Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What's your GUI of choice?

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share

What's your open source GUI of choice?

Total: 29 votes (6 blank votes)

  • GNOME 2
  • 12 %
  • GNOME 3
  • 8 %
  • Unity
  • 12 %
  • Cinnamon
  • 4 %
  • Mate
  • 4 %
  • KDE
  • 28 %
  • Xfce
  • 12 %
  • LXDE
  • 16 %
  • Enlightenment 17
  • 4 %
  • Fluxbox
  • 0 %
October 8, 2012 9:19:16 PM

Select either one or two.

More about : gui choice

October 8, 2012 10:44:05 PM

I voted Cinnamon. I've used GNOME 2, 3, Unity, Cinnamon and LXDE. There seems to be a lot of hate for Unity, but I didn't mind it that much. I'm using Mint now and I like Cinnamon. I'm not really a hard core user but it is my main machine at home.
October 9, 2012 3:14:59 AM

I find most GUIs to be quite pretty and beautiful.

Though I use LXDE, I don't mind any of the major ones either.
Related resources
October 9, 2012 8:20:39 AM

dmroeder said:
I voted Cinnamon. I've used GNOME 2, 3, Unity, Cinnamon and LXDE. There seems to be a lot of hate for Unity, but I didn't mind it that much. I'm using Mint now and I like Cinnamon. I'm not really a hard core user but it is my main machine at home.


If you've never used KDE and have a capable system, I'd strongly recommend trying out Kubuntu (enable Wobbly Windows in KDE desktop effects ;-)). Enlightenment 17 is awesome - eye candy and super lightweight. It's not finished (probably never will be) but Bodhi Linux does a good job of plugging in the gaps.
October 9, 2012 2:02:22 PM

You think it's worth installing on Mint? I'm not up to reinstalling my OS as it's my only machine at home and I don't feel like reconfiguring MythTV.
October 9, 2012 2:20:43 PM

dmroeder said:
You think it's worth installing on Mint? I'm not up to reinstalling my OS as it's my only machine at home and I don't feel like reconfiguring MythTV.


I wouldn't recommend it to be honest. Some GUIs like LXDE seem to install nicely on various distributions, but KDE is fully of visual touches that (in my experience) don't work properly when you install KDE yourself or even when you use a lot of distributions that are KDE as default. Wobbly windows for example I've only ever had work properly in Kubuntu. Other nice touches like windows becoming slightly transparent when you drag/resize work smoothly on some KDE distros, laggy on others and don't work at all on others.

As for Enlightenment, you can appreciate the eye candy from your own installation of it, but there's quite a few bits missing/broken. What Bodhi Linux does is plug in those gaps with bits of GNOME/LXDE (I forget which, maybe both) so you have a relatively glitch-free fully functional interface.

You could always partition though! My Linux drive is running three distributions (fourth partition for swap space). That way I can enjoy KDE, Xfce or E17, depending on what I feel like at the time! Have to admit though, it would be nicer (more convenient) to have all three options running flawlessly on a single install so that I could just log out and back in with a new session. Closest way I can think though is to install Xfce in Kubuntu and forget Enlightenment. So yeah, consider partitioning - if you're into eye candy (and who isn't ;-)) then KDE and Enlightenment 17 won't fail to impress.
October 11, 2012 12:34:02 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Select either one or two.


Hey, where's TWM on that list? :D 
October 11, 2012 1:19:13 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Hey, where's TWM on that list? :D 


Haha have some standards! Seriously though the list can't contain more than 10 options. I'd add a more exhaustive list otherwise. To be honest, I don't see the point in WMs that are so lightweight they're ugly - are there really still computers that can't run Xfce, LXDE or Enlightenment smoothly? I know people do use them though so I'd include them if I could. Fluxbox is on there anyway!
October 12, 2012 12:46:20 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Haha have some standards! Seriously though the list can't contain more than 10 options. I'd add a more exhaustive list otherwise. To be honest, I don't see the point in WMs that are so lightweight they're ugly - are there really still computers that can't run Xfce, LXDE or Enlightenment smoothly? I know people do use them though so I'd include them if I could. Fluxbox is on there anyway!


I dunno, I think my computer is just barely powerful enough to run KDE4.
October 12, 2012 5:05:19 AM

I can't use KDE4 anymore after I discovered Razor-Qt.
October 12, 2012 11:16:51 AM

MU_Engineer said:
I dunno, I think my computer is just barely powerful enough to run KDE4.


