5 ms·

Fresh version of XFCE, the oldest Linux desktop of them all in Xubuntu builds

29 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

theandrewbailey 4y ago
I've been a fan of Xubuntu (and XFCE in general) for 14 years or so. You can even dress it up as Windows 95: https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95 https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
jonahbenton 4y ago
Love xfce, run it on fedora.
bravetraveler 4y ago
Hate to be the pedant but isn't CDE both available on Linux and older? Not to detract from XFCE at all, my first love
- torstenvl 4y ago
  XFCE dates to February 1997. CDE as a Linux desktop dates to June 1997, with the release of the proprietary TriTeal CDE for RedHat.
  - bravetraveler 4y ago
    Ah, fair - can't count it as a Linux desktop when living elsewhere It's an interesting distinction I suppose. CDE has served longer as a desktop, just not for Linux
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
It would be really nice to explain what the differences between GNOME, Mate, Cinammon, Unity, KDE, XFCE, LXwhatever, etc are that make each of the "lightweight" or "heavyweight". I did a recent Ubuntu MATE install, and that was the best desktop installation experience I have ever had for explaining the desktop features, themes, etc. Every desktop should look at that and copy it. But the fact you have distribution X desktop as the fundamental balkanization of linux desktop continuing just makes me despair. The desktops should be striving for a unified experience across the distros to as much a degree as possible.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  That was me 20 years ago, when I naively thought one would win out. Nowadays I mostly use Apple, Microsoft and Google OS offerings, with GNU/Linux left for the server room, POSIX doesn't say anything about the desktop anyway.
- vitejose 4y ago
  For better or worse, I think that is basically the exact opposite of the *nix community’s modus operandi. The whole point of the free software movement is to be able to control/modify your own tools. Distros exist because different people have different priorities and viewpoints. The issue is that this discourages both developers and end users who want things to be consistent and reliable, and so they retreat to the Windows/Mac hegemony.
- blippage 4y ago
  I run MATE on Debian. MATE has the right trade-offs for me. Not too heavy, not too light. GNOME seems to take more and more resources to do less and less. Icewm requires too much customisation. Icewm is an interesting wm. At first it has an ugly 90's retro aesthetic, but it grows on you after a little while. Switching back to "proper" DEs makes them look a little too sugary.
  - lproven 4y ago
    For me the killer failing of MATE is that it does not and cannot handle vertical taskbars right. GNOME 2 couldn't and MATE still can't. (LXDE did; LXQt can't either. Sadly, it could before it reached v1.0 but it's now broken.) Xfce does this with aplomb. In my testing (I wrote the article at the top of this thread) it is also substantially more stable; I regularly experience crashes in MATE. Here's what it should look like: https://imgur.com/gallery/fLeAy https://imgur.com/gallery/fLeAy This is what it looks like when MATE tries: https://imgur.com/dBfjico https://imgur.com/dBfjico That's not a bit poor or sub-optimal: that is broken and unusable. MATE is also orphaned; the team that created GNOME 2 have moved on, and it's a substantial codebase to maintain. Xfce is smaller, faster, more stable, and does more. For me, that is game over. YMMV.
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jeroen79 4y ago
xfce still one of the best wm, but its definatly not the oldest.
- lproven 4y ago
  It's not a WM. It _contains_ a WM but it is a lot more than that. A WM doesn't have a file manager or a suite of integrated accessories. Most do not have an app-switcher, and many do not even have an app browsing and launching mechanism.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Nowadays, that isn't how it started.
    - lproven 4y ago
      It isn't how it started on Unix boxes, no. It is if you go all the way back to Smalltalk, but that is far outside the scope of this discussion. The early Unix GUIs didn't really have desktops because the concept hadn't really been invented yet. It was largely built from the whole cloth by Apple in the Lisa and then refined and simplified into greater accessibility and usefulness by the Mac. Windows didn't really have a "desktop" until Win95, but the Win3 UI was a complete one, just not very integrated. GEM and AmigaOS were clearly desktops by 1985 or so, but Linux & the free BSDs didn't exist yet back then. TWM wasn't a desktop, but CDE was. IXI x/Desktop was perhaps the first I read about on PC UNIX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.desktop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.desktop It's roughly contemporaneous with the IRIX Magic desktop on SGI kit. SunView might count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunView https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunView That was, what, 1985 or so?
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        We are talking about XFCE and GNU/Linux window managers/desktops here, not about history of desktop environments across the computing industry.
pjmlp 4y ago
Someone has missed their Linux history lessons. While we can debate between being plain window managers, or already proper desktops, depending on the configuration scripts, we have, twm, fvwm, fvwm95, enlightenment, afterstep, windowmaker.
- pipeline_peak 4y ago
  Those are all window manages and you know it… If it requires a config script to make it user friendly it’s not a DE. That along with an app suite is what distinguishes DEs from standalone WM’s. Some of the wm’s you listed can actually run as a core component to be wrapped around a DE.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    If we are playing honesty here, you also know that XFCE 1.0 wasn't one. "Initially, XFce was just the toolbar, without the window manager and all the goodies. In 1998, I released XFce 2.x with xfwm, the window manager. The rest of the goodies came from release to release ... " https://web.archive.org/web/20070116201506/http://linuxgazette.net/issue43/jacobowitz.xfce.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070116201506/http://linuxgazet...
lproven 4y ago
Hey, that's one of mine. Thanks, "LinuxBender"!

