Desktop Environment of the Year
 

If you're looking for Fluxbox, Window Maker, Enlightenment or similar options - they are in the Window Manager of the Year poll.

--jeremy

What about JavaDesktop?

How do you vote? it says the polls are closed :( Edit: never mind, found the thread with info.

what about E16/E17?

Xfce oh yeah.

JavaDesktop is just a distro name, it uses Gnome last I heard.

Gnome is better I think. It's all just GUI anyway.

FYI, Xfce is actually a Window Manager that is based on xfwm4. Also you spelled Xfce wrong. If you want to think Xfce is a desktop manager, you have to provide both Xfce and ROX on the same line. With out ROX, Xfce will just be a Window Manager.

Nah, xfce is a desktop environment....xfwm is the window manager for it.

Why does ROX make it something else anyway?

KDE, it has the best integration among application, it has a lot of options so you can customize it a lot, it has most of the best applications and the Konqui is just so cute :) Well and KDE 4 is almost here which is one a whole new level.

gnome, dropline gnome is very fast running on slackware

I voted for Rox, though I prefer a straight fluxbox and no dm.
Of the 'big guns' KDE is way better than all the others put together!
(and I don't use it anymore.)

Gnome with the Bluecurve Theme. Simplicity is great :cool:

Xfce is a Window Mananger. When ROX is included, Xfce becomes a Window and Desktop Mananger.

I had to vote for KDE this year. Gnome is getting slower and buggier every year. I am not sure what is going on with the developers. KDE4 looks very promissing as well.

You keep saying that but not expanding on it....

What is xfce missing to be considered a desktop manager?

What exactly is missing that ROX adds to it?

Gnome, KDE,and XFCE
 

Gnome, is to big for my Laptop (which is currently only running 98), so I am going to use XFCE. However Gnome is still my favorite. My problem with KDE is that it is to much like the Mac and Windows GUIs (eg: primitive yet flashy). I like the K programs better then the Gnome programs though. :)

huh? how is it too big?

Requires to much memory, KDE will barely run. XFCE should be fine though. To make this clear I am running a very old laptop. :cry:

I find xfce to use about as much memory as gnome. Often it isnt the environment but the apps you choose. My laptop is 700mhz PIII and I use gnome, of course I have memory bumped up to 384mb. But at startup it uses about 85mb according to the free command.

It depends how you use XFCE, you can strip its components to minimum, so its memory usage will look like that:

Entire HOWTO is here if you are interested:
http://bsdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47695

fluxbox is the best no matter what.antix Lysistrata is the greatest.

I actually use the xfce panel on gnome but I prefer not to use the menu-plugin but rather to have launchers for my most used programs and use appfinder when I need one of the other apps.

I assume that kills all forms of session/settings management though? I am not sure most users would find that acceptable.

So you feel that would be a lot lighter than metacity and a lite panel, assuming this is still considered to be gnome?

As for launcher or even a XFCE/Gnome like menu I would suggest using fbpanel:
http://box-look.org/content/show.php?content=68023
http://fbpanel.sourceforge.net

It is a lot lighter/faster while having all needed functionality without any dependencies attached.

Dunno, I did not checked that, but it disables desktop icons for sure, anyway, nobody forces them to use it this way.

You will have to check that, I did not tried to lauch a minimal Gnome desktop iwthmetacity and gnome panel only.

One of the lightests would be pekwm/openbox + fbpanel,

Why all this bloody dropping of "Fluxbox - w00t!" ?!?!?!?! Fluxbox is a window manager! Nothing else! Why on Earth are you bringing Fluxbox into Desktop Environment discussions!?!?!?! *sheesh*

Either way...

Gnome gets my vote. Every now and then, I install KDE, but something ALWAYS happens, and I go back to Gnome - *contented sigh*. I just wish I had the time and patience to change the file manager from Nautilus to Rox-filer or Thunar.

tried that, and fspanel, pyanel, perlpanel....my fav panel is still xfce4 cause I like the iconbox ;)



I will have to try and see how slim I can make gnome. I actually disable the desktop in gnome as well. The question is - if you dont install anything but metacity and gnome-session is it still gnome or something else? :)

I just think people should realize that it is often the apps people choose that make a DE heavy and you can lighten up all of them from the default.