Well if KDE 4 is OK then anything else should be fine, I think KDE is about as far as you can get from lightweight. Still gorgeous though and highly customisable :-)
October 12, 2012 11:18:49 AM

amdfangirl said:
I can't use KDE4 anymore after I discovered Razor-Qt.


I've been curious about Razor Qt but wanted to wait until it's properly finished before I take it for a spin. Are they going for a no-compromise lightweight and eye candy GUI like Enlightenment? Any distros using it as default yet?
October 12, 2012 11:47:40 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Well if KDE 4 is OK then anything else should be fine, I think KDE is about as far as you can get from lightweight. Still gorgeous though and highly customisable :-)


That was a joke if you look at my signature. I am running a machine with a quad-socket motherboard capable of taking 64 cores and half a terabyte of RAM. KDE runs with no issues whatsoever.
October 12, 2012 3:31:56 PM

MU_Engineer said:
That was a joke if you look at my signature. I am running a machine with a quad-socket motherboard capable of taking 64 cores and half a terabyte of RAM. KDE runs with no issues whatsoever.


Yes, I think those are the minimum requirements for KDE. Your signature wasn't actually on that post for some reason though.

Are you really using dual Xeons to run a HTPC? Double processor all the way! ;-)
October 12, 2012 7:36:43 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Yes, I think those are the minimum requirements for KDE. Your signature wasn't actually on that post for some reason though.

Are you really using dual Xeons to run a HTPC? Double processor all the way! ;-)


Yes, I am using a dual Xeon unit for an HTPC. Server class hardware is very reliable and an HTPC is something you want to just always work. The main reason I got that machine is that it seemed to be the perfect setup. It has a decent amount of PCI/PCIe expansion capability, the board was $20 NIB, and it uses efficient, quiet laptop CPUs. DDR2-400 reg ECC RAM was dirt cheap as well, I got about two dozen assorted pieces for $15 and stuck the largest 8 sticks in the machine. Those particular Xeons are exactly similar to the original Core Duo T2500s, and in fact some Core Duos will work on this board (T2300E and T2500 are known to work, others might as well.) It's a very reliable mobile-on-desktop setup using server parts and way too inexpensive and cheap to pass up.

It is very reliable too:

Quote:
htpc@sossaman ~ $ uptime
14:32:57 up 200 days, 22:08, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.03, 0.05
October 12, 2012 11:00:53 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Yes, I am using a dual Xeon unit for an HTPC. Server class hardware is very reliable and an HTPC is something you want to just always work. The main reason I got that machine is that it seemed to be the perfect setup. It has a decent amount of PCI/PCIe expansion capability, the board was $20 NIB, and it uses efficient, quiet laptop CPUs. DDR2-400 reg ECC RAM was dirt cheap as well, I got about two dozen assorted pieces for $15 and stuck the largest 8 sticks in the machine. Those particular Xeons are exactly similar to the original Core Duo T2500s, and in fact some Core Duos will work on this board (T2300E and T2500 are known to work, others might as well.) It's a very reliable mobile-on-desktop setup using server parts and way too inexpensive and cheap to pass up.

It is very reliable too:

Quote:
htpc@sossaman ~ $ uptime
14:32:57 up 200 days, 22:08, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.03, 0.05


That is pretty cool. How do the Xeons differ from their consumer counterparts then? Like how are those actually different from the Core2 Duo T2500? Also, what's NIB?
October 13, 2012 2:26:36 AM

sam_p_lay said:
That is pretty cool. How do the Xeons differ from their consumer counterparts then? Like how are those actually different from the Core2 Duo T2500? Also, what's NIB?


The Xeons have a few very subtle differences from the consumer chips:

1. The area on the top black part number area on the chip has a black space where the model number for the Core Duo chips was. There is no "Xeon" markings anywhere.

2. The S-spec is one letter different from the Core Duo: 2.00 GHz Xeon stepping C0 = SL8WT, T2500 stepping C0 = SL8VT

3. Identifies to the BIOS/OS as "Intel (R) Xeon (R) CPU 000" rather than an "Intel (R) Core (TM) Duo CPU T2500." There is no model number for these Xeons, hence the "000" in the BIOS field.

