"Moderator" doesn't make him justice, though: ToZ will help you achieve almost anything imaginable when it comes to Xfce, and then some!
Big kudos to all the Xfce team and community, and extra sweet love to ToZ, you rock!
xfce is a gem. ToZ is the man.
- Coherency: the way it works and is presented does not change much over the years. It's important for me. I don't want to adapt everytime a designer thinks he has a good idea.
- Simplicity: it just works and is well configured out of the box
- Efficiency: not the lightest Desktop Manager in the market but it is light enough so it won't eat resources for nothing
- Right level of complexity: there is enough to configure it to adapt it to your needs but not too much to make it a mess. Take the xfce console for example: you can rename tabs, move them and search text in them. Last time I check these features were not available in Gnome Terminal. But at the same time I don't want much more than that.
Coherency is really important for me: Xfce has been there when Gnome / Unity / Gnome 3 / Mate / Cinnamon were confusing me by offering all the same but not really the same.
Edit: I wrote "consistency" instead of "coherency" but I guess the right term is coherency in this context.
Link to the project with Screenshots: https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
For Qt-apps I use the "Windows" style so they fit together nicely.
Comparing Memphis and Chicago, there are some layout-bugs in Memphis, but I feel like it's overall a bit better balanced than Chicago.
I think all new themes are too bright and flat, Windows 9X was perfect (at least in that regard).
The Solaris 9 theme works great with FVWM.
My main reason is not presence of advantages but absence of disadvantages.
I like XFCE's simplicity and stability. It's as stable as the big boys in the town. I like how it looks in default configuration (I started this thing with C64. I love how old computing looks).
You can work relatively fast in XFCE. While it doesn't go above and beyond like Dolphin, Akonadi and KDE in general, it can accomplish what it needs to do out of the box. Thunar is capable enough (4.16 brings per folder view preferences, which is important).
XFCE, because lack of sheer eye-candy, uses screen space very efficiently. So, it provides you massive amount of space especially in big screens.
I don't miss KDE's interconnectedness and integration while using XFCE but, it needs different solutions. Again I want to emphasize that it's not a disadvantage, but a mere difference.
If you want a straight, run of the mill but well refined desktop environment, XFCE is the top choice in my book. It can provide you what you need without bloat. I personally don't understand why people continuously torture themselves by re-configuring various WMs over and over. I understand i3 and other managers are nice but, they're not practical in my book.
Xfce's window manager is the best of all I've tried. Maybe not as configurable as e.g. Sawmill, it has a lot of useful functions that are missing from Gnome-based offerings, and from macOS: window snapping, automatic window resizing to grab available space (in several ways), simple automatic tiling, easy putting a window above others, etc. They all can be configured to have arbitrary shortcuts.
Xfce has fewer ambitions to integrate things and have their own everything. It allows you to just work with your apps without distraction.
Most importantly, Xfce is not trying to imitate macOS, but does its own thing, and stays consistent. It has very little magic in it.
Also, bugs are quite few and far between. They do not seem to rush to release new stuff.
If you think Windows usability peaked around Windows XP, XFCE might be worth trying.
All I want is an application menu, some launchers, a window list, a widget/notification area, and some reasonable keybindings. Gnome 2 had these things, and then early Gnome 3 got rid of basically all of them. If some fancypants UX researchers want to experiment with replacing menu bars with hamburgers, that's fine, but I'm just not interested.
I've done more than my fair share of WM hopping (I still use i3 on my laptop because I like being able to resize windows with my keyboard when I don't have a mouse), but XFCE is my workhorse. It may look boring, but it's reliable. It has more than enough features for working productively, and I appreciate the fact that the development team doesn't completely change the way everything works every few years just to chase the latest flashy trend.
KDE - Looks great, runs like a slug stuck in molasses.
Gnome - Looks meh, runs slightly better.
Unity - Looks great, same performance as KDE.
Thunar is much faster than Nautilus, XFWM is faster than Mutter, XFCE panels are much faster than the Gnome Shell, XFCE GTK engine is much faster than Adwaita... and the list just goes on and on. The result is a really fast and responsive user experience, that will run fast even in low spec machines.
