Hello, no need to apologize as i wasn't offended, i can take criticism and take on board other peoples views. I have nothing more to add to this thread at the current time.

I don't, and I have. Been using mostly Linux since 2004, using Linux just about exclusively since maybe 2007.

The phenomenon of developers blindsiding users with big paradigm shifts probably isn't exclusive to Free software, but there is at least some lip service to accountability. We need a development culture that values the whole community. I didn't pay you for your desktop environment, but I've been contributing online support for Linux for free for years. I've been setting up new linux users and answering questions. Innovation shouldn't trump continuity every time.

I'm all for that, but you said that fluxbox isn't user friendly. I'd make the case that easy, practical configurability is very real user friendliness.

Most people want a GUI so they can configure things. Fluxbox doesn't offer that and, unfortunately, most people are either to lazy or to illiterate to change settings via text file or a command line. In this instance Fluxbox is not user friendly. I don't need bling but if, to me, it works well and doesn't hinder my work patterns I wont just turn it off. If I, and many others, can change a setting via a GUI I will if it does what I want.

Just so you know I'm not against cli or text files. I wrote a tutorial some time back in another forum about changing the gnome background and/or screensaver and while there are many nice tools available to make your own I found the text file approach gave me exactly what I wanted. It is all about choice and, unfortunately, from what I have seen Fluxbox doesn't offer bling to people who like bling. Does that make sense?

Well, I realize that it's not conventional wisdom, but my point is that the text file is easier, no matter what people think. And easier is user friendly, right?

Deleted, ignore this post

"No matter what people think?" So you are right and everyone else is wrong? That statement is obviously your opinion and not one that I personally subscribe to. While I may agree with your thoughts on this general topic I find that simple statement very arrogant and shows a lack of understanding of what other people may or may not want from their PC. To my way of thinking, and I understand developers need time to develop tools, an OS should offer choice. If you want Fluxbox so be it if others want Gnome 3 then let them have it.

A text file is easier for people like you and I who know its power, and also importantly have a general idea where they might be located. I would suggest most people don't want to have to look for a file nor do they want to learn its inner workings instead they want a GUI which is listed in their applications menu and a couple of clicks later (in their way of thinking) the job is done. Let me go further and say fanboys of any OS (Windows, Mac, Linux etc etc etc) will always go with the flow of the OSs originator. Blind faith in what is put in front of them is par for the course. I don't know how many Windows users, Ubuntu users, Mac users I've had discussion with and they would say something like "I don't care, my OS of choice is the best and it is shown by how many people use it". People are not generally interested in modifying text files Windows is a GUI OS, Mac is a GUI OS, Ubuntu has a GUI for practically everything and are making even more for simple things. Linux Mint even has a GUI called Mint Nanny or something like that for adding entries (one at a time last time I looked) to a hosts file yet I can add 100000 lines in about 5 clicks.

I used to modify the sysoc file in Windows just so I could delete half of a standard install without Windows refusing to do what I wanted. 99.99999% of Windows users wouldn't have a clue what a sysoc file was and what it did. To them it is easier just to leave a system as its maker intended and if they did want to delete anything then they would only delete what the maker allowed them to delete.

Let me put it another way, "easy is in the eye of the beholder". Our eyes behold something very different to the eyes of many PC users.

Ok, I need an advise here.

Both xubuntu and lubuntu seem to work great for me. Now can somebody tell me why I should use one and not the other?

(I am also in process of trying LXDE and XFCE spins of Fedora but I think I will run into the same dilemma.)

I don't really know enough to tell which one is better or more likely to be around 10 years from now. I would like to learn how to setup and use one distro and stick with it. I thought Ubuntu was it but I can't stand Unity.

Nobody can help here, the only person that can tell which is better for you actually are you.

Sure, I'll do it. You should use the DE you like best because you'll be happier than using the DE you like second best. Unless you're running on an older, resource-constrained system, neither XFCE nor LXDE is going to be very taxing. As for Fedora vs. Ubuntu, my perspective is that Fedora is a little more bleeding-edge which I like - I'm willing to put up with the occasional breakage that entails. On the other hand, Ubuntu releases are maintained for 18 months, whereas Fedora releases only get about 13 months of maintenance. I'm always upgrading to the latest and greatest, so maintenance time doesn't factor into my decision process. By the time I customize my desktop, I can't tell if I'm running Fedora or Ubuntu. The most significant between Fedora and Ubuntu is that Ubuntu does make it easier to install non-free software.

Happy choosing

Hmmm ... Am I missing something here? Are there guns to peoples' heads? Are meanie developers out there deleting older versions of software from FTPs across the 'net?

You know, my grandmother still runs Windows 95. It still does everything that Windows 95 did in 1995, and more.

What about Ubuntu makes it so difficult to install multiple DEs? Why does the Ubuntu community seem to need a "new distribution" any time that somebody writes a new window manager?

They're all the same!!!! You don't need to slick your box every time you want to try out a different desktop environment. I'm pretty sure that the snazzy 'apt' package manager can handle fetching and installing some alternative DEs for you ...

Kenny's a whiz at that specific package manager; he could probably post the exact command one should issue to install just about every alternative DE out there, if he wanted to.