4. They are guaranteed to work in dual-CPU setups. There are reports that some of the Core Duos (T2300E, T2500) will do so as well but some will not. Mobile chips are not intended to work in multi-CPU setups and nobody had ever made a dual socket machine with mobile CPUs before so Intel may not have turned off the SMP enable bit on the regular Core Duos.
October 13, 2012 9:23:52 AM

MU_Engineer said:
The Xeons have a few very subtle differences from the consumer chips:

1. The area on the top black part number area on the chip has a black space where the model number for the Core Duo chips was. There is no "Xeon" markings anywhere.

2. The S-spec is one letter different from the Core Duo: 2.00 GHz Xeon stepping C0 = SL8WT, T2500 stepping C0 = SL8VT

3. Identifies to the BIOS/OS as "Intel (R) Xeon (R) CPU 000" rather than an "Intel (R) Core (TM) Duo CPU T2500." There is no model number for these Xeons, hence the "000" in the BIOS field.

4. They are guaranteed to work in dual-CPU setups. There are reports that some of the Core Duos (T2300E, T2500) will do so as well but some will not. Mobile chips are not intended to work in multi-CPU setups and nobody had ever made a dual socket machine with mobile CPUs before so Intel may not have turned off the SMP enable bit on the regular Core Duos.


They really are pretty much identical then! I always thought there would be something special about them to justify the cost.
October 13, 2012 1:50:28 PM

sam_p_lay said:
They really are pretty much identical then! I always thought there would be something special about them to justify the cost.


I was just talking about these particular Xeons. These are unusual as Intel has prevented any non-Xeon chip from working in a dual-socket motherboard since phasing out the Pentium III. I think the Sossaman was a stopgap measure that Intel didn't really plan out for a long time and thus people were able to use non-Xeon chips in dual-socket boards.

Most Xeons fall into one of two different camps and their cost varies as a result:

1. Single-processor-only Xeons. These have a model number beginning with a "1" for Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge ones (e.g. E5-1650) and "3" for Core 2 through Nehalem models (e.g. X3430.) These are essentially identical to the equivalent Core 2/Core i* model except that they support error-correcting (ECC) memory. The price is a tiny bit higher than the Core model due to the ECC memory support and Xeon naming.

2. Multiple processor capable Xeons. These have the ability to work in multiple socket motherboards due to having the particular socket Intel used on such motherboards that they didn't use on (LGA771, Socket 604, LGA1567) or on sockets shared with Core-branded models (LGA1366, LGA2011) the extra QPI links are left enabled. There is a pretty stiff premium when going up the tiers from one socket only -> two sockets -> four sockets -> eight sockets. You also generally get more cores and cache but a little less clock speed when you go up in socket count as well. Figure around $300-500 for a good single-socket LGA2011 Xeon, $1500-2000 for a good dual-socket LGA2011 Xeon, and around $3000-3500 for a good 4-socket LGA2011 Xeon. If you want an 8-socket chip you are going to get an LGA1567 Westmere-EX that costs $4000-4500.
October 13, 2012 2:09:32 PM

MU_Engineer said:
2. Multiple processor capable Xeons. These have the ability to work in multiple socket motherboards due to having the particular socket Intel used on such motherboards that they didn't use on (LGA771, Socket 604, LGA1567) or on sockets shared with Core-branded models (LGA1366, LGA2011) the extra QPI links are left enabled. There is a pretty stiff premium when going up the tiers from one socket only -> two sockets -> four sockets -> eight sockets. You also generally get more cores and cache but a little less clock speed when you go up in socket count as well. Figure around $300-500 for a good single-socket LGA2011 Xeon, $1500-2000 for a good dual-socket LGA2011 Xeon, and around $3000-3500 for a good 4-socket LGA2011 Xeon. If you want an 8-socket chip you are going to get an LGA1567 Westmere-EX that costs $4000-4500.


Sounds like Intel are ripping people off then? When you mentioned SMP on your HTPC Xeons, you described it as simply turning on the SMP enable bit - like it's just some setting they disabled? Also, isn't ECC memory pretty standard? You're saying most platforms just don't support the functionality?
October 14, 2012 3:40:46 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Sounds like Intel are ripping people off then?


Intel would say they are simply charging what people will pay. AMD however would say Intel is ripping people off- AMD *now* charges a pretty small premium for the ability to run multiple sockets worth of CPUs.

Quote:
When you mentioned SMP on your HTPC Xeons, you described it as simply turning on the SMP enable bit - like it's just some setting they disabled?


