XFCE vs KDE

pcdoctor01 · 2015-10-09 07:51:17

After using KDE for about six years, I decided to try another desktop environment.
I used Ubuntu initially then Kubuntu then Debian KDE.
I like having a stable desktop but it was frustrating when I couldn't do simple things.
For example with Debian wheezy there was a dolphin bug in which I couldn't always open a certain flash drive using dolphin.
When I used thunar I didn't have this issue.
Once Debian jessie arrived on the scene, the dolphin bug with opening a certain flash drive was fixed but then certain store bought DVDs would not open using dolphin but I could play them using VLC.
Agan, when I used thunar, I didn't have this issue.
I would report these bugs to the KDE folks but of course they would say my KDE version was old.
I was using Debian stable and wanted stability so I didn't have a choice.
I installed Debian XFCE but it just wasn't pretty.
I toyed around with different themes but it still didn't look pretty like Xubuntu.
I ended up installing Xubuntu and I'm happy.
I realize that Xubuntu is based on Debian testing or unstable but so far so good.
By the way, I also tried Kubuntu 15.04 and the kscreensaver option was removed.
I can't remember if I tried to install xscreensaver instead.
I installed xscreensaver on Xubuntu also and it works great.
I'm sure my desktop is probably faster with XFCe anyway.

cmcanulty · 2015-10-09 12:10:26

thunar is great except for networking, I try to use nautilus very little as it takes forever to open but does networking well. Is there a file manager that gives speed and networking? Thunar opens instantly

pcdoctor01 · 2015-10-10 20:04:31

Im enjoying XFCE and of course my computer seems faster.
I guess it should be faster since XFCE is supposed to take less memory than KDE.

Last edited by pcdoctor01 (2015-10-10 20:05:17)

sixsixfive · 2015-10-11 08:09:52

pcdoctor01 wrote:

it should be faster since XFCE is supposed to take less memory than KDE.

sorry but you are wrong kde5 needs a way less memory than kde4, you need also keep in mind that kde is a complete desktop environment instead of xfce which is missing some essential applications for a desktop environment. Kde5 is also a lot more interesting due its modular design, but even kde4 took less memory than xfce if you disabled akonadi, nepomuk & co.

anyway both desktops need currently much more memory than gnome3 since they need to preload 2 ui toolkits(gtk2/3 for xfce, qt4/5 for kde)

MountainDewManiac · 2015-10-11 09:23:09

WARNING: Somewhat rambling...

I just don't use KDE because I've never liked it much, lol (years back, I thought that its menu looked too much like one of Microsoft's "start" menus and when I tried it again - after a significant amount of time had passed - it just seemed markedly different than what I felt that a (as in, MY) desktop should look like. Which is fine, I'm sure there are plenty of people who choose not to use Xfce because they don't like it much wink . Thankfully, linux offers many choices.

But because of the above, I know nothing about "today's version" of KDE. I only have assumptions - but I was assuming that KDE required more memory, more CPU prowess, a more powerful graphics system, or some combination thereof. Have I been assuming incorrectly?

Can you clarify "keep in mind that kde is a complete desktop environment instead of xfce which is missing some essential applications for a desktop environment?" I use Xfce every day, and it seems to be a complete DE to me; it boots, it draws/manages the desktop, it draws/manages the application windows, it provides a way (or two) for me to run applications, and it shuts down afterwards. All without crashing. I suppose that you could say that it also manages files, but that is Thunar; although it is closely tied to Xfce, and its function is probably considered to be more important than, say, a media player... it could be replaced with a different choice and Xfce would still function.

Hmm... I recently asked, "If a person replaced Thunar, Xfwm, et cetera, would they still be running Xfce?" I'm not really sure what the answer to that question is, but all of those things can be changed. Regardless, they were preinstalled on my distro's "Xfce flavor."

What "essentials" is Xfce missing, in your opinion? Gtk2 (and, possibly, Gtk3, IDK) was also preinstalled, there having been "some" applications which used Gtk preinstalled along with the rest of the distro - but maybe they're not automatically included in the default Xfce "kit?" IDK. In another time, I would have had (some form of) Qt as well, because I used to use K3B (and, before I discovered SDL Slash'Em, a GUI version of Nethack that used Qt). But I'm not sure that Gtk and/or Qt is what you mean?

And if you count disabling things to lower KDE's memory footprint, are you taking into account the things that could be removed/disabled in Xfce as well? I don't bother (everything I do seems to fit perfectly inside only six gigabytes of RAM, lol, so no worries), but I have seen a thread or two over at Mint's community web forum about removing certain things. And I saw a website about doing that some time last year. I'm not saying that KDE can't be "pared away" until it has a smaller footprint than Xfce can - I really have no idea. I'm just wondering if it was an "apples to apples" comparison?