This is the answer to the OP's question, by the way, in case it was missed:
I'm sure that Kenny wouldn't mind ...

No, but changing something that is very widespread and simply works to something completely different is not the way developers should go. If they want something different, why not make it a different project?
By the way, even if you manage to install Gnome 2 on a distro that doesn't support it you will get no bugfixes and security updates, so that is IMHO not the way to go.

Kenny's advice to use the Gnome Classic setup will also not work in Ubuntu 11.10 and future versions, they have abandoned it.

I disagree. We can't make the decision for you, but we can help. We can tell you which ones we would choose, and why. it'll give you a little guidance.

Now, I'm going to make a suggestion that may not seem helpful at all. Have you considered KDE?

As I've said before, (I believe) that it's the most powerful use of the desktop metaphor, because (I believe) that it allows the user to do the most with dragging and dropping.

There are really two KDEs. Thanks to the Trinity Project and a few holdout distros, the classic KDE3 is most definitely a option. I believe that KDE3 is the highest expression of the classic Desktop metaphor as it's been practiced since Windows 95. Some KDE fans seem downright butthurt about users who continue to choose KDE 3. They get annoyed. I consider that to be an added benefit. I actually maintain my own KDE3 based distro, a remix of Slax 6.1.2:

http://kiaragnulinux.blogspot.com/


KDE4 is the Desktop metaphor, extended. God Bless them, the KDE4 developers did the opposite of what the Gnome 3 developers did. They made their desktop MORE complicated, by ADDING options. You have an incredible amount of power over the desktop space with KDE4. It's amazing. The problem is that the added features are distracting and time consuming, and I don't think they're all that helpful. I recently set up a KDE4 system to run four different directories on four different virtual desktops with folderview. It was pretty impressive, but it took a long time, and it was complicated, and when it was finished, it really didn't help me get anything done faster or better. The widgets are mostly familiar desktop applications glued to the Desktop by plasma. They're harder to open and harder to move around, but I fail to see the benefit in that. There are exceptions, e.g. the extremely handy and interactive "notes" plasmoid.

I wish that they had kept the classic desktop look as default, and let the user work outward from the classical desktop metaphor. You can easily change the default, and you can set up KDE4 desktop to run almost exactly like KDE3, but that's when KDE4's shortcomings start to show up. The panel is less responsive, and Konqueror, the awesomest file manager of all time, is now a mediocre web browser, replaced by Dolphin which, to be fair, may be the second awesomest file manager of all time.

And that kind of says it. KDE is still the best desktop environment, even if KDE4 is only the second best KDE. That's not just my opinion, but it's not everybody's opinion.

They're talking about KDE 5 now. I'd like to see KDE keep its amazing new abilities while getting back to fundamentals. With Gnome abandoning the Desktop metaphor, will KDE see itself as the custodian of a still-useful paradigm, or will it follow? Until we know the answer, I'm holding onto my KDE3.

Of the two desktops you mention. I'd choose XFCE. Happily, XFCE just finished a dynamite upgrade to version 4.8, and is in a pretty good position to handle the flood of gnome refugees. It's got some great features. I love the XFCE launcher for the panel. It's a completely configurable pull-down menu. There's a great plugin for taking notes, and a command line interface for the panel.

I've tried LXDE, and it seems pretty spartan and featureless. It may have features that I didn't discover. For an optimized LXDE experience, I recommend that you try the Peppermint OS live CD. Peppermint is a version of Ubuntu that's prepackaged with netbooks in mind. The desktop emphasizes webapps, but you can get it to run anything that ubuntu can run.

It's my general impression (I can't be specific about it, take it with a grain of salt) that neither one of these desktops is as good with drag and drop as Gnome 2 or especially the KDE of your choice.

1 members found this post helpful.

double post

I don't know how to respond to this. This is my opinion and everybody else has another opinion. Whose opinion were you expecting?

Again, whose point of view should I be conveying, if not my own?



I use KDE. My point was not that fluxbox is better than anything else, only that there is user friendliness beyond the GUI. It's there. People don't see it because of prejudice, and because everything they learned about what an OS should be was taught to them by Mother Microsoft.


I have a literature degree. I was 39 when I learned what a hard drive is. I am not born to this, but it's just not that hard. And it's ignorant to use a computer for 20-50 years and never learn any text commands. There should always be a graphical solution, but if you don't learn some text, you're going to waste a lot of time.

It's not that one tool is better than another tool. If I could only choose one tool, it would be the GUI, but I don't have to do that. I can choose two tools, and two tools are ALWAYS better than one tool. I'm not saying that to make anyone's choice for them, but to help people make informed choices.

Of course, and also Gnome 2.

Wow how long did you have to think of this reply? I wasn't expecting any response so none was needed. What I did was give my opinion concerning your statement which conveyed that you know better than everyone else. I'm for free choice, you use what you want, I'll use what I want, everyone else can use what they want. You telling me that it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks just tells me your have an over inflated view of your own opinion. Now that we have that out of the way the rest of your last post doesn't need replying to.

A response isn't required so please don't tax yourself to much.