13 ms·

This seems like a ton of work and a great achievement. XFCE, for whatever reason, is always my go to desktop environment and really just "feels like home". Than

by m8s 6y ago

This seems like a ton of work and a great achievement. XFCE, for whatever reason, is always my go to desktop environment and really just "feels like home". Thank you to everyone who contributed.

himujjal 6y ago
Curious here. Advantages of XFCE over KDE or Gnome. I use KDE. I need to know from a regular user. VM is not enough.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Lighter, simpler.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  I'm also curious. In the old days XFCE was the go-to DE for the low spec systems back when KDE and Gnome were massive bloats, but KDE slimmed down lately due to massive development efforts to the point of using less ram than XFCE so I'm curious which would be better for a laptop with 4GB of RAM since IIRC, XFCE apps do use less memory but that's because they also do way less than the KDE ones. Hopefully there are some up to date DE connoisseurs on HN to shed some light.
  - alxlaz 6y ago
    If you mostly use GTK applications, it's a great way to use them in a well-rounded desktop environment that isn't Gnome. That's appealing enough for a lot of people, even 10 years after the first Gnome 3 release. Some people (like yours truly) just ditched the applications and moved to other things, like KDE land. Some didn't and just ditched the DE. They have very legitimate reasons -- e.g. Thunderbird (and Evolution, for all its faults) kindda work with Exchange if you jump through some hoops, whereas KMail 2 still barely works with anything. Other than that: it's very stable, very fast (QML and QtQuick, as it turns out, aren't very good at giving you a fast, low-latency interface and permanent iteration by lots of developers), easy to setup. In many ways, XFCE is to Gnome 3 what KDE 3.x was to KDE 4.x and the Plasma series (except it's also maintained [1]): a solid, traditional platform that modestly aims to build things with the tools we have right now for the computers we have right now, instead of developing an advanced technological and design framework that will also work on the machines that the design hive mind says we'll have tomorrow. [1] Yes, I know about TDE :-).
- lexa1979 6y ago
  Not OP, and I've never used KDE. But I used Gnome 2, when it was the default DE for Ubuntu. Then Ubuntu switched to that DE-which-I-cant-recall-the-name, with the sidebar and what appeared to me to be a strange desktop which made me lose some reflexes. So I switched over to Xubuntu and it made me feel more at home, it was a desktop as simple as I could ever hope, in fact, its logic was (for me) intuitive. I never felt the need to customise it beyond its defaults: it just worked. It's been ~8 years now, and I never looked back. So, to answer your question: the main advantage is that it looks and works like a known paradigm for someone coming from Gnome2 or Windows 9x/Me/2000/XP.
- pacamara619 6y ago
  KDE and Gnome are significantly more expensive resource wise.
  - p4bl0 6y ago
    KDE is lighter than XFCE on RAM.
    - bmn__ 6y ago
      Reality says no. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503435
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
        Reality says it depends. Various distros load various utilities. Kubuntu and Xubuntu for example use close to the same amount of memory from on button press to sitting idle. Thus it all depends on what you launch. It's quite common for a browser with lots of windows to use 8-10 times the memory that either xfce or kde uses at start so it really is diminishing returns if you have a modern system with 8+ G of ram.
- anezch 6y ago
  My experience on ubuntu and arch, while memory usage is almost similar, KDE startup time is significantly slower. Turning off balloo helped, but not much.
  - miku86 6y ago
    What do you mean by "startup time"? Booting into Linux? Opening a window?
- mongol 6y ago
  It just feels simple and keeps out of the way. I used KDE way back, before v4, and it was my favourite DE then. But it always had these broken glitches and an over abundance of settings and utilities that were not always on par with the core KDE. I have learned that I prefer less with even quality than more with uneven.
- ohazi 6y ago
  I switched to XFCE after Gnome 3 was released and have used it ever since. There's been enough said here recently about the problems with Gnome 3 and the attitude of the Gnome developers, but the 10,000 ft view is that they refuse to stop pretending that my desktop PC is an iPad. Microsoft made the same mistake with Windows 8 / Metro, but at least they eventually backpedaled. If you think Windows usability peaked around Windows XP, XFCE might be worth trying. All I want is an application menu, some launchers, a window list, a widget/notification area, and some reasonable keybindings. Gnome 2 had these things, and then early Gnome 3 got rid of basically all of them. If some fancypants UX researchers want to experiment with replacing menu bars with hamburgers, that's fine, but I'm just not interested. I've done more than my fair share of WM hopping (I still use i3 on my laptop because I like being able to resize windows with my keyboard when I don't have a mouse), but XFCE is my workhorse. It may look boring, but it's reliable. It has more than enough features for working productively, and I appreciate the fact that the development team doesn't completely change the way everything works every few years just to chase the latest flashy trend.
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    Funny you say that, but on a limited Linux VM, it's the only environment that runs and looks relatively decent. KDE - Looks great, runs like a slug stuck in molasses. Gnome - Looks meh, runs slightly better. Unity - Looks great, same performance as KDE.
    - ohazi 6y ago
      For whatever reason XFCE gets accused of looking ugly, but I tend to agree with you. It looks fine out of the box, better with some minor tweaking, and is fully themeable if you're into that sort of thing. KDE always had a reputation for being a bit of a resource hog. Gnome 3 was a rewrite in Javascript, so no surprises there. I never personally used Unity, but it always felt a little annoying when I had to use it on other computers, probably due to the layout and corner gestures.
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  XFCE is a lightweight desktop environment that uses GTK. It has its own GTK engine, window manager (XFWM), and its own set of apps built on top of GTK... most of them much are faster than their Gnome counterparts. Thunar is much faster than Nautilus, XFWM is faster than Mutter, XFCE panels are much faster than the Gnome Shell, XFCE GTK engine is much faster than Adwaita... and the list just goes on and on. The result is a really fast and responsive user experience, that will run fast even in low spec machines. I am not a fan of the default panel layout and overall configuration, but XFCE panels are easy to configure as well as highly configurable. You can create as many panels you want, position them anywhere you want and put any elements on them... There's even a way to create a macOS-like global menu, although I don't recommend it.
  - alxlaz 6y ago
    > XFCE GTK engine is much faster than Adwaita Not to rain on anyone's parade but the XFCE GTK engines haven't worked in a heck of a long time because theme engines were removed ("deprecated", quoth the GTK team, as in they left the interface in but removed the actual functionality, so they didn't do anything anymore) many years ago. The default XFCE theme (Greybird, I think?) uses CSS, just like Adwaita, and there's basically no difference between the two. Everything else is true as far as I know :-).
- bayindirh 6y ago
  I'm a die hard KDE user but, my office workstation runs on XFCE (because I like to use different things overall). My main reason is not presence of advantages but absence of disadvantages. I like XFCE's simplicity and stability. It's as stable as the big boys in the town. I like how it looks in default configuration (I started this thing with C64. I love how old computing looks). You can work relatively fast in XFCE. While it doesn't go above and beyond like Dolphin, Akonadi and KDE in general, it can accomplish what it needs to do out of the box. Thunar is capable enough (4.16 brings per folder view preferences, which is important). XFCE, because lack of sheer eye-candy, uses screen space very efficiently. So, it provides you massive amount of space especially in big screens. I don't miss KDE's interconnectedness and integration while using XFCE but, it needs different solutions. Again I want to emphasize that it's not a disadvantage, but a mere difference. If you want a straight, run of the mill but well refined desktop environment, XFCE is the top choice in my book. It can provide you what you need without bloat. I personally don't understand why people continuously torture themselves by re-configuring various WMs over and over. I understand i3 and other managers are nice but, they're not practical in my book.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Xfce is lighter weight than Gnome 3, and actually allows you to customize things that matter (to me). You can set it up in various ways visually, even though the default look is usable out of the box. Xfce's window manager is the best of all I've tried. Maybe not as configurable as e.g. Sawmill, it has a lot of useful functions that are missing from Gnome-based offerings, and from macOS: window snapping, automatic window resizing to grab available space (in several ways), simple automatic tiling, easy putting a window above others, etc. They all can be configured to have arbitrary shortcuts. Xfce has fewer ambitions to integrate things and have their own everything. It allows you to just work with your apps without distraction. Most importantly, Xfce is not trying to imitate macOS, but does its own thing, and stays consistent. It has very little magic in it. Also, bugs are quite few and far between. They do not seem to rush to release new stuff.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    Does it have an expose style feature? I started using Gnome a few years ago almost by accident, and since then I can never go back to a window list. As Gnome started pissing me off (it is very unstable, in a version-to-version change way, not in a crash way) I discovered that I am too addicted to it and couldn't find expose style elsewhere.
