On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:02:17 +0800, Gener Badenas wrote: >On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Francis Gerund <ranrund@xxxxxxxxx> >wrote: > >> Just a call for opinions: if you use Arch, and you wanted to choose >> and stay with a desktop environment long-term, what would you choose >> - and why? > > >Regardless of distro, I always go for LXDE. I assume with openbox as it's WM?! Since Arch is a rolling release and following the KISS principle, the less issues are to expect, when using something simple, instead of something bloated. I don't know the actual state of affairs regarding LXDE's transition from GTK to Qt, however, since my recommendation was openbox with e.g. lxpanel, I suspect that LXDE likely is a good choice, without ever using it myself. Another user mentioned GNOME and another user retorted Mate. IMHO Mate is a better choice than GNOME (and Cinnamon). Mate provides a steady work-flow, GNOME has broken it's work-flow (as KDE unfortunately has done too and seemingly Xfce4 is going to do). I'm using a few Mate tools, since I'm still used to a few GNOME 2 tools from my first Linux steps. Among other issues GNOME and Cinnamon suffer from slowness, this has nothing to do with a slow computer, it's related to the task the computer is used for. I started with KDE3 (never tested Trinity), then used GNOME2 (Cinnamon and Mate are installed for testing purpose) and after that I used Xfce4 for a very long time. When Xfce4 started causing issues with updates (e.g. braking themes), I completely had enough from desktop environments. I used a few other DEs and WMs within my more then 10 years Linux experience and ended with jwm and openbox without a desktop environment. I prefer openbox over jwm, but both are ok. LXDE usually is used with openbox, perhaps it's worth to test LXDE if somebody prefers a DE over a WM. However, using openbox without a DE I don't miss anything. Regards, Ralf