I've been satisfied with Xfce. For the past, IDK, several months or so I've been telling myself, "The laptop you were gifted is so much older than the previous one from 2004 - that was far from great even then roll with its i5, 6 gigs of RAM, and 750(? IDK, but it isn't full, lol) gigabyte hard drive, and you're running LINUX. Both of these things mean that you can not only choose to run a different DE (I haven't even worked up to "different distro" in my daydreams yet), you can run more than one in the same installation!" I've been thinking about trying Cinnamon again. Or, possibly, MATE - but probably Cinnamon. Now this thread has me wondering if maybe I ought to take another look at KDE. IDK...

It just seems like every time I think about trying a different DE, it's late at night and I'm just (mentally) wandering around because I can't sleep. By the next day (or daytime, at least), I have forgotten all about trying something other than Xfce. That says a lot about Xfce, I guess (or, IDK, maybe it says a lot about ME, lol?). It's not like my Microsoft days when I routinely felt like shouting at my computer because of the OS' inadequacies. And I don't feel that it's akin to that old zip-up hooded sweatshirt I have, that I keep telling myself I keep because it is - at this point - suitable to work in because if I get paint on it, or tear a hole in it, I can just toss the thing... But consistently wear (when the temperature drops below 52°F or so and I end up wearing anything in addition to a short-sleeved shirt) for any activity other than work because it turns out that it's reasonably comfortable and I have grown used to its little issues (such as the bleached-out spots, the "handle" part of the zipper having disappeared long ago, et cetera). No... I am sure that there's something about Xfce that I could nitpick - but I'd have to spend some time/effort figuring out what they are. <SHRUGS> I do not feel that there is any amount of "accommodation" on my part when I use Xfce (unlike the sweatshirt). It does what I want it to, works every time, gave me the chance to customize it beyond its default (in Mint - YMMV) install without my having to "run up against the limits," as it were. It doesn't present me with a huge list of things that I have no interest in (I cannot use the term "features" unless such things DO interest me - but I freely admit that things I have no use for or interest in can legitimately be considered as features... by some).

IOW... I keep telling myself that I'll try a different DE, but I keep "forgetting." It just occurred to me that I could visit the YouTube website and view videos of KDE. But I have watched distro/DE "presentation(?)" videos in the past and they always seemed to have been put on by teenagers with certain mental issues (apologies to any bipolar schizophrenic teenagers in the audience) who happened to be in the throes of some sort of chemical substance (no apology to the junkies out there - in today's world, there is all kinds of information about what you could expect, yet you chose the life anyway). The atrocious music ("music?") I can mute, but the obsession with filling the desktop up with "stuff" (polite term... To the staff: You're welcome, lol - I'm learning to censor myself these days wink ) sort of puts me off a little, and it makes it hard to get an honest impression of what the experience of just using a computer which has {DE} installed on it day-to-day. I suppose that an hour-long video of someone booting their computer, logging in, and using the thing probably won't get the uploader many "hits?" (Here's a tip, lol: If you want hits, either drop the 10¢ soundtrack altogether or at least play some actual MUSIC instead of that mind-numbing soul-sucking techno-evil crap. It's one thing - and bad enough - to hide in your parents' basement whilst preparing for the "zombie apocalypse," but it's something else entirely to keep attempting to provoke one. It's no wonder the veg-heads keep going off their feed and slaughtering a bunch of bystanders until someone helpfully shows up and completes their suicide-by-idiocy for them roll .) Err, anyway...

I recently got... Verbally Frowned Upon at Mint's forum for asking/commenting about Cinnamon and had to (well... felt that I should) explain myself afterwards, so I'm doing so now to preclude having to do so later.

WHY should I (in your opinion... anyone?) try KDE. I'm looking for something more than "because you CAN, it's linux!" for an answer, here. I'm a 40-something year old man who doesn't feel the overwhelming urge to write in fire on my desktop, see snow fall on it, have six different desktop screens (or even two, come to think of it) that comprise a cube set in outer space - or some kind of aquarium - that I can spin around to my heart's desire instead of actually using my computer to perform a task. The closest I get to "greasy kid-stuff" is dating(+/-) women in their mid-20s to mid-30s (not all of whom are dangerously insane... any more). Well... And playing the aforementioned SDL Slash'Em. And farting around on a motorcycle (but it's ~34 years old, so that probably doesn't count?). I don't even own a working television. I'm looking for... IDK... "You should try this newfangled microwave because it'll cook your scrambled eggs in 15 seconds and you won't have to wash a skillet OR the wall behind the stove," kind of thing. Not "You should try this 15-pound 100-function wristwatch because it does 98 things you have ZERO interest in and, well, because it also tells time and has an alarm just like your current wristwatch."

I warned you to expect a little rambling....

Regards,
MDM

sixsixfive · 2015-10-11 13:18:15

well, i will skip the most of your post.

>I only have assumptions - but I was assuming that KDE required more memory, more CPU prowess, a more powerful graphics system

hm sure but the most demanding thing in kde is plasma and if you only display a wallpaper and a panel without any demanding plasmoids its not really more demanding than the xfce-panel+xfdesktop

>Can you clarify "keep in mind that kde is a complete desktop environment instead of xfce which is missing some essential applications for a desktop environment?

just to name a few applications that are standard at almost any desktop environments: a calculator, a web browser, a email client, a music player, a bluetooth/wifi manger and a file archiver.

sure you can complete xfce with other programs but these programs often use different technologies or follow different HIG than xfce which makes the ui just inconsistent. And since they come from different sources they could always break their compatibility with xfce.

