Other Desktop Enviroments

desktop-environment
gui
design
themes

#21

I’ve used unity then gnome then cinnamon then deepin and now im on kde and staying with Manjaro kde. This is my setup:


#22

this is a short list of DEs that impressed me personly… some i even used on a daily basis:
not in a specific order

crunch bang
MS windows 8
Unity
jolicloud/jolios
symphonyOS - Mezzo Desktop
Quirky Linux
pear linux
chromiumOS (vanilla)
plan9
inferno
meeGo
rhapsody
webOS - hp
Haiku
carbyn
amoeba
AntiX
KolibriOS
3D desktops (like the ones in the videos i posted earlier, forgot about those untill now)

.


#23

Besides awesome and fluxbox being mentioned.
Have a look at cwm and xmonad. cwm is stupidity light and powerful. cwmrc config nerd to be made before trying it out. Both of these wm can stay under the 10MB ram used. Making them borderline ultra light wm!


#24

With staying under 10MB ram, how useful are both of these Windows Managers? Consuming less then 9MB of ram, sure sounds like having very limited utility.


#25

tbh. both of them. Your not sacrifice that much on utility. Not having to need a 3rd party keyboard setup like you do with bspwm. cwm config are human readable. on the other hand. xmonad is going take some time to figure out. Like awesome. It used programming languages to set it up. live update. So you don’t need to kill xorg to see the change. I’m looking at you dwm. unlike awesome. you have to make your own haskell config. It default set up is not very sane like awesome. But it more dynamic window manager out the box compare to awesome 4.2(4.3 just came out. Not every distro have it yet). cwm is a floating/stacking window manager and xmonad is dynamic window manager.

Comparison:

  • both used xterm for the default terminal
  • both are very lightweight. And not as limited as you think they might be.
  • both can update the config live without restarting Xorg.
  • both are by default minimal look setup. Simple as it can be for looks.
  • both are very stable.

xmonad:
Pros

  • Is on average very stable wm. More so then most others wm out there
  • Able to used older version config. (be careful about one with custom links. since they have a special bashscript setup)
  • Window key/Super key is default mod key
  • Have 3rd party extension and bars

Cons:

  • xterm default terminal
  • need terminal to start up app. (without a config setup)
  • Have a huge leaning curve. Due to it programming languages config setup

cwm:
Pros

  • Human readable config.
  • Can open apps like fluxbox and awesome (no need for 3rd party apps)
  • Nothing feel useless in terms of keyboard setup
  • Made by openbsd.

Cons:

  • xterm is the default terminal.
  • alt key is default mod key setup

Why I’m butting xterm as a con. Not everyone will have it installed by default. So when trying to start xmonad will be useless. Can’t start any apps with out a terminal. Unless you setup your xmonad.hs config. cwm can open other apps. But used alt key for mod key. and that just feel too weird for me. all my keyboard I own have a Win/Super key. never own a IBM model M or other keyboard that don’t have win/super key.

cwm man page. https://man.openbsd.org/cwm.1
cwmrc man page. https://man.openbsd.org/cwmrc.5


#26

Thanks for the info, but I need a Full Desktop Environment that I can configure without modding a text file by hand.

I use Xfce and have 16GB of memory. No need to use a lightweight Window Manager.


#27

It find. I just throwing out other suggestion. Since the vivid of the thread change. From only DE to also WM being ok to add too. Sometime WM are talk about like it a DE.


#28

thanks for the replies guys, after a long look at some things i do realise i have to take into consideration WMs too, as they can be usefull in some cases, and some look pretty good.

16GB of ram could run all the DEs at once :grin: