I used to use gnome 3, but later found that there were many things installed by default that I never use. Another problem that I got to is that many times when I opened nautilus, it got stuck for some time. It was awful. Then I tried KDE, but I didn't like it's style. So I turned to WM, and finally chose awesome. The reason is that its configuration file is written in lua, which is easy to understand and learn to write. I think the advantage is that you can control almost everything, and it will stay what it looks like. The appearance does not change for it's up to you, not the developers. And you can configure it once, and just use it without change. On 12/28/2015 09:00 PM, Magnus Therning wrote: > > Francis Gerund writes: > >> 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? > > Gnome, of course :) > > It's been around a long time, with steady improvements over the years. > Nice integration resulting in a desktop environment that I find to be a > joy to use. It's pretty to boot ;) > > /M > > -- > Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0x927912051716CE39 > email: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx jabber: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx > twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus > > Finagle's First Law: > To study a subject best, understand it thoroughly before you start. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
