25 votes

What is your least favourite window manager or desktop environment and why?

Can be something current or ancient, and if you've really got an axe to grind feel free to drag in Windows or macOS or other proprietary operating systems.

Personally after using i3 for around half a decade now (though I switched to sway about a year ago) everything else I try just seems to add friction.

90 comments

  1. [38]
    mrbig
    (edited )
    Link
    I have to be obvious and say Gnome. I understand it got better in the last year or so and I won't get into rant mode (better people have done that before), but Gnome seems to be designed to not be...

    I have to be obvious and say Gnome. I understand it got better in the last year or so and I won't get into rant mode (better people have done that before), but Gnome seems to be designed to not be easily customized. And that for me is a cardinal sin.

    I also feel the need... the need for speed!

    I use i3wm.

    19 votes
    1. [35]
      mat
      Link Parent
      When you say "Gnome", what part do you mean? Shell is fairly easy to customise with some JS and CSS, and Mutter is even more customisable (Shell is just a Mutter plugin, after all). There are...

      When you say "Gnome", what part do you mean? Shell is fairly easy to customise with some JS and CSS, and Mutter is even more customisable (Shell is just a Mutter plugin, after all). There are plenty of themes and plugins around by other people so whatever you want to do is quite possibly just a download away anyway.

      For me, Shell is probably the best desktop environment I've ever used. It vanishes in a way nothing else I've tried does. I don't want to customise it because I don't need to, it just works out of the box.

      6 votes
      1. [10]
        babypuncher
        Link Parent
        A DE shouldn't require you to dig into JavaScript and CSS to fix fundamental design problems. I really hate approaches like this because they often break between major releases, so you have to go...

        A DE shouldn't require you to dig into JavaScript and CSS to fix fundamental design problems.

        I really hate approaches like this because they often break between major releases, so you have to go through all that major effort again.

        16 votes
        1. [8]
          mat
          Link Parent
          As far as I'm concerned, Shell doesn't have any fundamental design problems, so I don't need to dig into anything to "fix" it, because it isn't broken. But @mrbig's original complaint was that...

          As far as I'm concerned, Shell doesn't have any fundamental design problems, so I don't need to dig into anything to "fix" it, because it isn't broken. But @mrbig's original complaint was that Mutter/Shell isn't customisable, which isn't the case. It's extremely customisable, just not in the way either of you would like to do it. Personally I think using standard and well-known scripting and layout languages is much more sensible than inventing yet another wheel, but if you're already used to a different wheel I can see how that might be frustrating.

          The versioning thing is annoying but it's definitely settling down as time goes on. That's just the way of major backend changes really. You sometimes have to change things you thought were going to be static.

          5 votes
          1. [4]
            mrbig
            Link Parent
            I actually said it wasn't easily customizable. As long as you have the time and knowledge, by definition all FOSS is customizable.

            I actually said it wasn't easily customizable. As long as you have the time and knowledge, by definition all FOSS is customizable.

            6 votes
            1. [3]
              mat
              Link Parent
              Fair enough. But Gnome is easy to customise if you just stick to the options which already exist. Dconf/Gsettings is very straightforward. I thought you were talking about adding additional...

              Fair enough. But Gnome is easy to customise if you just stick to the options which already exist. Dconf/Gsettings is very straightforward. I thought you were talking about adding additional customisation, which does require some knowledge, although for the simpler things you can copy-paste a lot of that knowledge.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                alexandria
                Link Parent
                I don't think those options can be considered actually customizable in the sense that the parent means.

                Gnome is easy to customise if you just stick to the options which already exist.

                I don't think those options can be considered actually customizable in the sense that the parent means.

                3 votes
                1. mat
                  Link Parent
                  They never really clarified what they meant by 'customisation', to be fair. It makes this discussion a little tricky. I still don't even know if we're talking about Shell or Mutter.

                  They never really clarified what they meant by 'customisation', to be fair. It makes this discussion a little tricky. I still don't even know if we're talking about Shell or Mutter.

                  3 votes
          2. [3]
            mrbig
            Link Parent
            I think this only makes sense for people who already know the "well-known scripting and layout languages". Those who don't will probably have a different opinion.

            I think using standard and well-known scripting and layout languages is much more sensible than inventing yet another whee

            I think this only makes sense for people who already know the "well-known scripting and layout languages". Those who don't will probably have a different opinion.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              mat
              Link Parent
              True. But I bet more people know JS/CSS than a relatively obscure window manager's choice of config syntax. Using existing standards is always a better idea for making things accessible, so it was...

              True. But I bet more people know JS/CSS than a relatively obscure window manager's choice of config syntax. Using existing standards is always a better idea for making things accessible, so it was the right choice.

              3 votes
              1. mrbig
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Desktop environments are meant to be used in a GUI oriented way. Yes, I can dwell with the code, but I'll have little support. i3wm main documentation is contained in a single, well-written short...

                Desktop environments are meant to be used in a GUI oriented way. Yes, I can dwell with the code, but I'll have little support.

                i3wm main documentation is contained in a single, well-written short document. Its syntax is much simpler and smaller than a programming language, and there is no need whatsoever to study it. You just look it up and use. That's probably one of the reasons why i3wm is so popular.

                I understand your argument from a developer point of view, but I'm not a developer, I'm a user. And, for me, a dedicated configuration syntax is way more convenient than learning a programming language.

                6 votes
        2. Diff
          Link Parent
          Why fundamental design problems? All my extensions are relatively minor tweaks, and I'm confident the one extension I've written is highly resistant to any changes in GNOME shell, although granted...

          Why fundamental design problems? All my extensions are relatively minor tweaks, and I'm confident the one extension I've written is highly resistant to any changes in GNOME shell, although granted it's pretty minor. Adding new behavior is usually pretty stable. Overriding current behavior is where you can get into trouble. But I don't think I have any extensions at all that do that kind of thing.

          You might be expecting GNOME to be something it isn't. You'll have a bad time trying to turn it into another DE/WM. Same way I'd never be able to get the same amount of polish trying to get another DE to look and act like GNOME, even though it wouldn't be hard to make it look similar at a glance.

          1 vote
      2. [24]
        mrbig
        Link Parent
        Requiring JS and CSS for customization is not something I’d call “easy”. i3wm has a single configuration file, great documentation and requires no programming knowledge (you can use programming...

        Requiring JS and CSS for customization is not something I’d call “easy”.

        i3wm has a single configuration file, great documentation and requires no programming knowledge (you can use programming for advanced stuff, though).

        8 votes
        1. [23]
          mat
          Link Parent
          I'm not quite sure what sort of customisation you're thinking of, to be honest. I'm talking about making extensions to add (or remove) simple functionality, rather than theming or similar. I only...

          I'm not quite sure what sort of customisation you're thinking of, to be honest. I'm talking about making extensions to add (or remove) simple functionality, rather than theming or similar. I only use one extension and all it does is remove a button from the default menubar. It's a handful of lines of JS, most of which are boilerplate to let the extension be managed through a gui. For most users a large amount of config stuff is do-able through a simple gui interface and that's better for more people than a config file is. I'm fine with hacking on text files but the majority of users like stuff to be easy. I can't tell my Mum that she just needs to fire up vim, RTFM and get into the config but I can send her a link to a Gnome Extensions page and tell her to click one button and her problem will be solved.

          That said, basic JS/CSS really isn't any harder than what this guy is doing (I don't know i3wm so I'm not sure how representative that is). It's not really what I'd call proper programming.

          Each to their own, of course.

          3 votes
          1. apoctr
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            If people want to go after window managers/desktop environments for requiring programming knowledge, GNOME is nowhere near the worst! Take Xmonad, DWM, 2bwm or AwesomeWM for example. They all...

