Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Magnus Therning]

Eli Schwartz via arch-general  writes:

> On 11/08/2016 08:03 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
>> Um, the Qt licensing is rather more complicated than that nowadays:
>> https://www.qt.io/licensing-comparison/
>>
>> I think it went something like (vastly simplified and not weighed down
>> by any sort of actual knowledge)
>>
>>  1. Trolltech used GPL on everything and sold a commercial license to
>> actually make money.
>>  2. Nokia bought Trolltech and didn't feel a need to make money on Qt,
>> so they relicensed the lib under LGPL.
>>  3. The Qt Company is back to needing to make money on Qt, so some newer
>> parts are GPL.
>
> True, but LGPL >= GPL and however you slice it, it is not "closed sw".
>
> Granted, some newer things are actually (sometimes?) completely closed
> source and only available under a commercial license, but that is not
> "Qt", it is addons to Qt which AFAIK aren't even something e.g. KDE
> actually are interested in.
>
> Mainly, my point is that Qt is actually an amazing model of a
> commercially-developed FLOSS software with a sustainable business model
> that accommodates both the commercial and open-source communities, and
> it is kind of painful to hear someone accuse it of being "closed sw",
> with all the attendant evil-anti-Linux-project emotional baggage that is
> likely to evoke.

We are in violent agreement on this!

I just felt your first statement was a simplification that bordered on
making it factually incorrect, hence my comment.

/M

--
Magnus Therning  OpenPGP: 0x927912051716CE39
email: mag...@therning.org   jabber: mag...@therning.org
twitter: magthe   http://therning.org/magnus

If voting could really change things it would be illegal.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Eli Schwartz via arch-general]

On 11/08/2016 08:04 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Eli,
> 
> it's not worth to contribute anything to such a naive request,
> with that much questionable replies.

Well, really, I just felt the need to rebut some silly points made by
one of those questionable replies. Although maybe I shouldn't have tried
to show him what a real argument against Gnome would look like.

> "Favorite/best desktop in archlinux" in regards to what? Female
> maintainer quota?

Ah, that must be it. Because we need to make a political statement via
our choice in desktop environments. :D :D

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Eli Schwartz via arch-general]

On 11/08/2016 08:03 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Um, the Qt licensing is rather more complicated than that nowadays:
> https://www.qt.io/licensing-comparison/
> 
> I think it went something like (vastly simplified and not weighed down
> by any sort of actual knowledge)
> 
>  1. Trolltech used GPL on everything and sold a commercial license to
> actually make money.
>  2. Nokia bought Trolltech and didn't feel a need to make money on Qt,
> so they relicensed the lib under LGPL.
>  3. The Qt Company is back to needing to make money on Qt, so some newer
> parts are GPL.

True, but LGPL >= GPL and however you slice it, it is not "closed sw".

Granted, some newer things are actually (sometimes?) completely closed
source and only available under a commercial license, but that is not
"Qt", it is addons to Qt which AFAIK aren't even something e.g. KDE
actually are interested in.

Mainly, my point is that Qt is actually an amazing model of a
commercially-developed FLOSS software with a sustainable business model
that accommodates both the commercial and open-source communities, and
it is kind of painful to hear someone accuse it of being "closed sw",
with all the attendant evil-anti-Linux-project emotional baggage that is
likely to evoke.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Ralf Mardorf]

Eli,

it's not worth to contribute anything to such a naive request,
with that much questionable replies.

I guess the OP already understands that it depends on the task what
environment to chose and that it's quite possible to tailor each
environment, even when installing a bundle. The latter might depend on
the user's skills.

Extracts from three different help texts:

"--replace   Replace the currently running window manager"
"--desktop   Launch desktop manager daemon"
"--no-desktopDo not manage the desktop"

Those extracts might give an additional hint what Arch users possibly
tend to do, but even could be done by an Ubuntu user. Let alone that we
even easily could get rid of hard dependencies, if we want a package,
without a hard dependency, that is just an annoyance for us. Let alone
that the Arch User Repository provides PKGBUILDs for stuff like
"engrampa-thunar-gtk2 Archive manipulator from MATE without Caja
dependency (GTK2 version)", which explains what is possible and how
absurd the request is.

"Favorite/best desktop in archlinux" in regards to what? Female
maintainer quota?