    - ktpsns 6y ago
      In the old days, you got an exposé style feature by compiz and friends. I don't know the current situation, but for instance KDE/KWin also features an exposé style (can be triggered by keyboard shortcut or magic edges/corners for the mouse cursor).
    - nine_k 6y ago
      I think it does, in a form of a separate app: https://docs.xfce.org/apps/xfdashboard/start https://docs.xfce.org/apps/xfdashboard/start
  - prewett 6y ago
    Does Sawmill still work on new systems? Every time I install it gets more and more difficult, to the point where when I tried installing in on Ubuntu 18.04 I just gave up.
- coldpie 6y ago
  It shows windows, has a bunch of great QOL and power-user features, and doesn't have a bunch of bells and whistles. I don't want my DE to have a bunch of animations and transparency effects and things popping up in every corner every five seconds. I just want a thing to show windows and let me efficiently navigate them. XFCE does that perfectly.
- bluedino 6y ago
  KDE feels like Windows 10 to me, and that's a bad thing. It's so disorganized. But, Gnome 3 screwed up input, mostly trackpad scrolling, so I use KDE or XFCE.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    You can customize it quite a bit and unlike with gnome, it won't suddenly break every few months. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTF9Nmt3iXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTF9Nmt3iXY
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  New Linux user here. I switched from Mac a few months ago and wanted to try out Linux on a spare machine. It's not a beast, but it has a decent graphics card (1060), lots of ram, fast storage, etc. I found GNOME to be shockingly sluggish. KDE was better, but the animations still felt far from clean, snappy, fast. Eventually i found my way to XFCE because i couldn't make it slow. Everything felt very snappy, no feeling of slow FPS. That's about it for me, honestly. I haven't configured it much, yet. I use the desktops to shove some non-interactive apps like Spotify to the background. Nothing special, really. XFCE just works. Sure, the other desktops are more pretty .. but that wasn't worth the low FPS to me.
  - emilsedgh 6y ago
    Just so you know, in KDE, you can change the animation speed to "instant", which basically disabled all animations and makes it snappy.
Kototama 6y ago
Me too but I can tell you why. - Coherency: the way it works and is presented does not change much over the years. It's important for me. I don't want to adapt everytime a designer thinks he has a good idea. - Simplicity: it just works and is well configured out of the box - Efficiency: not the lightest Desktop Manager in the market but it is light enough so it won't eat resources for nothing - Right level of complexity: there is enough to configure it to adapt it to your needs but not too much to make it a mess. Take the xfce console for example: you can rename tabs, move them and search text in them. Last time I check these features were not available in Gnome Terminal. But at the same time I don't want much more than that. Coherency is really important for me: Xfce has been there when Gnome / Unity / Gnome 3 / Mate / Cinnamon were confusing me by offering all the same but not really the same. Edit: I wrote "consistency" instead of "coherency" but I guess the right term is coherency in this context.
- iagovar 6y ago
  I agree, XFCE is there when you need it. No weird experiments, always consistent.
  - cies 6y ago
    Feels like Win98SE to me (that's a compliment). Love it for that, though back to KDE for my daily driver.
    - refracture 6y ago
      Chicago95 can take that a step further if you like. I'm running KDE lately too (Slackware-current finally got KDE5 recently so I'm trying it out), but XFCE is the old trusty default for me.
      - awiesenhofer 6y ago
        Wow, what a blast from the past. I always wonder though is anyone actually using themes like these as their actual daily driver? Link to the project with Screenshots: https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95 https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
Same here. I use it with LM20. I just love its simplicity. For me the peak of desktop UX was Windows 98. No feature since then convinced me. Tiles, docks, animations, ... just NO! Except for [Super] triggering a search for applications ... [Super], [f][i], [Enter] -> Firefox opens up. IIRC that didn't exist in Windows 98.
tetek 6y ago
same here. I always install Xfce if I need to use linux with GUI
stjohnswarts 6y ago
One of the few that doesn't give me fits when I run remote vnc sessions (independent of main "desktop" session)