            If people want to go after window managers/desktop environments for requiring programming knowledge, GNOME is nowhere near the worst! Take Xmonad, DWM, 2bwm or AwesomeWM for example. They all require much nicher and more complicated languages to configure, but interestingly this is seen as a good or at least not bad thing by many users.

            edit: haskell to xmonad

            3 votes
          2. [20]
            mrbig
            Link Parent
            The thing with i3 is that seldom one needs anything like an “extension”, all essential things are supported by the standard configuration file. There’s also no need for JS boilerplate, it’s al...

            The thing with i3 is that seldom one needs anything like an “extension”, all essential things are supported by the standard configuration file.

            There’s also no need for JS boilerplate, it’s al exposed.

            And some people, like myself, know zero JS/CSS. I don’t want to learn an entire new language to make my desktop the way I want.

            1 vote
            1. [3]
              mat
              Link Parent
              But, if you think about it, you did spend time to learn i3wm's config syntax. I'd argue JS isn't any more complicated and CSS definitely isn't. I appreciate you already know one thing and not the...

              And some people, like myself, know zero JS/CSS. I don’t want to learn an entire new language to make my desktop the way I want.

              But, if you think about it, you did spend time to learn i3wm's config syntax. I'd argue JS isn't any more complicated and CSS definitely isn't. I appreciate you already know one thing and not the others (and I know the latter but not the former!), but starting from zero I'd say it's a similar journey for both.

              Although as I have said elsewhere, Gnome has plenty of config available via Gsettings/dconf, which requires no programming knowledge at all, or any fiddling about in text files.

              2 votes
              1. bme
                Link Parent
                I've followed most of this comment chain, and I can't believe you are seriously pushing the idea that a turing complete, badly designed scripting language is easier to manage that i3wms config...

                I've followed most of this comment chain, and I can't believe you are seriously pushing the idea that a turing complete, badly designed scripting language is easier to manage that i3wms config syntax. You've clearly forgotten what it was to sit on the outside. CSS is not simple. I say this as someone whose favourite programming languages are rust / haskell and who currently works as distributed systems engineer. I'm not a stranger to any of this. CSS is only easy if you already know it and is significantly more complicated than many other layout and styling languages and has simply won by being on the web and having the largest audience willing to put up with it. It isn't good tech, it isn't beginner friendly and it's really only in the past few years with flexbox and grid that it's even become remotely palatable for people used to working with better toolkits.

                3 votes
              2. Akir
                Link Parent
                I don't know anything about i3wm's syntax, but Javascript and CSS are almost definitely harder. CSS requires understanding multiple display models in order to use competently, and the keywords you...

                I don't know anything about i3wm's syntax, but Javascript and CSS are almost definitely harder. CSS requires understanding multiple display models in order to use competently, and the keywords you need to understand can be very complex at times. Javascript is easy to learn in theory, but modern paradigms make things very difficult to understand if you are not on the development team for a project. For an example, I have heard many developers give up on Angular after not being able to get around its complicated structural requirements.

                2 votes
            2. [15]
              apoctr
              Link Parent
              If you're taking that stance, a significant portion of i3 users actually use the i3-gaps fork, rather than the original i3. Granted it's largely aesthetic differences, but it comes with features...

              If you're taking that stance, a significant portion of i3 users actually use the i3-gaps fork, rather than the original i3. Granted it's largely aesthetic differences, but it comes with features modified/removed as well. So evidently a lot of people do need that 'extension' of the original wm, albeit in the form of a fork.

              1 vote
              1. [14]
                mrbig
                Link Parent
                Yes, a lot of people do. And there other “extensions”. But I have no use for them, personally. Stock i3 is reasonably self sufficient.

                Yes, a lot of people do. And there other “extensions”. But I have no use for them, personally. Stock i3 is reasonably self sufficient.

                1. [2]
                  apoctr
                  Link Parent
                  The same stands for GNOME, however. There's no need for extensions, except maybe a few aesthetic changes. I'd be interested if there were any statistics on how many people used a completely...