The SMP enable bit is set in the non-user-modifiable firmware of FSB-equipped Xeons and *not* set in Core-branded and single-socket Xeon chips. QPI-enabled Xeons simply have the necessary QPI links for multiple socket operation fused off at the factory.

Quote:
Also, isn't ECC memory pretty standard? You're saying most platforms just don't support the functionality?


ECC memory is only standard on 2-socket and above servers, which mainly use registered memory. Registered memory always has ECC. Single-socket machines nearly all use unbuffered memory. Single-socket servers do support ECC memory and sometimes use it, desktop systems do not use ECC memory. Most AMD desktop CPUs do support ECC memory, no Nehalem or later Intel desktop chip does, it is disabled in chip firmware/fuses.
October 14, 2012 4:32:23 PM

MU_Engineer said:
I dunno, I think my computer is just barely powerful enough to run KDE4.
Even with my dual core Athlon system with 3gigs of ram, KDE4 can be pretty slow at times. Fore me LXDE is the best as it's fast and has the look and feel of windows.
October 16, 2012 3:33:31 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Lots of stuff


Thanks for the explanations MU_Engineer - educational stuff! I always assumed Xeons had some ultra-advanced architecture or gigabytes of cache or something to make them superior to consumer range processors. Pretty cool to realise that the consumer grade stuff is actually close to the best processors available to buy.

I'm surprised to see a Unity vote here, but that's why I'm running this poll - to see what people like. I personally like it more than I did initially but still wouldn't choose it. Would have been interesting to run this poll a couple of years ago before Unity and GNOME 3 and see how many votes GNOME 2 would pull in. Seems to be largely abandoned since being effectively replaced by the controversial Unity and GNOME 3, and Mate and Cinnamon offering more G2-ish alternatives.
October 18, 2012 8:22:47 PM

Not one tiling WM on that list. Does nobody on this forum use one of them?
October 18, 2012 8:50:17 PM

TobiSGD said:
Not one tiling WM on that list. Does nobody on this forum use one of them?


Polls are limited to 10 options so had to go with the 10 most commonly used. I think they'll cover over 99% of Linux users. Anything not listed can be mentioned in a post though. What do you use?
October 19, 2012 12:50:24 AM

I am using i3, basically my journey through the DEs/WMs went Gnome 2 -> Openbox -> XFCE -> XFCE with Xmonad as WM -> pure Xmonad -> wmii -> i3. I think I will keep i3, it does everything I need and works fine, regardless if I run it on my 27" desktop monitor or the 7" in my old Eee PC.
October 19, 2012 8:26:59 AM

TobiSGD said:
I am using i3, basically my journey through the DEs/WMs went Gnome 2 -> Openbox -> XFCE -> XFCE with Xmonad as WM -> pure Xmonad -> wmii -> i3. I think I will keep i3, it does everything I need and works fine, regardless if I run it on my 27" desktop monitor or the 7" in my old Eee PC.


OK you're not too bothered about looks then :-) What do these offer that the more popular WMs don't? Is it just that they're ultra lightweight or is it to do with usability?
October 20, 2012 1:28:31 PM

It's all about usability.
The main reasons for me to use i3 are:
- Tiling. No overlapping windows.
- Keyboard use. Most tiling WMs are created with the keyboard in mind. I can do almost anything on my machines without using the mouse.
- Extrem configurability, like starting specific apps on specific workspaces, named workspaces, ...
- Active development with a very active and helpful mailing list, very helpful developer (I never had to wait for an answer for longer than a day when filing a bug-report or posting a question)
Anonymous
October 23, 2012 2:46:28 PM

I'm the only one using gnome 2 :( 
October 23, 2012 2:51:47 PM

That sounds pretty cool actually. I've been navigating Windows primarily by keyboard for years and it always amazes mouse/touchpad users how much faster I get around using just the keyboard. Course it's not about showing off (but I'll allow the admiration of my peers if I must...) but being able to do things much faster.

The only OS I've encountered that seems really anti-keyboard is OSX, and it's one of its biggest flaws (in my opinion). One thing that really impressed me about Linux when I first started playing with it is how the Windows keyboard shortcuts were all there to make Windows users feel at home (Alt+Tab, Alt+F4, Ctrl+W etc).