Regards,
Ralf

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Magnus Therning]

Eli Schwartz via arch-general  writes:

> On 11/07/2016 07:39 PM, Christian Klaue wrote:
>> Back to the 3 major players:
>> . KDE looks close to Windows and fancy. QT is closed sw. In my personal
>> opinion KDE offers too many configurations  (early plasma) and is been
>> laggy (KDE 4).
>
> Um, what???
>
> Qt is dual-licensed under the GPL3 (with a commercial license available
> for purchase *for use in non-FLOSS projects* ), I don't know what
> bizarre rumors you have heard...

Um, the Qt licensing is rather more complicated than that nowadays:
https://www.qt.io/licensing-comparison/

I think it went something like (vastly simplified and not weighed down
by any sort of actual knowledge)

 1. Trolltech used GPL on everything and sold a commercial license to
actually make money.
 2. Nokia bought Trolltech and didn't feel a need to make money on Qt,
so they relicensed the lib under LGPL.
 3. The Qt Company is back to needing to make money on Qt, so some newer
parts are GPL.

/M

--
Magnus Therning  OpenPGP: 0x927912051716CE39
email: mag...@therning.org   jabber: mag...@therning.org
twitter: magthe   http://therning.org/magnus

A system is composed of components: a component is something you
understand.
 — Professor Howard Aiken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Eli Schwartz via arch-general]

On 11/07/2016 07:39 PM, Christian Klaue wrote:
> Back to the 3 major players:
> . KDE looks close to Windows and fancy. QT is closed sw. In my personal
> opinion KDE offers too many configurations  (early plasma) and is been
> laggy (KDE 4).

Um, what???

Qt is dual-licensed under the GPL3 (with a commercial license available
for purchase *for use in non-FLOSS projects* ), I don't know what
bizarre rumors you have heard...

> . Cinnamon is been wonderful. Unfortunately very buggy. (appr. 3 yrs
> ago)

My current desktop is Cinnamon, it works pretty well.

> . Gnome is ugly. Very ugly. Ever seen a "Adwaita"-themed window header?
> (still valid)

"Ugly" is a matter of taste (but I happen to agree).

I am sure you could come up with much better objections to Gnome, if you
really tried. Like the way they go beyond themes and actually tear away
functionality (from, like, everything).
Even the utility apps that are developed by Gnome had to go from my
laptop, because they looked like they belonged on a smartphone, and had
as much functionality.

I miss Gnome 2, I really do. But I moved on to Cinnamon back when MATE
was in its early days.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Christian Klaue]

There is no "best enviroment" for everyone.

Ask for advantages / disadvantages. Check if the answers still apply
nowadays. Let's see for my personal opinion.

When I started with linux I started on cinnamon / mate since it is been
 most closely to windows. It's also been as buggy as windows. Back
then. I am sure / I hope it is much more stable nowadays.

I tried a few "basic" / "specialized" and "experimental" desktops. (No
offence to anyone!). None did fit my personal "one for all"
requirements. Other people can't follow my "I paid for a mouse I wan't
to use it" philosophy. With such a "noob" philosophy back then there
had been KDE, gnome and mate/cinnamon.

One aspect is important: no matter which decission you take (KDE or
another): GTK and QT can be very well be used in parallel. So an
argument like "if you go for gnome you can't use Kaffeine" is bullshit.
QT and GTK can coexistent and nowadays with the right themes you won't
actually be able to say which app is using what.

Back to the 3 major players:
. KDE looks close to Windows and fancy. QT is closed sw. In my personal
opinion KDE offers too many configurations  (early plasma) and is been
laggy (KDE 4).
. Cinnamon is been wonderful. Unfortunately very buggy. (appr. 3 yrs
ago)
. Gnome is ugly. Very ugly. Ever seen a "Adwaita"-themed window header?
(still valid)

Well: I stayed with Gnome. While writing this I still use QT-
applications (namely I watch TV using Kaffeine on my second screen).
Just give every DE a try and after u decided look out for themes and
customizations. There are plenty out there. In most cases for all big
players. Eg. yakuake for qt/KDE and guake for gtk. As for Gnome: I use
arc-theme and viola, it looks bautiful now. I added guake, dash-to-dock 
extension and a few other things. Nowadays I would not even consider
KDE. Anyway, yours may be still KDE. Or Gnome. Or Cinnamon. Or
Enlightment. Or any other. A friend uses enlightment and won't consider
any other. Let me know if u have a valid reason for one specific.