>Thunar, Xfwm, et cetera, would they still be running Xfce?"

depends on what you remove xfce was once a very modular desktop nowadays everthing is so closely tied that you will probably break something...

>And if you count disabling things to lower KDE's memory footprint, are you taking into account the things that could be removed/disabled in Xfce as well?

akonadi or nepomuk have no eqivalent in xfce. sure you could remove gvfs or gsteamer to save a few megs but this would break thumbler, thunar etc.

>if maybe I ought to take another look at KDE. IDK...

I would wait until everything is ported to qt5 then i would try chakra to see a fully kde/qt example , but there are many other intresting projects like lxqt or the maui project

------------------------------------------------

for myself the only reason why I still use xfce is that inkscape and gimp have no qt-based equivalent.

tto end this a few things what i like on KDE.

* they do their own thing.
* they give you alternatives eg use VLC as your primary video player? so you can use vlc as phonon backend instead of gstreamer which is awesome.
* simple text files as configuration files - I find this a lot easier than digging around in regedit clones
* I also always liked the modular KIO slaves
* I can use the most of their applications on a Windows/Mac/or even a Haiku desktop which is useful if your company forces you to use windows...

xfce is more like a crossover of gnome and kde eg: its still customizable in some way but at the same time your choices are limited but it is still miles away from the almost zero choices in gnome.

pcdoctor01 · 2015-10-19 11:05:27

sixsixfive wrote:

pcdoctor01 wrote:
it should be faster since XFCE is supposed to take less memory than KDE.
sorry but you are wrong kde5 needs a way less memory than kde4, you need also keep in mind that kde is a complete desktop environment instead of xfce which is missing some essential applications for a desktop environment. Kde5 is also a lot more interesting due its modular design, but even kde4 took less memory than xfce if you disabled akonadi, nepomuk & co.
anyway both desktops need currently much more memory than gnome3 since they need to preload 2 ui toolkits(gtk2/3 for xfce, qt4/5 for kde)

I was using Debian 8 KDE which is based on KDE 4.
My system is snappier on the same desktop with Xubuntu 14.04 installed.
I also tried Debian 8 XFCE but it was ugly.
I tried some themes in Deb XFCE but it wasn't the same.
I've also tried Kubuntu 15.04 but it's not as pretty as KDE 4.
Some folks says plasma 5 is pretty but I don't see it.
No Kscreensavers in Kubuntu 15.04 either.
I have some problems with dolphin not opening some DVDs on Debian 8 KDE.
The same DVDs open fine with Xubuntu 14.04.
I just got tired of some dolphin issues that didn't exist in Debian 7 KDE that happen in Debian 8 KDE.
Right now I'm happy with Xubuntu.
Maybe one day I'll be back to KDE.

Last edited by pcdoctor01 (2015-10-19 11:08:14)

sixsixfive · 2015-10-19 21:32:31

@dolphin

i never used that useless piece of junk

this is the real deal! - http://imgur.com/4HeEIL8

it has everything a file manager needs(up/back button, addressbar with autocomplete) and if you want to use it for ssh/ftp just add the needed buttons and save it as a new profile...

Last edited by sixsixfive (2015-10-19 21:33:41)

jbar · 2015-10-20 20:11:06

pcdoctor01 wrote:

I also tried Debian 8 XFCE but it was ugly.

It's a matter of choosing a theme of your taste. I really like arc-theme
https://github.com/horst3180/Arc-theme

Greybird is also very popular among xfce users. It's available in debian installing murrine-themes

Numix is another great theme
https://numixproject.org/

e8hffff · 2015-12-03 16:14:09

pcdoctor01 wrote:

I installed Debian XFCE but it just wasn't pretty.

XFCE can look a bit clunky/bulky but if you reduce sizes of icons, fonts, and put other finality in to the appearance, then you can get something that looks and is pleasing.

I also use a combination of KDE, gnome, and XFCE programs.

XFCE is really a lightweight and fast base rather than a complete solution if not including KDE and Gnome programs.

hacknix · 2015-12-04 15:59:00

I'm not sure this kind of thread makes much sense, however from my experience KDE is a real nightmare of complexity and clutter compared to the slim functionality of xfce. Would not recommend to anyone else than hardcore KDE users.

Xfce Forum

Sub domains

#1 2015-10-09 07:51:17

XFCE vs KDE

#2 2015-10-09 12:10:26

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#3 2015-10-10 20:04:31

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#4 2015-10-11 08:09:52

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#5 2015-10-11 09:23:09

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#6 2015-10-11 13:18:15

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#7 2015-10-19 11:05:27

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#8 2015-10-19 21:32:31

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#9 2015-10-20 20:11:06

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#10 2015-12-03 16:14:09

Re: XFCE vs KDE

#11 2015-12-04 15:59:00

Re: XFCE vs KDE

Board footer