29 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

I've been a fan of Xubuntu (and XFCE in general) for 14 years or so. You can even dress it up as Windows 95: https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95 https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95

jonahbenton 4y ago

Love xfce, run it on fedora.

bravetraveler 4y ago

Hate to be the pedant but isn't CDE both available on Linux and older? Not to detract from XFCE at all, my first love

torstenvl 4y ago
XFCE dates to February 1997. CDE as a Linux desktop dates to June 1997, with the release of the proprietary TriTeal CDE for RedHat.
- bravetraveler 4y ago
  Ah, fair - can't count it as a Linux desktop when living elsewhere It's an interesting distinction I suppose. CDE has served longer as a desktop, just not for Linux

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

It would be really nice to explain what the differences between GNOME, Mate, Cinammon, Unity, KDE, XFCE, LXwhatever, etc are that make each of the "lightweight" or "heavyweight". I did a recent Ubuntu MATE install, and that was the best desktop installation experience I have ever had for explaining the desktop features, themes, etc. Every desktop should look at that and copy it. But the fact you have distribution X desktop as the fundamental balkanization of linux desktop continuing just makes me despair. The desktops should be striving for a unified experience across the distros to as much a degree as possible.

pjmlp 4y ago
That was me 20 years ago, when I naively thought one would win out. Nowadays I mostly use Apple, Microsoft and Google OS offerings, with GNU/Linux left for the server room, POSIX doesn't say anything about the desktop anyway.
vitejose 4y ago
For better or worse, I think that is basically the exact opposite of the *nix community’s modus operandi. The whole point of the free software movement is to be able to control/modify your own tools. Distros exist because different people have different priorities and viewpoints. The issue is that this discourages both developers and end users who want things to be consistent and reliable, and so they retreat to the Windows/Mac hegemony.
blippage 4y ago
I run MATE on Debian. MATE has the right trade-offs for me. Not too heavy, not too light. GNOME seems to take more and more resources to do less and less. Icewm requires too much customisation. Icewm is an interesting wm. At first it has an ugly 90's retro aesthetic, but it grows on you after a little while. Switching back to "proper" DEs makes them look a little too sugary.
- lproven 4y ago
  For me the killer failing of MATE is that it does not and cannot handle vertical taskbars right. GNOME 2 couldn't and MATE still can't. (LXDE did; LXQt can't either. Sadly, it could before it reached v1.0 but it's now broken.) Xfce does this with aplomb. In my testing (I wrote the article at the top of this thread) it is also substantially more stable; I regularly experience crashes in MATE. Here's what it should look like: https://imgur.com/gallery/fLeAy https://imgur.com/gallery/fLeAy This is what it looks like when MATE tries: https://imgur.com/dBfjico https://imgur.com/dBfjico That's not a bit poor or sub-optimal: that is broken and unusable. MATE is also orphaned; the team that created GNOME 2 have moved on, and it's a substantial codebase to maintain. Xfce is smaller, faster, more stable, and does more. For me, that is game over. YMMV.
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jeroen79 4y ago

xfce still one of the best wm, but its definatly not the oldest.

lproven 4y ago
It's not a WM. It _contains_ a WM but it is a lot more than that. A WM doesn't have a file manager or a suite of integrated accessories. Most do not have an app-switcher, and many do not even have an app browsing and launching mechanism.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Nowadays, that isn't how it started.
  - lproven 4y ago
    It isn't how it started on Unix boxes, no. It is if you go all the way back to Smalltalk, but that is far outside the scope of this discussion. The early Unix GUIs didn't really have desktops because the concept hadn't really been invented yet. It was largely built from the whole cloth by Apple in the Lisa and then refined and simplified into greater accessibility and usefulness by the Mac. Windows didn't really have a "desktop" until Win95, but the Win3 UI was a complete one, just not very integrated. GEM and AmigaOS were clearly desktops by 1985 or so, but Linux & the free BSDs didn't exist yet back then. TWM wasn't a desktop, but CDE was. IXI x/Desktop was perhaps the first I read about on PC UNIX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.desktop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.desktop It's roughly contemporaneous with the IRIX Magic desktop on SGI kit. SunView might count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunView https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunView That was, what, 1985 or so?
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      We are talking about XFCE and GNU/Linux window managers/desktops here, not about history of desktop environments across the computing industry.

pjmlp 4y ago

Someone has missed their Linux history lessons. While we can debate between being plain window managers, or already proper desktops, depending on the configuration scripts, we have, twm, fvwm, fvwm95, enlightenment, afterstep, windowmaker.

pipeline_peak 4y ago
Those are all window manages and you know it… If it requires a config script to make it user friendly it’s not a DE. That along with an app suite is what distinguishes DEs from standalone WM’s. Some of the wm’s you listed can actually run as a core component to be wrapped around a DE.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  If we are playing honesty here, you also know that XFCE 1.0 wasn't one. "Initially, XFce was just the toolbar, without the window manager and all the goodies. In 1998, I released XFce 2.x with xfwm, the window manager. The rest of the goodies came from release to release ... " https://web.archive.org/web/20070116201506/http://linuxgazette.net/issue43/jacobowitz.xfce.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070116201506/http://linuxgazet...

lproven 4y ago

Hey, that's one of mine. Thanks, "LinuxBender"!