On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 16:58 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 11/06/2016 04:12 PM, Maykel Franco via arch-general wrote:
> > Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the
> > question.
> > 
> > I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes
> > it
> > is very heavy. Do you think?
> > 
> 
>   I agree with the remainder, the choice is yours. That said, I built
> TDE (KDE3) for Arch for years after chakra stopped building kdemod3,
> and
> that was (and still is) my all time favorite. .I've recently started
> using Plasma, and while it is a behemoth, it is relatively well
> behaved
> from a resources standpoint. Gnome, I thoroughly enjoyed gnome 2. My
> experience with gnome 3 was much like my experience with KDE4.
> 
>   It all boils down to what do you need your desktop to do? Do you
> rely
> on any of the apps unique to any one desktop? (e.g. I like
> kate/kwrite
> and I like the tabbed interface to konsole) Were it not for those 3
> apps, I could care less which desktop I use. I like fluxbox as a
> minimal
> desktop (any of the boxtop desktops are pretty much the same --
> sawfish
> is a little too bare bones for me)
> 
>   The midlevel desktop goes to XFCE, capable, relatively full suite
> of
> basic apps, but it too has experienced growing pains over the past
> two
> years.
> 
>   Gnome or KDE - take your pick. Both are essentially a moving target
> at
> this point. Both are more than capable and both provided just about
> all
> you need built in.
> 
>   Best/Favorite is in the eye of the beholder...
> 

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[David C. Rankin]

On 11/06/2016 04:12 PM, Maykel Franco via arch-general wrote:
> Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question.
> 
> I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
> is very heavy. Do you think?
> 

  I agree with the remainder, the choice is yours. That said, I built
TDE (KDE3) for Arch for years after chakra stopped building kdemod3, and
that was (and still is) my all time favorite. .I've recently started
using Plasma, and while it is a behemoth, it is relatively well behaved
from a resources standpoint. Gnome, I thoroughly enjoyed gnome 2. My
experience with gnome 3 was much like my experience with KDE4.

  It all boils down to what do you need your desktop to do? Do you rely
on any of the apps unique to any one desktop? (e.g. I like kate/kwrite
and I like the tabbed interface to konsole) Were it not for those 3
apps, I could care less which desktop I use. I like fluxbox as a minimal
desktop (any of the boxtop desktops are pretty much the same -- sawfish
is a little too bare bones for me)

  The midlevel desktop goes to XFCE, capable, relatively full suite of
basic apps, but it too has experienced growing pains over the past two
years.

  Gnome or KDE - take your pick. Both are essentially a moving target at
this point. Both are more than capable and both provided just about all
you need built in.

  Best/Favorite is in the eye of the beholder...

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Jonathan Horacio Villatoro Córdoba via arch-general]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:25:38AM +, Rijul Gulati via arch-general wrote:
> Its a matter of preference really. XFCE is lightweight. I myself use GNOME
> and XFCE (depends on my daily mood :P)
> If KDE is heavy for you, you could try XFCE.
> 
> On Mon 7 Nov, 2016, 13:48 Ben Oliver via arch-general, <
> arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > I agree with all the above.
> >
> > XFCE is my go-to when I need a lightweight and reliable DE.
> >
> > Otherwise I'm strictly a WM guy - tried xmonad, liked it, but then
> > found out that i3 has the setup I was using as default, so I switched.
> > Plain text config files are also nice (although I imagine somewhat
> > limiting if you actually know Haskell).
> >

I'm with theem on this one. It's definitely a matter of preference. You
should try them all; and see what you like from each DE/WM, what you
dislike, what you hate, what you can work around, etc. Then decide on
what you feel most comfortable using.

Personally, I've found my love in i3, though I sometimes switch to KDE
Plasma on my desktop and to MATE on my laptop (depending on the mood).

HTH,
--Jonathan

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[matthew via arch-general]

I use gnome myself.  I am an orca user so gnome good for accessibility.  
Mate is also good.  There is a couple of things you have to odo to get 
mate to work though gnome just works rite out of the box.



Matthew




On 11/06/2016 05:49 PM, Lukas Rose wrote:



On 06 Nov 2016, at 23:15, Bruno Pagani  wrote:

Le 06/11/2016 à 23:12, Maykel Franco via arch-general a écrit :

Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question.

I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
is very heavy. Do you think?

