The future of Xfce

[Mauser]

https://linuxreviews.org/Xfce_Classic_B ... NOME_Light

Excellent news. I am happy to see the Xfce developer's come to their senses by offering "Xfce Classic" I hope the official release of "Xfce Classic" will be real and not gossip.

[asqwerth]

Is he a XFCE dev though? Or just a third party?

[Shifu]

Is he a XFCE dev though? Or just a third party?

It's a third party.

[az2020]

I ran Kubuntu for a while, latest LTS version. I did not find it slow or sluggish at all. The machine it ran on is not a powerhouse. It also has integrated graphics in the processor. Perception I suppose.

It seems quite perceptible to me. I serve torrents on a different laptop (on 24x7). I have NFS setup to access that from my daily driver laptop (which was Kubuntu 19.10 for the past six months. I didn't upgrade to LTS when it was released 20.04.). I just copied an ISO across NFS to my new MX 19.2, and it was zippy fast. When I did that same operation on that KDE install, it took a long time. I remember thinking "I thought my network was faster than this. I'm on wireless AC. This is like wireless G."

I just did it with MX 19.2 and it was noticeably faster.

My entire experience with Kubuntu 19.10 was not good, that way. It felt large, slow in a similarly perceptable manner. I'll try to keep an open mind and try a different KDE someday.

FWIW: I have two if the same Acer 515-43 (Ryzen 5/Vega 3) laptops. I installed MX 19.2 to the one which wasn't being used. I just installed Linux Lite 5.0 (released about month ago, and among my top 2-3 favorites with MX). I turned off various things to minimize mem use (compositor, Conky, samba, background image). I tried to do what I could on both. MX is actually running about 3% less memory. I get 534mb idle used on MX. I get 539mb idle used on Linux Lite.

Same laptops. I don't know how meaningful that is. In the past I have done this with 20 distros and it seemed relatively meaningful. I did it installed both to real hardware and VirtualBox. So, comparing distros and real vs virtual seemed useful. I thought it told a story. But, as I said before: KDE came out looking relatively light in those comparisons. But, in usage the past 6 months, I think they're doing something like dynamic loading of libraries which makes it look lighter than it really is. Which would make idle mem comparions flimsy.

Be that as it may: in the past, Linux Lite was 10-20% less mem usage than MX, So, either MX got smaller or Linux Lite got larger. They're about the same now. (I'd have to install all the others and see how everything shakes out now to have a better idea of that ranking. As I said, I'm not sure that's a useful activity. It's interesting. But, may not really mean anything either.).