by m8s 6y ago

This seems like a ton of work and a great achievement. XFCE, for whatever reason, is always my go to desktop environment and really just "feels like home". Thank you to everyone who contributed.

himujjal 6y ago

Curious here. Advantages of XFCE over KDE or Gnome. I use KDE. I need to know from a regular user. VM is not enough.

mixmastamyk 6y ago
Lighter, simpler.
ChuckNorris89 6y ago
I'm also curious. In the old days XFCE was the go-to DE for the low spec systems back when KDE and Gnome were massive bloats, but KDE slimmed down lately due to massive development efforts to the point of using less ram than XFCE so I'm curious which would be better for a laptop with 4GB of RAM since IIRC, XFCE apps do use less memory but that's because they also do way less than the KDE ones. Hopefully there are some up to date DE connoisseurs on HN to shed some light.
- alxlaz 6y ago
  If you mostly use GTK applications, it's a great way to use them in a well-rounded desktop environment that isn't Gnome. That's appealing enough for a lot of people, even 10 years after the first Gnome 3 release. Some people (like yours truly) just ditched the applications and moved to other things, like KDE land. Some didn't and just ditched the DE. They have very legitimate reasons -- e.g. Thunderbird (and Evolution, for all its faults) kindda work with Exchange if you jump through some hoops, whereas KMail 2 still barely works with anything. Other than that: it's very stable, very fast (QML and QtQuick, as it turns out, aren't very good at giving you a fast, low-latency interface and permanent iteration by lots of developers), easy to setup. In many ways, XFCE is to Gnome 3 what KDE 3.x was to KDE 4.x and the Plasma series (except it's also maintained [1]): a solid, traditional platform that modestly aims to build things with the tools we have right now for the computers we have right now, instead of developing an advanced technological and design framework that will also work on the machines that the design hive mind says we'll have tomorrow. [1] Yes, I know about TDE :-).
lexa1979 6y ago
Not OP, and I've never used KDE. But I used Gnome 2, when it was the default DE for Ubuntu. Then Ubuntu switched to that DE-which-I-cant-recall-the-name, with the sidebar and what appeared to me to be a strange desktop which made me lose some reflexes. So I switched over to Xubuntu and it made me feel more at home, it was a desktop as simple as I could ever hope, in fact, its logic was (for me) intuitive. I never felt the need to customise it beyond its defaults: it just worked. It's been ~8 years now, and I never looked back. So, to answer your question: the main advantage is that it looks and works like a known paradigm for someone coming from Gnome2 or Windows 9x/Me/2000/XP.
pacamara619 6y ago
KDE and Gnome are significantly more expensive resource wise.
- p4bl0 6y ago
  KDE is lighter than XFCE on RAM.
  - bmn__ 6y ago
    Reality says no. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503435
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      Reality says it depends. Various distros load various utilities. Kubuntu and Xubuntu for example use close to the same amount of memory from on button press to sitting idle. Thus it all depends on what you launch. It's quite common for a browser with lots of windows to use 8-10 times the memory that either xfce or kde uses at start so it really is diminishing returns if you have a modern system with 8+ G of ram.
anezch 6y ago
My experience on ubuntu and arch, while memory usage is almost similar, KDE startup time is significantly slower. Turning off balloo helped, but not much.
- miku86 6y ago
  What do you mean by "startup time"? Booting into Linux? Opening a window?
mongol 6y ago
It just feels simple and keeps out of the way. I used KDE way back, before v4, and it was my favourite DE then. But it always had these broken glitches and an over abundance of settings and utilities that were not always on par with the core KDE. I have learned that I prefer less with even quality than more with uneven.
ohazi 6y ago
I switched to XFCE after Gnome 3 was released and have used it ever since. There's been enough said here recently about the problems with Gnome 3 and the attitude of the Gnome developers, but the 10,000 ft view is that they refuse to stop pretending that my desktop PC is an iPad. Microsoft made the same mistake with Windows 8 / Metro, but at least they eventually backpedaled. If you think Windows usability peaked around Windows XP, XFCE might be worth trying. All I want is an application menu, some launchers, a window list, a widget/notification area, and some reasonable keybindings. Gnome 2 had these things, and then early Gnome 3 got rid of basically all of them. If some fancypants UX researchers want to experiment with replacing menu bars with hamburgers, that's fine, but I'm just not interested. I've done more than my fair share of WM hopping (I still use i3 on my laptop because I like being able to resize windows with my keyboard when I don't have a mouse), but XFCE is my workhorse. It may look boring, but it's reliable. It has more than enough features for working productively, and I appreciate the fact that the development team doesn't completely change the way everything works every few years just to chase the latest flashy trend.
- Ygg2 6y ago
  Funny you say that, but on a limited Linux VM, it's the only environment that runs and looks relatively decent. KDE - Looks great, runs like a slug stuck in molasses. Gnome - Looks meh, runs slightly better. Unity - Looks great, same performance as KDE.
  - ohazi 6y ago
    For whatever reason XFCE gets accused of looking ugly, but I tend to agree with you. It looks fine out of the box, better with some minor tweaking, and is fully themeable if you're into that sort of thing. KDE always had a reputation for being a bit of a resource hog. Gnome 3 was a rewrite in Javascript, so no surprises there. I never personally used Unity, but it always felt a little annoying when I had to use it on other computers, probably due to the layout and corner gestures.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
29athrowaway 6y ago