I was a KDE user back in 2000 and 2001 at school, and one day my account got messed up and was forced to start using GNOME. After that I have been 100% GNOME fan, I have tried newer KDE, and Xfce but I always come back to GNOME. Although I am looking forward to KDE 4, and the latest Xfce is pretty cool. :D

I dont know what your are talking about there. Ah well...

KDE is to flashy for my tastes, though the default setting of KDE on the Yoper Live CD is pretty good. On Gnome I use the good old Bluecurve theme, though I downloaded a custom window border. I can not understand why anyone would want fancy effects as anything more than a toy.

i have to go with gnome, KDE is too much like windows for my liking, it may be customisable and have alot of great features, but it's far to big and cumbersome for alot of PC's

While mainly a Gnome user, I find XFCE to be shaping up nicely. My vote goes to them.

I think (personally) ahead of the customisation options, KDE gets my vote because the options are many and yet my mum can use it witout getting lost.
AND that is good design!

"most of the best applications" ...well, you can run QT apps in non-KDE desktop too, and vice versa. So I don't think applications themselves are what make a desktop environment good or bad; if they're thought about at all, then only those applications that are "integrated" fully into the desktop. And I don't find many of those..panels maybe. KDE4 remains to be seen until it's officially released (no betas anymore please). At the moment I've only seen a buggy-as-what Windows-and-OSX-tracking heavy cream-and-cherry mixture, but of course I'm hoping it gets rid of the annoying crashing bugs, bad imitations of the other desktops and most of all would become lighter for the hardware.

Anyway, this time I voted for Gnome. My own experience, my own needs and so on.. XFCE is a nice one too, hopefully they keep on making it good and don't try to imitate the rest of the herd.

And then: anything that resembles Vista is to walk the plank.

I like Gnome for its two bars, get KDE on my computer as a backup and for KolourPaint (And other KDE programs). Also like XFCE however I think it needs to work on being more flexible.

KDE is a desktop environment that fits like a glove and melts in your mouth :P. I mean it: as you find more and more options and find more and more tricks and tips and abilities, it melts in your mouth.

How about adding AfterStep, WindowMaker, FVWM-Crystal all of which are excellent GUIs? Although I already voted for Xfce.

This is the pool for "Desktop Environment of the Year", NOT for Window Manager of the year...

I don't think that it is ROX based (although I don't really know), but Xfce now has its own Xfdesktop application and is a DE in its own right. A nice one, too.

While AfterStep, WindowMaker and FVWM-Crystal are called window managers they are actually full blown desktop environments. Each with its own window manager, desktop, panels, pager, menu system, run dialog, compositing etc.

A window manager is exactly that, a window manager and nothing else. Sawfish for example qualifies. If you run Sawfish and want a desktop or panels you have run something like xfdesktop (Xfce's desktop) or fbpanel (FluxBox's panel), AfterStep et al, have a window manager as part of what they are--desktop environments.

Regarding WindowMaker: it began as a GNUStep development environment but has since evolved into its own desktop environment.

For AfterStep screenshots look here
For WindowMaker here
For FVWM-Crystal here

gnome ,maybe after kde 4 released ,i will choose kde,waiting kubuntu 8.04

traditionally a kde man, but seem to be using gnome alot more these dayssince distros seem to be shipping better configuration stuff with it.

where's the option for e17, i've only used the heavily modded version in gOS, but from what i hear... its the dogs bollocks.


still, i love konqueror to bits. and kde looks best equiped to be moving towards a star-trek style computer... me talking to it and it talking to me.


"computer.... stfu"


:D

The lines I quoted are from the developers themselves. The very creators of AfterStep and the others you mentioned call it a Window Manager.