There is no such thing like “the best DE”. This is a matter of
taste/desired features, dot. Most people I know running Arch use i3,
personally I use KDE Plasma. ;)

Bruno

You have to find out yourself what suits your usage best. I love XFCE for its 
simplicity, lightweightness and Linux-ish style (category bases menus as 
typical for Linux, customizable panels with applets etc).

No matter what DE you use, docky is often a nice addition as a program launch 
menu.

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Spaghetti]

Here's to GNOME.


Am 07.11.2016 um 07:47 schrieb David Demelier via arch-general:
> Le 6 nov. 2016 11:12 PM, "Maykel Franco via arch-general" <
> arch-general@archlinux.org> a écrit :
>> Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the
> question.
>> I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
>> is very heavy. Do you think?
> It's matter of taste. However, Arch provides vanilla packages, making best
> desktop support as we do not install/recommend/focus a default desktop like
> big end user distribution (e.g. GNOME for fedora, KDE for OpenSuSE).
>
> I personally use and love GNOME though.
>

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Rijul Gulati via arch-general]

Its a matter of preference really. XFCE is lightweight. I myself use GNOME
and XFCE (depends on my daily mood :P)
If KDE is heavy for you, you could try XFCE.

On Mon 7 Nov, 2016, 13:48 Ben Oliver via arch-general, <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> I agree with all the above.
>
> XFCE is my go-to when I need a lightweight and reliable DE.
>
> Otherwise I'm strictly a WM guy - tried xmonad, liked it, but then
> found out that i3 has the setup I was using as default, so I switched.
> Plain text config files are also nice (although I imagine somewhat
> limiting if you actually know Haskell).
>

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Ben Oliver via arch-general]

I agree with all the above.

XFCE is my go-to when I need a lightweight and reliable DE.

Otherwise I'm strictly a WM guy - tried xmonad, liked it, but then
found out that i3 has the setup I was using as default, so I switched.
Plain text config files are also nice (although I imagine somewhat
limiting if you actually know Haskell).

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[D C via arch-general]

No such thing, but I've used i3, awesome, gnome classic, gnome shell and
xfce but my favorite has been KDE Plasma.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:47 AM, David Demelier via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> Le 6 nov. 2016 11:12 PM, "Maykel Franco via arch-general" <
> arch-general@archlinux.org> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the
> question.
> >
> > I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
> > is very heavy. Do you think?
>
> It's matter of taste. However, Arch provides vanilla packages, making best
> desktop support as we do not install/recommend/focus a default desktop like
> big end user distribution (e.g. GNOME for fedora, KDE for OpenSuSE).
>
> I personally use and love GNOME though.
>
> --
> David
>

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[David Demelier via arch-general]

Le 6 nov. 2016 11:12 PM, "Maykel Franco via arch-general" <
arch-general@archlinux.org> a écrit :
>
> Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the
question.
>
> I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
> is very heavy. Do you think?

It's matter of taste. However, Arch provides vanilla packages, making best
desktop support as we do not install/recommend/focus a default desktop like
big end user distribution (e.g. GNOME for fedora, KDE for OpenSuSE).

I personally use and love GNOME though.

-- 
David

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Lukas Rose]

>> On 06 Nov 2016, at 23:15, Bruno Pagani  wrote:
>> 
>> Le 06/11/2016 à 23:12, Maykel Franco via arch-general a écrit :
>> 
>> Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question.
>> 
>> I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
>> is very heavy. Do you think?
> 
> There is no such thing like “the best DE”. This is a matter of
> taste/desired features, dot. Most people I know running Arch use i3,
> personally I use KDE Plasma. ;)
> 
> Bruno

You have to find out yourself what suits your usage best. I love XFCE for its 
simplicity, lightweightness and Linux-ish style (category bases menus as 
typical for Linux, customizable panels with applets etc).

No matter what DE you use, docky is often a nice addition as a program launch 
menu.

Re: [arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 06/11/2016 à 23:12, Maykel Franco via arch-general a écrit :

> Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question.
>
> I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
> is very heavy. Do you think?

There is no such thing like “the best DE”. This is a matter of
taste/desired features, dot. Most people I know running Arch use i3,
personally I use KDE Plasma. ;)

Bruno





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[arch-general] [OT] Favorite/best desktop in archlinux

[Maykel Franco via arch-general]

Hi, what the best desktop envieronment for archlinux? Only is the question.

I like very much kde plasma but he used a lot of ram and sometimes it
is very heavy. Do you think?