                  The same stands for GNOME, however. There's no need for extensions, except maybe a few aesthetic changes. I'd be interested if there were any statistics on how many people used a completely extensionless GNOME.

                  1 vote
                  1. mat
                    Link Parent
                    I only use one Shell extension, which is to hide the accessibility button on the menubar.

                    I only use one Shell extension, which is to hide the accessibility button on the menubar.

                2. [11]
                  Diff
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  I've heard that exact phrase many times, only about GNOME. I don't think there are any fundamental design problems, I think GNOME just isn't your cup of tea. Which is fine but it's not like...

                  I've heard that exact phrase many times, only about GNOME.

                  I don't think there are any fundamental design problems, I think GNOME just isn't your cup of tea. Which is fine but it's not like "objectively terrible" like so many people try to make it out to be.

                  1 vote
                  1. [10]
                    ubergeek
                    Link Parent
                    No, it really is. It's only suitable for a few use cases of "users", per the design team: "At this point we're interested in corporate users (office, productivity, mobile users), fixed function...

                    No, it really is. It's only suitable for a few use cases of "users", per the design team:

                    "At this point we're interested in corporate users
                    (office, productivity, mobile users), fixed function users (people who
                    do only one or two things) and some subset of hackers. "

                    https://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00026.html

                    2 votes
                    1. [9]
                      apoctr
                      Link Parent
                      Every DE will make a decision similar to this, because the email is right - usability is subjective, and not everyone likes the same designs. For the record though, "fixed function" users tend to...

                      Every DE will make a decision similar to this, because the email is right - usability is subjective, and not everyone likes the same designs. For the record though, "fixed function" users tend to be a large group - people who only browse the internet and sometimes edit word documents or game.

                      Just because they're targeting specific users doesn't mean there are any fundamental design problems from an objective viewpoint, only subjective.

                      That email is also from 14 years ago, so it's highly likely there have been changed to their stance/targeted audiences.

                      2 votes
                      1. [8]
                        ubergeek
                        Link Parent
                        It does mean there are fundamental design problems if you are not a corporate user, or a single-function user. Or a CSS/JS hacker. And, while the email is from 14 years ago, that is when GNOME3...

                        It does mean there are fundamental design problems if you are not a corporate user, or a single-function user. Or a CSS/JS hacker.

                        And, while the email is from 14 years ago, that is when GNOME3 was designed. So, it still stands because about the only thing they've done since then is strip out more features.

                        1 vote
                        1. [7]
                          apoctr
                          Link Parent
                          Okay. But going with this, as said above, every single window manager and desktop environment does the same thing in choosing a specific design. For example, a corporate user would not be able to...

                          It does mean there are fundamental design problems

                          Okay. But going with this, as said above, every single window manager and desktop environment does the same thing in choosing a specific design. For example, a corporate user would not be able to use i3 or dwm well at all. So it would follow that every single window manager and desktop environment have fundamental design problems. At that point, why is it worth mentioning at all?

                          2 votes
                          1. [6]
                            ubergeek
                            Link Parent
                            Why wouldn't a corporate user be able to use i3? Many corporate users at my org use it, and in fact, it's a supported environment. The configs for it are git managed, and deployed to workstations,...

                            Why wouldn't a corporate user be able to use i3? Many corporate users at my org use it, and in fact, it's a supported environment. The configs for it are git managed, and deployed to workstations, quite easily.

                            KDE Plasma serves pretty much every need I've seen, as well, and isn't restricted to single-purpose users or corporate desktops; although it can serve those roles quite easily as well.

                            This points to inherent design issues with GNOME, since it is so restricted in whom it's for, it means the design is very brittle.

                            1 vote
                            1. [4]
                              Diff
                              Link Parent
                              KDE Plasma doesn't fit my needs. It's buggy and unpolished. I love the devs for all they put into the ecosystem and I use tons of their stuff but I find their desktop as a whole downright...

