StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Normally I'm very happy with XFCE, but seeing Enlightenment* pop up in a recent thread made me want to try it again. It still looks neat and it still doesn't quite work for me - partially because transitions look like shit with my on-board POS video, partially because I can't seem to figure out how to call the menu when I'm using a maximized application.

Anyway, does anyone use this on a daily basis? What's it look like on your desktop? Are there tricks or mods that dramatically improve it, or does it only really work if you're using it in a gOS-ish custom version?

* ++http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenm ... w_manager) -- the link won't URL-ize properly

I've used it in the past but for everyday tasks, I generally liked XFce better. Enlightenment is pretty, but getting it set up the way you like it takes a lot of time and is very config-file-oriented. Reminds me of my days experimenting with LiteStep and setting up NeXT-esque interfaces on Windows 98...

Having said that, GNOME has gotten a lot better in the past few years (I remember the versions that shipped with Mandrake 9x were absolutely atrocious) and I've been using it on Ubuntu without really having too much to complain about. However, for older machines, it's still a hog and XFce is great for those (I'm talking about boxes like an old P2-400 laptop I had lying around...)

phongn wrote:You mean like this?

Yup. I knew it was something about the special characters...

Having said that, GNOME has gotten a lot better in the past few years (I remember the versions that shipped with Mandrake 9x were absolutely atrocious) and I've been using it on Ubuntu without really having too much to complain about.

I've dabbled in GNOME and I've never been quite convinced. Mybe it's because I don't take them time to really get to grips with it - does it have any standout advantages over XFCE?

Bounty wrote:I've dabbled in GNOME and I've never been quite convinced. Mybe it's because I don't take them time to really get to grips with it - does it have any standout advantages over XFCE?

Probably the only advantage is the better integration (with Ubuntu, at least); it also includes the new libgvfs (the replacement for GNOME VFS), which ties in to hal and udev nicely, for easy management of removable drives. I ought to put Xfce back on here and see how it is with the latest versions.

Like I said, Xfce is probably one of the best (if not the best) lightweight environments.

I've always thought of xfce as an mid-weight environment. Doesn't load instantly like Fluxbox but still much quicker then Gnome or KDE. That being said, xfce is what I currently use on my computers(or at least the ones with GUI's).

As for enlightenment, I used to use e16 a while ago. I remember it being very good, and I must have used if for 2 or 3 years. Then I had a couple of failed attempts to move to e17 and that I moved on to try xfce where I've stuck for a while. If they would finally finish e17 I would go back in a heartbeat though. Still there are some features of e16 that I miss (multiple desktop backgrounds for one) but too many feature missing.

rapidsquirrel wrote:I've always thought of xfce as an mid-weight environment. Doesn't load instantly like Fluxbox but still much quicker then Gnome or KDE. That being said, xfce is what I currently use on my computers(or at least the ones with GUI's).

You could think of it as a lightweight desktop environment.

I think of fluxbox as a lightweight desktop environment. It's just a personal opinion, but xfce has too many bells and whistle for me to consider lightweight. I do realize that this is contrary to the opinion of the majority of the open source community but it makes sense to me to differentiate. I do have a couple of computers that run a little bit faster with fluxbox then xfce, enough when I do launch x on them it's into fluxbox.

rapidsquirrel wrote:I think of fluxbox as a lightweight desktop environment. It's just a personal opinion, but xfce has too many bells and whistle for me to consider lightweight. I do realize that this is contrary to the opinion of the majority of the open source community but it makes sense to me to differentiate. I do have a couple of computers that run a little bit faster with fluxbox then xfce, enough when I do launch x on them it's into fluxbox.

I wouldn't call fluxbox a desktop environment, though. It seems much more of a pure window manager.

phongn wrote:I wouldn't call fluxbox a desktop environment, though. It seems much more of a pure window manager.

Ahhh, I see where you coming from. Wasn't really thinking about it that way, but you are right. I'm just being dense today.