For years, I've read many articles about Linux Desktop Environments (DE). Almost everywhere, I read that one of the cool things in Linux is, you can change the desktop easy.
In all different contexts, any place I read, for years, that is a very common belief.

Months a go, I was using linux Mint 17.3 Cinnamon. I installed Xfce and had so many problems, I had to reinstall the OS.
I posted on the forums, and I got informed that if you start installing other desktops in linux, that's when you have problems.

The answers seemed like it is obviously something you don't do in Linux.

I still can't understand, why it's said that you can install different desktops in Linux, switch easily, it's a main feature about Linux, but once you do it, it causes problems, and it seems like it's obviously known that it causes problems and is, "not recommended" by long time linux users.

What am I missing here? How could it be so different?

Thank you,
Chris.

I don't know why that would be the case, and have no experience of it being the case. I suppose if you were to build your new desktop from source and have no cognisance of the tweaks that a particular Distro had performed with its own builds to fit in with whatever startup schema they had adopted, or whatever, that could be tricky but, otherwise, I just don't know.

My normal MO on a desktop build is to select more than one DE at install time. I usually concentrate on one (in my case KDE) but
a) If something goes wrong (eg, updates don't work correctly, which can happen, err, partic with KDE, which is probably a bit over complex/over ambitious)
b) I just fancy playing with something different
c) There are bugs in some desktop apps that might not be the case in other desktop apps from other DEs

I'm all prepared.

Like so many things, it depends on circumstances.

The default for a given distro is usually the best. It's the one that most developers are using and most users are installing, so there are plenty of people to spot bugs and squash them. Also, some distros have a very strong tradition of using a particular desktop. Most of the configuration tools in Fedora are written to display their help with the Gnome help tool. The Xfce version of Mint was checked to make sure that everything worked, but the Cinnamon version was obviously not checked with Xfce. Nine out of ten times it doesn't matter, but occasionally it does.

The riskiest thing to do is to get a GUI from the repository. It may be perfect, or it may be rubbish. Does the packager work on it because they're a fan, or because they said "OK, I'll do it, so long as it's not too much work." When I wanted to test the CPU and RAM demands of a range of desktops and window managers, I naturally needed to run them all on the same distro. I used Salix and all 9 worked!

Dude, we're not responsible for what randos on other forums say to you. Especially if you choose to go there first...

(Yes, obviously, Xfce 4 normally works in Mint. No, obviously, I can't tell from your post why you had problems).

1 members found this post helpful.

i can relate to the question.

some random arguments:

- it's easy to change, but there's no safety net, no black/yellow tape saying "not further". in other words, one has to learn to act responsibly.

- the same goes for wildly installing everything, DEs on top of DEs...

- some DEs don't want the user to change things beyond a few predefined options


it all really comes down to the "no safety net".
once you learned the power of linux, it is easy to forget that with great power, also comes great responsibility.

i've heard of people wrecking their systems because they just really, really wanted to use a particular theme.

I'd have to sort of agree with you. At one time it was a very complex task to install a free gui. Some commercial window managers like MetroX had support for their money but just getting the video card working could result in you buying a new video card.

After a time, linux had choices like KDE and Gnome as well as types of X windows. They didn't interact well with the video driver however. The last few years linux has tried to integrate the video driver more closely with the system and it tends to break a number of things.

Just my opinion.

Slackware comes with six desktop environments/window managers out of the box. I have three installed on my Mint box and mostly use Enlightenment or Fluxbox.

I have never encountered a problem related to having multiple desktops installed and switching among them.

Not everyone who answers a question on a forum always knows what he or she is talking about, not even me.

You are mixing two entirely different things. The X server may have had issues with a video card, but the window managers don't. The video card is totally separated from the window manager by the X server.
Gnome and KDE are both based on X windows - though Gnome is trying to move to Wayland. Neither KDE nor Gnome interacted directly with the vido driver. ALL X desktops work through the X server.
Even now, I have about 5 different desktops available on one system. It is entirely up to the user as to which one to use.

Because the X server is the underlying technology, it doesn't matter what desktop application uses - they can be mixed however the user wants. Personally, I use some KDE applications (mostly kalarm) with the Mate desktop. And have used it with Gnome, LXDE, or others.

I have two installed on my boxes without issue.

I kind of agree with you, OP. I've found that mixing Cinnamon, Xfce & MATE in Mint works quite well, except perhaps for start menus etc (due to the different defaults used by the DEs), but I wouldn't go anywhere near, for example, installing KDE on the same system as another DE.

I'll probably get lambasted by some for this but Linux is by no means a perfect world. There are some who claim that DEs can be switched to/from with nary a problem, while others say for example that an equivalent can be found for any software running on Windows. Both may be true for the setups and software that those particular users use, but in general and overall I've found them not to be true. It doesn't faze me though, nor diminish my appreciation for Linux. It just means that I run one single desktop environment on my production machine, and have a VM for the Windows software for which there is no good Linux equivalent. And life goes on, swimmingly...

Hi,

Most of the issues the OP has noted is due to the extent of the development cycle for a particular Gnu/Linux. Personally, I use Slackware and know the depth of testing and reliance on the development cycle to purge issues for users. PV & Team along with the Slackware community test the development (-current) so well it is rare for issues for a stable release. Most issue for what the OP is experiencing is due to 'X' and the available drivers for the video subsystems abilities to provide true interfaces to the 'X' server.

Plus, Slackware does have the means to keep those issues to a minimum due to the fact that testing is done worldwide by devoted Slackware users.

On top of that, the official LQ Slackware forum has many friendly helpful users that will provide help to users when needed.

Hope this helps.
Have fun & enjoy!

Which is why I had no trouble with 9 in Salix, which builds on Slackware. Slackware is obviously the least likely to have problems, as it is least likely to modify things or to do a lot to integrate them.

One of the problems of on-line advice comes down to this: when some-one says you need to do XYZ, or beware of doing PQR, what they really mean is that's what worked or didn't work on the version they were using of a particular distro. When you think about it, how many of us are in a position to do better? Of course, that's the advantage of this site: collectively we've done just about everything with everything!

Not more happy slackware users!!!

I was looking into the latest Slacko64 (puppy), but looking into it, the forums seem to have lots of problems with that distro. I tried it and my side bar disappeared (common problem on forum).

Question; With other distros, the OS that is Live, is the same distro as you get when you install it. On the slackware site, they have the distro, then on a different site they have the "live" CD. Why not have the Live CD be the same one as the distro CD?

I'd rather have a graphical install with auto partition. Either the slackware website is written in a way that doesn't fit my learning style, or it's more complicated/confusing/more work then it needs to be.

I'd love to switch to slackware, but it seems to fit the other type.

I get a new R/C airplane. I like the "almost ready to fly." I get it, put the wings together, put the tail on, landing gear, hook up all the other stuff. After an hour or two, I go out flying.
My flying buddy, buys an airplane, spends a month building it, in the mean time, I'm out flying having a good time and having fun, then after the month, he finally gets it done and goes out flying with me. (wow, about time).

Before you even do anything installing slackware, I can't even find out why the live cd isn't the same as the one you install. The live CD I tried, gave me no choice of what DE I had, which booted into KDE (loved KDE 20 years a go, but now I don't like it).

One thing that very much excites me is that Slackware has no systmed.

Chris.

The "live" CD cannot contain all the software. The last time I installed slackware it needed 4 DVDs.

That won't fit on a single CD, or even DVD. Thus it must be separate.

NONE of the "live" CD/DVDs is complete. They are all separate.