                              KDE Plasma doesn't fit my needs. It's buggy and unpolished. I love the devs for all they put into the ecosystem and I use tons of their stuff but I find their desktop as a whole downright unpleasant. Easy to make it look nice in still screenshots, but I've never managed to make it feel nice.

                              1 vote
                              1. [3]
                                ubergeek
                                Link Parent
                                I don't know what bugs you've encountered... I feel its only weakness is being unable to do different scaling on different monitors, but that's about it. Are there bug reports opened for them?...

                                I don't know what bugs you've encountered... I feel its only weakness is being unable to do different scaling on different monitors, but that's about it.

                                Are there bug reports opened for them? They might have been resolved in a newer version of Plasma.

                                1. [2]
                                  Diff
                                  Link Parent
                                  I'm not sure. As soon as I start playing with the "Get New XXXX" features it seems like things inevitably start breaking horribly. The ShellShape extension had some visual glitches too. I guess no...

                                  I'm not sure. As soon as I start playing with the "Get New XXXX" features it seems like things inevitably start breaking horribly. The ShellShape extension had some visual glitches too. I guess no complaints about vanilla KDE beyond the mess it is to customize things. But at least on GNOME broken extensions have the decency to say "I'm broke" and shut down, with no lasting effects.

                                  1 vote
                                  1. ubergeek
                                    Link Parent
                                    So, the particular extension are buggy, not Plasma itself? That makes sense, I suppose. And I agree, it should break quickly, and noisily if the extension in incompatible.

                                    So, the particular extension are buggy, not Plasma itself? That makes sense, I suppose. And I agree, it should break quickly, and noisily if the extension in incompatible.

                            2. apoctr
                              Link Parent
                              I've never heard of a corporation using i3, but fair enough. But I'd wager you work in IT, so a specific subset of corporate users. Many others would find it much more frustrating to use (tiling)...

                              I've never heard of a corporation using i3, but fair enough. But I'd wager you work in IT, so a specific subset of corporate users. Many others would find it much more frustrating to use (tiling) and navigate (keybindings) than say GNOME or KDE. It's impossible to have a design appeal to and be usable for all people. That doesn't make any one design intrinsically bad, even as the size of the intended audience shrinks (and I'll bet i3 has a much smaller intended audience than GNOME).

                              1 vote
            3. mat
              Link Parent
              There's a heck of a lot of Gnome/Shell config manageable from dconf/GSettings, to be fair. Bit friendlier to a lot of people than a text file but you can do it from the cli too if you like....

              There's a heck of a lot of Gnome/Shell config manageable from dconf/GSettings, to be fair. Bit friendlier to a lot of people than a text file but you can do it from the cli too if you like. There's probably a vim and emacs extension because there always is.

              I assumed you were talking about customisations additional to the out-of-the-box stuff.

              1 vote
          3. mrbig
            Link Parent
            The example you shared is not of an advanced configuration, I bet most i3wm have a lot more than that.

            The example you shared is not of an advanced configuration, I bet most i3wm have a lot more than that.

    2. [2]
      babypuncher
      Link Parent
      My least favorite DE was KDE 4 until Gnome went down the toilet. Things are really weird though, because KDE 5 is now easily my favorite DE. I feel like I'm living in 2004 again when KDE 3.5...

      My least favorite DE was KDE 4 until Gnome went down the toilet.

      Things are really weird though, because KDE 5 is now easily my favorite DE. I feel like I'm living in 2004 again when KDE 3.5 reigned supreme.

      2 votes
      1. Akir
        Link Parent
        Man, I remember when KDE 5 first came out and everyone absolutely hated it. To be fair, it certainly was buggy at first, but it was just so forward thinking and well-integrated!

        Man, I remember when KDE 5 first came out and everyone absolutely hated it. To be fair, it certainly was buggy at first, but it was just so forward thinking and well-integrated!

  2. [20]
    teaearlgraycold
    Link
    OSX has the worst window manager by far, although the desktop environment is decent. These days "snapping" (either through a tiling WM or screen edges/hotkeys) is a basic WM feature. Windows has...

