« Un être qui pense c'est un être qui doute », René Descartes

So, while I kept using simple desktop environments for some years and although all those that I remember where not Gnome, but had a lot of Gtk in them, I am in doubt, now.
KDE always seemed “too heavy” and I have not really tried a Qt-version of LXDE... - does that still exist?

On April 14, Charles H. Lindsey has posted this on comp.os.linux.x:
So this is my context. Can you recommend and explain to me, other simple desktop environments which are not forcibly Gtk, but still more like openbox, fluxbox, LXDE, XFCE or the like.., I do not know them all and do not tend to hop desktops for fun.

Edit: I re-read my above post and want to add: A desktop environment is not to be recommended because it is yours and you are content with it. It could not be the best ever either, because the best desktop environment ever is mine, not yours.

Maybe try to find a different argument

TY.

there is another one named lxqt

1 members found this post helpful.

While it is true that the GTK developers do not value backward compatibility as much as they should, the burden falls on application developers. Users will experience only minor differences between GTK 2, 3, and presumably 4.

Users will want a theme that supports both GTK 2 and 3. QT can pick up the GTK 2 theme. This results in mostly consistent appearance between GTK 2, 3, and QT applications.
Ed

1 members found this post helpful.

Thank you. I could not remember the name and unfortunately lxqt.org does not respond.

But as everything which has ever been on the Web moves to github, on github you read all about the connection between LXDE and LXQt which is historical and does not necessarily impose similarities:
https://github.com/lxqt/lxqt/wiki/History

FYI: This (mine) is an Off-Topic post but clarifies things around LXQt...

But maybe someone has experience to share ?
Stuff like this gives me the shivers:
If I have to pick individual (GUI-) programs anyway, I do not have to invest time in a new environment.

Hm. The newer Plasma / KDE is said to be at least as lean and nimble as GTK based DEs. This guy here runs lots of tests: https://www.dedoimedo.com/ Maybe you can dig around his site and come up with the information you search for.

Yeah, but we do not know yet how the new more restricted license (see the "QT is putting up a Paywall" thread on this platform) will work out ON Kde/Plasma and other QT-based applications.

QT has always had a commercial version, so that people can use it in commercial software, which they obviously cannot do with the version released under the GPL.

PS I've just traced that news report. It simply means that QT is considering (no more) making users of the free version wait 12 months for changes. Of course, that would only apply to code written by QT, and some of the code comes from KDE. They can't withhold their own code for more than 12 months, or it automatically becomes open source under the original agreement. And if the new code is a security fix, they can hardly prevent other people solving the problem.

1 members found this post helpful.

^ Qt has always been partly commercial yet has a long history of being used in F(L)OSS, so this does not worry me.

That doesn't mean anything, GTK3 based DEs being the heaviest around.
But yes, I've heard that too: KDE can run very light.
BTW, using Qt as a toolkit does not include any of KDE's "heaviness" at all.

I don't much agree with these statements.
GTK3 certainly is a dog's dinner, esp. how they kept on breaking theme compatibility, that sort of sh!t creates a bad image, literally.
Not so sure about GTK2 though.
It saddens me that everybody who wants to create "lightweight" applications turns to Qt instead of good ol' GTK2.

My measurements are that GTK 3 uses a minimum of 32MB, while QT (without KDE libraries) uses a minimum of 45MB. Neither is problematic for modern hardware.

Moving from GTK2's engine-based theming to GTK3's CSS-based theming required that themes be 100% rewritten. There was no re-use.
Ed

You never heard about GTK3.x breaking theming compatibility with itself every 6 months or so?
I use the past tense because I don't know if it's still doing that but it was definitely still a thing as early as a year ago or so, going on for many years back.

I just add that the quote in my OP is from a thread on the Secondary Selection, which is apparently ill-used by Gtk:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~lindsec/sec...selection.html features libraries to “correct” the behavior of Gtk.

This is not the core-problem to me, but I mention it to clarify (again): I am not very interested in themes. If you saw those that I created for Fluxbox, you would know.

I read about that. My point was that themes needed to be completely rewritten from GTK 2 to GTK 3. That is where 99% of the effort was spent.
Ed

My point was that that was never my point. I was refering to GTK3 only.

But yeah, obviously you have NOT noticed the GTK3 theming debacle of the past few years.

But it's such a good indicator of GNOME/GTK3 policy: we do not care about community contributions, we do not care about configurability. Use it as we intended or don't use it.

1 members found this post helpful.

You are expecting too much.

GTK 3 gives application developers a state-of-the-art GUI toolkit that is open-source, licensed under terms that permit use in both free and proprietary software, and does not cost a penny. I can't name any toolkits that offer more.
Ed

Are you selling something?
Or are you saying that because it's free we're not allowed to criticize it?
As much as I usually hate OMGUbuntu, maybe you wan to read this:
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/10/...-themes-broken
Arguably GTK3 would have never arrived at that impasse if they'd thought about compatibility with itself a little bit harder.
Note, it's already 1.5 years old. GTK has come "a long way" since then