The tiling sounds cool also. I'd be interested to see window moving/resizing in action on it. There's probably videos on the site, I may take a look. I'm much too superficial though to use an interface that isn't sleek, sexy and polished to perfection :-)
October 23, 2012 2:56:45 PM

Anonymous said:
I'm the only one using gnome 2 :( 


Yep. To be fair it is actually a brilliant GUI for customisation - I've spent way too long in it adjusting every little aspect of its interface to my preference. Crystalsphere with Nuvola controls was an old favourite of mine when my tastes were a bit less refined :-) And the GNOME black cursors are beautiful - I've imported them to my Windows installs at home and at work.

A lot of people will abandon technology though simply because something new has come along to replace it. The existing technology is seen as obsolete because there's a newer alternative, even if it's not necessarily an improvement (like Windows 8). You could use Xfce, LXDE or Enlightenment 17 if you wanted an interface combining attractive design with lots of customisation, or KDE if you don't mind about it being lightweight.
October 23, 2012 4:17:22 PM

sam_p_lay said:
even if it's not necessarily an improvement


You said it!

After Windows 7, I'll be moving exclusively to RHEL 7+.

I don't see Microsoft redeeming itself.
October 23, 2012 4:53:53 PM

amdfangirl said:
You said it!

After Windows 7, I'll be moving exclusively to RHEL 7+.

I don't see Microsoft redeeming itself.


I've been wondering a lot about that - what will follow Windows 8 and will it fix the problems? A lot of what I hate about Windows 8 is not just what's wrong with Metro, but (strangely enough) the fact they're not going 100% with Metro, and instead forcing you to use a castrated Windows 7 interface for certain tasks.

It's like they can't even create a new UI that does everything the old one does. If they're going to leave Windows 7 in there, why not leave an equally functional Windows 7?

If Windows 9 is pure Metro, I'd actually be more open to the idea. Though I'd still prefer it to be a U-turn on Metro of course :-) I'll be really interested to see how the general public responds to Windows 8.
October 24, 2012 12:59:45 AM

Hot corners and dual displays don't work if my main computer doubles as a HTPC :/ .
October 24, 2012 8:21:05 AM

amdfangirl said:
Hot corners and dual displays don't work if my main computer doubles as a HTPC :/ .


Right, and this is supposed to be user-friendly and intuitive - how can it be if users need to remember what corners/edges to hover over to do what they want? Surely some kind of visual indicator would make it more user-friendly rather than relying on teaching and memory.

When I started playing with Linux, coming from a pure Windows background, it couldn't have been easier. Opening an application was obvious and straightforward, moving/resizing windows, switching between them, closing them - even the Windows shortcut keys like Alt+F4 and Alt+Tab worked. Only new thing was the package manager, and that should be familiar to anyone who has used an app store on a smartphone.

Windows 8 on the other hand... like most people, I actually had to look up how to shut it down.
October 24, 2012 8:42:29 AM

sam_p_lay said:

Windows 8 on the other hand... like most people, I actually had to look up how to shut it down.


It was the one OS I need to look it up for. :p 

I don't know what GNOME 3/Unity users are complaining about :p .
October 24, 2012 9:00:45 AM

amdfangirl said:
It was the one OS I need to look it up for. :p 

I don't know what GNOME 3/Unity users are complaining about :p .


Well if they're complaining about lack of customisation then fair enough :-) But yeah, interms of usability, I had absolutely no problems with either. I wasn't massively fond of Unity designwise, though it grew on me and probably would have looked better if GNOME 3 wasn't raising the bar, looking so much sleeker and sexier. But KDE and E17 deliver the looks AND huge customisation, and E17 is even ultra-lightweight too! I've never understood why somebody else doesn't take over development of E17 and actually get it finished - there's so much potential there.
October 24, 2012 9:02:57 AM

I'm the boring kind of person who keeps everything stock standard. :p 
October 24, 2012 9:12:31 AM

amdfangirl said:
I'm the boring kind of person who keeps everything stock standard. :p 


Haha there seems to be a lot of that in the Linux community! Seems strange to me, because one of the most attractive things to me about Linux (other than package managers and security) is the selection, quality and customisability of the user interfaces.
October 31, 2012 11:55:49 PM

LXDE on fed17 :D 
November 1, 2012 8:13:47 AM

cainy1991 said:
LXDE on fed17 :D 


I think that's amdfangirl's setup also. Remember to vote if you didn't already :-)
!