MX Linux Forum

I'm curious: Given that many people use computers with pretty good specs, why are users happy with the XFCE DE?

What are the pros of this desktop environment even when NOT using old or low-end equipment?

Given the range of DEs available, why opt for XFCE a) as a user and b) as a creator?

XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.

I was a KDE fan before MX 14 was made available. It did not take me very long to embrace XFCE. I found it was easier to configure the desktop and had numerous configuration options. Also it was lighter on resources, I understand KDE has improved in the resource area but I have no desire to go back. The XFCE developers appear to me to be very conservative as to introducing changes to the system, and that implies stability.
I cannot compare to other DE's as I have only tried them on a limited basis, and did not desire to spend the time to learn them thoroughly. My initial reactions were that they did not give me any advantages over XFCE.

Its flexible, dependable, and uses a familiar paradigm.

but mostly for me its the whiskermenu, which is the IMO is the best menu on any DE. Brisk is close (mate and budgie) but its still a pale imitation of whisker.

I've got nothing against other DEs, but I find that once you know a particular DE you kind of end up comparing anything you use back to it. I think that's why I've never really gotten much traction using anything other than Xfce and fluxbox. Those were the first 2 DEs I tried (well, flux is technically a WM), and I still use them, mostly because I know them inside & out.

I love the fluxbox implementation on antiX.

Same what richb said.... "numerous configuration options and lighter on resources". Its main popularity started in 2015, though it was growing since 2003 from its early "ugly" theme appearance by upgrading to use GTK+ 2 libraries. Its conservative with constant technological advancements.

GuiGuy wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:13 am XFCE, as tweaked by MX, works very well for me except that Thunar lacks a split-screen mode and can access only local files.
For split-screen and remote files I use konqueror which runs fine in the XFCE environment.

What's the advantage of split screen mode (I just discovered this in Nemo thanks to your post) versus the simple right click > open in new tab?

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'local files'. Files which aren't on your computer, I presume. As I don't know that those are I guess I don't this feature

I think XFCE is the most impossible desktop environment after Gnome.

male wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:57 am I think XFCE is the most impossible desktop environment after Gnome.

Impossible in what way?

EDIT: I would add that I do not think this thread was started to bash XFCE other DE's but a legitimate question as to why people use it and why it was chosen for MX.

richb wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:07 am

male wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:57 am I think XFCE is the most impossible desktop environment after Gnome.

Impossible in what way?

EDIT: I would add that I do not think this thread was started to bash XFCE other DE's but a legitimate question as to why people use it and why it was chosen for MX.

Ha. My first draft actually opened with a 'I hope this is ok' and a ' I don't want to open a nasty can of worms' etc. And then I deleted them thinking I was being too cautious.

But yes, indeed. As someone considering jumping from Cinnamon to MX I'm seriously interested in why MX and Manjaro, for example, choose XFCE as flagships and why people choose to run a DE without all the bells and whistles most PCs can cope adequately with. This might help me decide before I get in too deep