Why aren't you using the best DE?

why aren't you using the best DE?

Attached: Xfce_logo.svg.png (1200x1200, 331K)

but I am

Attached: 1024px-Cinnamon-logo.svg.png (1024x1024, 49K)

that's not Xfce

Because GNOME grew on me over time. Xfce is still amazing though. As stable as it gets.

Because Gnome is good now. So, is the new Xfce though, so doesn't really matter.

Based.

but it's the best DE

gnome has better default keybinds

I don't need a DE

How do you actually choose when you like so many different ones? XFCE, Budgie and Mate all hold appeal for me, how can I settle down with just one?

LXQt fuuuckeeers! Y'ha!!

Because LXQt is finally ready for the masses.

I have enough RAM to use something else

Use them all for extended periods of time and eventually you'll lean towards one.
And for the off chance that the devs ruin it in the future, you still have the other ones as backup.

Because I'm using bspwm

because i only have windows 95

Attached: screenFetch-2019-05-22_04-37-44.png (1920x1080, 1.4M)

soul
soulless

I am using XFCE.

>LXQt
has it a better feel than lxde , tried lxde but it seemed somewhat off , color , icons etc .

using xfce for a while now , is it a benifit for me to switch over ??

I am

why would anyone use xfeces?

But I am

Because XFCE has the worst screen tearing for my porn.

If everything's working nicely for you under xfce and you're satisfied, then here's no point switching to anything else. After years of using lignux I've learned that the hard way too many times. No point changing your setup if you're happy with it and the important shit is up to date. It is definitely worth trying out though, so if I were you I'd try it out and then decide.

And it is much better than plain lxde.

I still have a laptop running Backtrack 2

>lightweight DE

either use something that is loaded with features and measurably increases productivity, or just use the command line

Attached: disgusted mel.jpg (590x730, 88K)

You can get a composer for xfce that solves that.

for a moment i thought that was actual windows95 in 1920x1080

I just like having a traditional desktop on my 10+ year old machines. Why do I have to pick an extreme?

i am :^)

Attached: sf.png (1482x478, 235K)

found it more satisfying to go the minimal route
window manager/command line competency just feels better

When i get a computer that don't lose half of the 3D performance on linux due being too old, i'm probably using XFCE, but mostly due the retarded reason of it having a Mac OS classic theme unlike KDE.

Lolwut

My geforce 9800gt lose literally half of the frame rate when using some sort of linux because it is too old for the whole "Steam efforts with nvidia and AMD to get to windows parity".
Also no vulkan so no vkdx and similars.

>having a Mac OS classic theme unlike KDE
that's what the lolwut is for. xfce's UI is nothing like mac classic or os x. nothing at all. the presence of a dock on some distros under xfce does not make it mac-like. xfce is very much a traditional DE like mate, lxqt, lxde, and early KDE releases.

Because it isn't 2010 anymore.

Because using DEs is for scrubs

Because Xfce is comfy but KDE is based.

Attached: 1540572148187.png (408x368, 96K)

I do.

Attached: 1552356928537.png (648x521, 48K)

wicked fucking screen tearing

>ukunta kinte

>W530
Stupid thinkpadlet

Cringe

because i use i3 gaps B)

have sex

Bend over then

I switched from Arch to Xubuntu.

Attached: file.png (3840x2160, 976K)

>not Openbox with your own custom config
>needing the mouse to do anything

ghey

this is based

I do not use an de. I use:
pekwm, idesk, tint2, xfe and for convenience the xfce4-applauncher pinned to tint2.