XFCE is a lightweight desktop environment that uses GTK. It has its own GTK engine, window manager (XFWM), and its own set of apps built on top of GTK... most of them much are faster than their Gnome counterparts. Thunar is much faster than Nautilus, XFWM is faster than Mutter, XFCE panels are much faster than the Gnome Shell, XFCE GTK engine is much faster than Adwaita... and the list just goes on and on. The result is a really fast and responsive user experience, that will run fast even in low spec machines. I am not a fan of the default panel layout and overall configuration, but XFCE panels are easy to configure as well as highly configurable. You can create as many panels you want, position them anywhere you want and put any elements on them... There's even a way to create a macOS-like global menu, although I don't recommend it.
- alxlaz 6y ago
  > XFCE GTK engine is much faster than Adwaita Not to rain on anyone's parade but the XFCE GTK engines haven't worked in a heck of a long time because theme engines were removed ("deprecated", quoth the GTK team, as in they left the interface in but removed the actual functionality, so they didn't do anything anymore) many years ago. The default XFCE theme (Greybird, I think?) uses CSS, just like Adwaita, and there's basically no difference between the two. Everything else is true as far as I know :-).
bayindirh 6y ago
I'm a die hard KDE user but, my office workstation runs on XFCE (because I like to use different things overall). My main reason is not presence of advantages but absence of disadvantages. I like XFCE's simplicity and stability. It's as stable as the big boys in the town. I like how it looks in default configuration (I started this thing with C64. I love how old computing looks). You can work relatively fast in XFCE. While it doesn't go above and beyond like Dolphin, Akonadi and KDE in general, it can accomplish what it needs to do out of the box. Thunar is capable enough (4.16 brings per folder view preferences, which is important). XFCE, because lack of sheer eye-candy, uses screen space very efficiently. So, it provides you massive amount of space especially in big screens. I don't miss KDE's interconnectedness and integration while using XFCE but, it needs different solutions. Again I want to emphasize that it's not a disadvantage, but a mere difference. If you want a straight, run of the mill but well refined desktop environment, XFCE is the top choice in my book. It can provide you what you need without bloat. I personally don't understand why people continuously torture themselves by re-configuring various WMs over and over. I understand i3 and other managers are nice but, they're not practical in my book.
nine_k 6y ago
Xfce is lighter weight than Gnome 3, and actually allows you to customize things that matter (to me). You can set it up in various ways visually, even though the default look is usable out of the box. Xfce's window manager is the best of all I've tried. Maybe not as configurable as e.g. Sawmill, it has a lot of useful functions that are missing from Gnome-based offerings, and from macOS: window snapping, automatic window resizing to grab available space (in several ways), simple automatic tiling, easy putting a window above others, etc. They all can be configured to have arbitrary shortcuts. Xfce has fewer ambitions to integrate things and have their own everything. It allows you to just work with your apps without distraction. Most importantly, Xfce is not trying to imitate macOS, but does its own thing, and stays consistent. It has very little magic in it. Also, bugs are quite few and far between. They do not seem to rush to release new stuff.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  Does it have an expose style feature? I started using Gnome a few years ago almost by accident, and since then I can never go back to a window list. As Gnome started pissing me off (it is very unstable, in a version-to-version change way, not in a crash way) I discovered that I am too addicted to it and couldn't find expose style elsewhere.
  - ktpsns 6y ago
    In the old days, you got an exposé style feature by compiz and friends. I don't know the current situation, but for instance KDE/KWin also features an exposé style (can be triggered by keyboard shortcut or magic edges/corners for the mouse cursor).
  - nine_k 6y ago
    I think it does, in a form of a separate app: https://docs.xfce.org/apps/xfdashboard/start https://docs.xfce.org/apps/xfdashboard/start
- prewett 6y ago
  Does Sawmill still work on new systems? Every time I install it gets more and more difficult, to the point where when I tried installing in on Ubuntu 18.04 I just gave up.
coldpie 6y ago
It shows windows, has a bunch of great QOL and power-user features, and doesn't have a bunch of bells and whistles. I don't want my DE to have a bunch of animations and transparency effects and things popping up in every corner every five seconds. I just want a thing to show windows and let me efficiently navigate them. XFCE does that perfectly.
bluedino 6y ago
KDE feels like Windows 10 to me, and that's a bad thing. It's so disorganized. But, Gnome 3 screwed up input, mostly trackpad scrolling, so I use KDE or XFCE.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  You can customize it quite a bit and unlike with gnome, it won't suddenly break every few months. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTF9Nmt3iXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTF9Nmt3iXY
adkadskhj 6y ago
New Linux user here. I switched from Mac a few months ago and wanted to try out Linux on a spare machine. It's not a beast, but it has a decent graphics card (1060), lots of ram, fast storage, etc. I found GNOME to be shockingly sluggish. KDE was better, but the animations still felt far from clean, snappy, fast. Eventually i found my way to XFCE because i couldn't make it slow. Everything felt very snappy, no feeling of slow FPS. That's about it for me, honestly. I haven't configured it much, yet. I use the desktops to shove some non-interactive apps like Spotify to the background. Nothing special, really. XFCE just works. Sure, the other desktops are more pretty .. but that wasn't worth the low FPS to me.
- emilsedgh 6y ago
  Just so you know, in KDE, you can change the animation speed to "instant", which basically disabled all animations and makes it snappy.

Kototama 6y ago

Me too but I can tell you why. - Coherency: the way it works and is presented does not change much over the years. It's important for me. I don't want to adapt everytime a designer thinks he has a good idea. - Simplicity: it just works and is well configured out of the box - Efficiency: not the lightest Desktop Manager in the market but it is light enough so it won't eat resources for nothing - Right level of complexity: there is enough to configure it to adapt it to your needs but not too much to make it a mess. Take the xfce console for example: you can rename tabs, move them and search text in them. Last time I check these features were not available in Gnome Terminal. But at the same time I don't want much more than that. Coherency is really important for me: Xfce has been there when Gnome / Unity / Gnome 3 / Mate / Cinnamon were confusing me by offering all the same but not really the same. Edit: I wrote "consistency" instead of "coherency" but I guess the right term is coherency in this context.

iagovar 6y ago
I agree, XFCE is there when you need it. No weird experiments, always consistent.
- cies 6y ago
  Feels like Win98SE to me (that's a compliment). Love it for that, though back to KDE for my daily driver.
  - refracture 6y ago
    Chicago95 can take that a step further if you like. I'm running KDE lately too (Slackware-current finally got KDE5 recently so I'm trying it out), but XFCE is the old trusty default for me.
    - awiesenhofer 6y ago
      Wow, what a blast from the past. I always wonder though is anyone actually using themes like these as their actual daily driver? Link to the project with Screenshots: https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95 https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago

Same here. I use it with LM20. I just love its simplicity. For me the peak of desktop UX was Windows 98. No feature since then convinced me. Tiles, docks, animations, ... just NO! Except for [Super] triggering a search for applications ... [Super], [f][i], [Enter] -> Firefox opens up. IIRC that didn't exist in Windows 98.

tetek 6y ago

same here. I always install Xfce if I need to use linux with GUI

stjohnswarts 6y ago

One of the few that doesn't give me fits when I run remote vnc sessions (independent of main "desktop" session)