I agree that it is a fine line between DE and WM, but you are against the word of the developers saying that it is a "full blown desktop environment". Just because a Window Manager offers a run dialog and a few other utilities does not qualify as a DE.

Please take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_Manager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment

Regards!

Yeah, I agree with Mega Man X. I've installed Ubuntu Gutsy which had chosen gnome as it's default desktop on my PC with PIII 800 MHz and 256mb RAM, and gnome ran so slow. so I switched to Kubuntu Gutsy and KDE ran very fast. And I still like Konqueror tabbed browsing and it's split screen feature. It very useful even for file management.

I switched to KDE this year... it's nice to have a desktop for techies again.

I was loyal to gnome for many years, but no longer. gnome = dumbed down

It's too fat, too buggy, and built for dummies. It's hard to imagine what else they can dumb down, but I'm sure they'll continue to do it.

gnome = are you sure? y
are you REALLY sure? Y
look retard, are you REALLY REALLY sure? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
(window closes) ... did it take?

No, dude, that is Vista. I don't see at all what you're getting at.

I can make KDE look like any other WM/DE but can't make others look like KDE.

KDE suits my every time.

I can switch off any thing while still can reach most of my OS from the 'mouse'.

KDE is really immense and huge, but can be tailored to fit any role.

2k7 belongs to KDE IHMO.

any specific examples of this behavior?
ever copy a file across the network using kde?
they both do the stupid 'are you sure' type dialogs and kde also has the 'uh, what did you want to do again' dialog

kde-control-center to be renamed kde-confusing-center

KDE rocks for ever. It allows me to do a lot without non-sense editing of registry like stuff. :)

1. Changing the icon associated with a specific file type.
2. Providing global shorcuts for various activities.
3. There is no viable replacement for K3B and Amarok.
4. Using KDE apps on gnome, makes them look out of place. But GTK+ apps look fine on KDE with gtk-qt engine. No replacement available for this on Gnome.
5. Doesn't have apps depending indirectly on MS technologies (Mono).

Gnome's only advantage is that it gets supported and polished by big Linux guys (Ubuntu, Red Hat and Novell). They just don't polsh KDE that well on their distributions as they do for Gnome. :scratch: Synaptic is the only app which is better on Gnome. :mad:

Waiting for KDE 4.

:tisk:

XFCE has my vote!

It's nice, simple, and isn't horribly bloated... (Depending on what distro you use, of course... Xubuntu's startin' to get a little chunky.)

A wonderful alternative to Gnome / KDE.

That is really odd. I have always found Gnome to be more technical. Less like Windows. However I did find something that gave me more faith in KDE. The copy of KDE that comes on the Yoper GNU/Linux Live CD is so much better then default KDE. It had all those irritating flashy effects and stuff turned off. I support and use both Gnome and KDE. Also I use XFCE.

Also what is this about people complaining about desktops being to bloated. I am running ancient hardware, almost all of it predating the year 2000. All the desktops work on it except for Gnome which uses a bit to much memory, though only a bit. None of the desktops seem bloated to me.

AfterStep began life as just a window manager but has since evolved into a desktop environment. It contains all the things that make-up a DE: icons, window manager, panels, wallpapers, abilities like drag and drop, pager, terminal, task list and more. As a whole, the particularities of design and function of AfterStep endow it with a distinctive look and feel.

The same applies to FVWM-Crystal --not to be confused with FVWM.

AfterStep dates back to the days of XForms where there was no such thing as a DE, just a window manager running on top an X server. Since then many people refer to a DE as a WM--especially those who remember the days of XForms, like the AfterStep development team.

Moreover, FVWM-Crystal is an eye-candy desktop environment which utilizes FVWM as its window manager to manage its windows. But that's where the similarities end. FVWM-Crystal is a separate project--a DE project with FVWM as one of its components.

Good definition of AfterStep's and FVWM-Crystal's windowing components.

This definition describes AfterStep and FVWM-Crystal quite well, although they are both much more than is described in this Wikipedia article.

Cheers.