    OSX has the worst window manager by far, although the desktop environment is decent. These days "snapping" (either through a tiling WM or screen edges/hotkeys) is a basic WM feature. Windows has had it since 7, and *nix WMs have supported it for long before then. The top bar UI takes away more than it gives you, which I believe is nothing more than an "infinite" target along the vertical axis. Don't even get me started on Finder. There's so much wrong with the design I can't believe people put up with it.

    Edit:

    I almost forgot about one of their worst sins - maximizing a window makes it full screen instead of maximized and moves it to its own workspace.

    17 votes
    1. [10]
      NaraVara
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      The impulse to maximize is really the root of your problem. It's just a different UI paradigm than the one Windows trains you for. In Windows people seem to maximize everything and tab between...

      The impulse to maximize is really the root of your problem. It's just a different UI paradigm than the one Windows trains you for.

      In Windows people seem to maximize everything and tab between applications. This was never a big thing on the Mac. Even pro applications, like Photoshop, used to break each function out into its own "pane" that you could arrange however you wanted instead of being integrated into a single window. As a UI paradigm it's analogous to having a desktop that's full of various papers, notebooks, and desk tools rather than a single terminal that does everything. This is also why the menu bar is a part of the UI. It not only lets you know which application is currently in focus, but it makes it so the application level functions are always right there regardless of which window or screen you're working with at the time.

      When whatever OS revision ended up introducing an actual maximize function that wasn't just resizing the window to fill the screen a lot of old school Apple people grumbled about this concession to the WinTel converts. I specifically foresaw that this was just going to make Windows people frustrated about how it doesn't mimic the interaction pattern they're used to rather than prodding them to adjust to a new normal.

      14 votes
      1. [9]
        teaearlgraycold
        Link Parent
        What about the common use case of I want my window to be as large as my screen (for programming it's nice to see as much of a file at once as is possible). I still want instant access to the...

        What about the common use case of

        1. I want my window to be as large as my screen (for programming it's nice to see as much of a file at once as is possible).
        2. I still want instant access to the window's menu bar.

        #1 makes sense for many core applications, like web browsers and text editors. #2 might not be important a lot of the time, especially so for people who aren't power users.

        I would understand the "papers on a desktop" perspective if our screens were much bigger than they already are. Especially for a company that focuses on laptops, you often don't have much more than an A4 of screen real estate. I don't want to shuffle around note cards and handbooks.

        9 votes
        1. [5]
          emdash
          Link Parent
          To me it seems as if your two requirements are diametrically opposed. By necessity, to have a window be as large as your screen, you can't show the menu bar. If you'd like to compromise, you're...

          To me it seems as if your two requirements are diametrically opposed. By necessity, to have a window be as large as your screen, you can't show the menu bar. If you'd like to compromise, you're going down a route that the Macintosh UI never provided, and its long-term users don't actually expect.

          That being said, I can understand your frustration. I grew up with a Windows machine, when I got my first Mac, I was infuriated by the window management. After spending a bit of time with it though, I much prefer it. Now, I have the inverse problem—I don't understand at all why people maximize windows on Windows.

          It's pretty much a case of neither one is better, it's just the paradigm you're exposed to and feel the most comfortable in.

          4 votes
          1. [3]
            teaearlgraycold
            Link Parent
            To clarify, my wording wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. I'm okay with losing a few pixels to a menu. I actually use OSX more than I do Windows/Linux. It's the required operating system at...

            To clarify, my wording wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. I'm okay with losing a few pixels to a menu.

            I actually use OSX more than I do Windows/Linux. It's the required operating system at my place of work. I'm not yet convinced after 10 months.

            5 votes
            1. [2]
              emdash
              Link Parent
              If you feel the need to scratch the itch, Magnet is probably the best bet for you, in terms of a tiling window manager, it also supports a keyboard shortcut to maximize to screen without creating...

              If you feel the need to scratch the itch, Magnet is probably the best bet for you, in terms of a tiling window manager, it also supports a keyboard shortcut to maximize to screen without creating a workspace.

