not redrawing visible parts we've all seen before, but redrawing invisible parts on top of a window that should be in front of it, but isn't, is a first.

Good lord, what distro are you using?
3.5.9 was pretty solid for me, but I wish Kubuntu got 1/3 the attention that Ubuntu does. sidux does a better job, I think.
I never had any of these problems, save some of the KDE4 ones (it's a developer release, so I only ever really played with it) I used Dolphin alot for a while, and it crashed every 3 days. I replicate some of the layout sometimes, but with 'smaller' apps.

[Berengal]

I was using Kubuntu. I WILL try KDE some time later, perhaps when KDE-4 has become more stable. For the moment thought, I'm happy with my green emerald emerald theme and wobbly windows. Occationally setting the screen on fire is fun as well.

[aleflamedyud]

Yeah, being able to draw a flaming Trogdor on my screen and then carry on business as normal really does rule.

[TheGZeus]

Yeah, being able to draw a flaming Trogdor on my screen and then carry on business as normal really does rule.

That stuff is neat, but I tend to do nothing else BUT that, then get sick of it.
Thus, I love StumpWM. Does nothing unless I need it to, and then I make it do it... and it stops.
If it doesn't do it, then I can make it do it, then move on.
Things having features that I didn't need to start with it about the same as giving me a permanent Solitaire instance on the desktop. I'm WAY too easily distracted.
i need a video playing (even for just the audio) or music just to keep that part of my brain distracted.

All that said, I can see why 'cool looking' puts some people at ease.

HOWEVER!
insofar as being impressive, you won't impress a Mac user much with Compiz, KWin et al in my experience.
What impresses them is when you know how to control advanced features without a mouse and buttons.
"Excuse me while I re-evaluate this code and make 3 buttons launch a few programs and open my webpage."
"Wow, that looks REALLY hard!"
"Nah, just takes getting used to. Hmmm. I could probably make this code simpler looking *formatting commands in text editor make text dance across screen*"
"What was THAT?"

Still doesn't get me laid...

[ash.gti]

insofar as being impressive, you won't impress a Mac user much with Compiz, KWin et al in my experience.
What impresses them is when you know how to control advanced features without a mouse and buttons.

Eh.... I am in the progress of building the Sugar GUI just so I don't have to deal with any of the fluff... I really don't need any of it. I use a Mac, and I love the way the programs work together and all that, but stuff like Compiz (I have it on my ubuntu desktop I must admit..) just don't really serve any purpose in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, I used to draw flames on my desktop, and I had wiggly windows, but does that really make the user experience any better? Well, yes it does, but I think its just something I have gotten tired of. I just see to much fluff these days.

Thats why I like the Sugar GUI No fluff there and I can still do enough with it that its rather nice.

[aleflamedyud]

Speaking of Sugar, I'm working on a libglade-based form editor for Develop. Got any notions of how a good Sugar activity should go together?

And yes, some of the Compiz effects do serve a purpose: the ones that emulate OSX's Expose.

[TheGZeus]

And yes, some of the Compiz effects do serve a purpose: the ones that emulate OSX's Expose.

Good point.

Again, not knocking the standard desktop metaphor too much; whatever makes you more productive.
However, tiling WMs do that by default (yes, StumpWM works pretty well with GNOME and KDE panels and so tray icons. I dislike them, though)

[sockpuppet]

NeXTSTEP and GNUstep (and kinda OS X). I can't live without the Services menu.

[Ptolom]

with out a doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC_OS every other desktop is a pale imitation

you never spoke a truer word! Risc Os forever
I regularly use and acorn Archimedes at home and it's great

[Qoppa]

I use Fluxbox and really like it. I'm a minimalism freak, so I hate bloated UI's and avoid them when possible. I've tried Gnome, but it's rather boring and stuffed with extraneous features that I don't need or want. And Nautilus is made of fail. I've also used XFCE, and while better than GNOME, it's still not amazing. I've never tried KDE, but every screenshot of it I've seen is so damn ugly that I'm not really eager to try either.

[Noughmad]

I like my bloat. I mean, can anything beat such awesomeness?

Spoiler:

[Xbehave]

I've never tried KDE, but every screenshot of it I've seen is so damn ugly that I'm not really eager to try either.

This probably applies to all DEs but if it looks ugly your not doing it right, i know its true for KDE, theres pretty much nothing that you cant change with qt-theme/decoration theme.

as for minimalist, i am a fan of fluxbox because its so fast but ive found i can set KDE to be even more minimalist in terms of interface (no menubars (ctrl +m to toggle), no need for a taskbar (BII decoration) no need for a menu button(desktop clicking can be configured). Generally stick to kde because of this slight edge and the session management, but when im troubleshooting a problem or on an older PC, i cant beat fluxbox (once i get the menu sorted).

[Hurduser]

I am seriously considering moving from fluxbox to fvwm on my craptop (an antique laptop) mostly because I started with fvwm on a similarily slow system (well, that one had 33 MHz less). fluxbox is okay, but some things kinda annoyed me about it, like the menus.

[Xbehave]

@Hurduser originally the menus annoyed me but once your realise its all stored in a really simple format and you can make your own its not so bad, i would be interested in how a switch to fvwm goes tho

[aleflamedyud]

I actually really like Aqua, but it's not the best I've ever used.

The best goes like this. Start with GNOME running on top of Compiz Fusion. Reconfigure the hot keys to behave like OS X for the "Expose"-type functions (ie: show windows of current desktop, show all windows, show desktop) and shifting between virtual desktops. Add the desktop cube and curved desktop plane that I can see by pressing F8 (just like Spaces), both with reflections. OK, now take away the bottom panel and replace it with Avant Window Navigator or some other Dock-like application. Add the "brightside" package to enable hot-corners. Turn on the Ring Switcher for Alt-Tab. Use window snapping. Oh yeah, and turn on window previews.

NOW you've got the best desktop and GUI I've ever used. I don't actually understand why Ubuntu bothers to ship with its normal Windows-imitation appearance and hot-keys instead of imitating Mac style (but with the 3D effects and animations available on Linux).

EDIT: It appears Cairo-Dock might be better, but it requires either compiling from source or sourcing to Cairo's own package repository. Hence why I didn't know about it. Lemme go try it!

[TheGZeus]

I actually really like Aqua, but it's not the best I've ever used.

The best goes like this. Start with GNOME running on top of Compiz Fusion.

DX