I am not a fan of the default panel layout and overall configuration, but XFCE panels are easy to configure as well as highly configurable. You can create as many panels you want, position them anywhere you want and put any elements on them... There's even a way to create a macOS-like global menu, although I don't recommend it.
Not to rain on anyone's parade but the XFCE GTK engines haven't worked in a heck of a long time because theme engines were removed ("deprecated", quoth the GTK team, as in they left the interface in but removed the actual functionality, so they didn't do anything anymore) many years ago. The default XFCE theme (Greybird, I think?) uses CSS, just like Adwaita, and there's basically no difference between the two.
Everything else is true as far as I know :-).
In the old days XFCE was the go-to DE for the low spec systems back when KDE and Gnome were massive bloats, but KDE slimmed down lately due to massive development efforts to the point of using less ram than XFCE so I'm curious which would be better for a laptop with 4GB of RAM since IIRC, XFCE apps do use less memory but that's because they also do way less than the KDE ones.
Hopefully there are some up to date DE connoisseurs on HN to shed some light.
They have very legitimate reasons -- e.g. Thunderbird (and Evolution, for all its faults) kindda work with Exchange if you jump through some hoops, whereas KMail 2 still barely works with anything.
Other than that: it's very stable, very fast (QML and QtQuick, as it turns out, aren't very good at giving you a fast, low-latency interface and permanent iteration by lots of developers), easy to setup.
In many ways, XFCE is to Gnome 3 what KDE 3.x was to KDE 4.x and the Plasma series (except it's also maintained ): a solid, traditional platform that modestly aims to build things with the tools we have right now for the computers we have right now, instead of developing an advanced technological and design framework that will also work on the machines that the design hive mind says we'll have tomorrow.
 Yes, I know about TDE :-).
Eventually i found my way to XFCE because i couldn't make it slow. Everything felt very snappy, no feeling of slow FPS.
That's about it for me, honestly. I haven't configured it much, yet. I use the desktops to shove some non-interactive apps like Spotify to the background. Nothing special, really. XFCE just works. Sure, the other desktops are more pretty .. but that wasn't worth the low FPS to me.
not debian https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762472
I can hold Alt and left-click-and-drag to move the window, or Alt and right-click-and-drag to resize. This works from anywhere in the target window. Resize will move the nearest edge or corner to your click.
Unless, of course, your preferences just changed, or you didn't really like Unity either.
Neither Unity nor XFCE suffer from that.
Same with GTK themes.
They look more like the icons from a phone from 2004, like a Motorola or Symbian OS.
Still love XFCE.
Not slow, not bloated, just a DE as it should be.
The alternatives simply don't work for me. lxde or lxqt are horribly ugly to me.
My desktop is Xmonad and xfce-panel works great on it. I use panel, settings, power-manager from Xfce (probably a few more). It's very stable and its simple and flat design makes it a great fit for tiling window managers.
I wonder if it's sort of a signal of the evolution of the free-software desktop experience.
A lot of the '90s/'00s paradigms were pretty strongly "we're trying to replicate the experience of a lustworthy expensive system" -- see WindowMaker/AfterStep to look like a NeXT, FVWM to look like Motif back when that was expensive and proprietary, IceWM offering OS/2 style themes, and how everyone went to make workalike themes when the QNX Photon "full desktop on a 1.44M floppy" demo disc dropped.
Now, they just have their own styles, but at the same time, they seem less uniquely identifiable.
xrandr --output <display> --set TearFree on
Are there people who wish to have screen tearing out of the box?
Had previously been testing in a Docker image , but this is a bit more convenient. OpenSuSE has a number of useful options I was previously unaware of.
Maybe someone could share their experience who has made the switch recently. If it is not a big thing that could potentially break everything, then I'd be happy to try it out.
If you enjoy it enough, you can uninstall Gnome packages. Just make sure not to uninstall GDM unless you want to replace it with something else. I'm sure the Arch wiki has suggestions on the Xfce page.