              5 votes
              1. teaearlgraycold
                Link Parent
                I just purchased it. So far seems like a nice addition, although I was already using something similar.

                I just purchased it. So far seems like a nice addition, although I was already using something similar.

                1 vote
          2. Elishah
            Link Parent
            You are correct that fullscreening applications is the less mac-like way to approach things. And I would go so far as to say that it's just genuinely less good, unless one is constrained by a very...

            You are correct that fullscreening applications is the less mac-like way to approach things. And I would go so far as to say that it's just genuinely less good, unless one is constrained by a very small display.

            However, even on a large display there are a few specialized occasions on which it's a good tool. And apple has recently made the way that it works significantly worse, by making "fullscreen" mean "move to a new ephemeral desktop that has no keybindings."

            If I launch Lightroom on desktop 8 and choose to fullscreen it (reasonable, given that images are all much larger than displays, so every pixel narrows that gap), swap momentarily to do something else, and then come back to desktop 8, it's mysteriously empty. Because it has been silently moved to a new desktop, and, unlike all my existing ones, there is no keystroke that will take me directly to it. The only route is either through a varying series of relative desktop moves, or a trip through Mission Control, both of which are much slower.

            1 vote
        2. [2]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          Then you expand the window to fill the screen. Apps that are single dashboards, like iPhoto or iMovie, do this. If you move your cursor to the top the menu bar will appear even in full screen...

          Then you expand the window to fill the screen. Apps that are single dashboards, like iPhoto or iMovie, do this.

          If you move your cursor to the top the menu bar will appear even in full screen mode.

          I use a 13 in laptop and it hasn’t really been an issue for me. I find it more frustrating to use Windows where the entire application lives in a single window and I can’t easily dismiss stuff without having to close it out completely. It’s way harder for me to multitask.

          1. ubergeek
            Link Parent
            Not all apps do. Safari, for example doesn't. Hipchat doesn't.

            Not all apps do. Safari, for example doesn't. Hipchat doesn't.

        3. andre
          Link Parent
          Just hold option and click on the maximize button, it will make the window as large as it can be without entering fullscreen mode.

          Just hold option and click on the maximize button, it will make the window as large as it can be without entering fullscreen mode.

    2. [8]
      babypuncher
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Oh man I really hate Finder. How can a company that innovates in UI design so much build such a shitty file browser.

      Oh man I really hate Finder. How can a company that innovates in UI design so much build such a shitty file browser.

      6 votes
      1. [6]
        emdash
        Link Parent
        Can you elucidate what's wrong with Finder exactly? I find it much more intuitive and simple than Explorer in Windows (which admittedly is not a high bar at all).

        Can you elucidate what's wrong with Finder exactly? I find it much more intuitive and simple than Explorer in Windows (which admittedly is not a high bar at all).

        4 votes
        1. [3]
          feigneddork
          Link Parent
          Not the guy you replied to, but I have my own issues with Finder: If there are two folders named the same in different places e.g. /tmp/a and /tmp/b/a, and you wanted to move /tmp/b/a into /tmp,...

          Not the guy you replied to, but I have my own issues with Finder:

          • If there are two folders named the same in different places e.g. /tmp/a and /tmp/b/a, and you wanted to move /tmp/b/a into /tmp, in Explorer it would at least try to merge the files in /tmp/b/a into /tmp/a. Finder deletes /tmp/a and replaces it with /tmp/b/a. I lost a lot of files doing this - luckily they were versioned control with Git or otherwise I'd be screwed.
          • I can open a terminal in the current directory in Explorer. With Finder, I had to install a third party application to get the ability to open a terminal. I find in order to get some desired features I've had to either install open source software or purchase software from the app store whilst Explorer has this for free.
          • Explorer has various ordering and grouping options whilst Finder only has sorting options.
          • I can open a file in Explorer by pressing Enter - Enter is the de-facto "do the sensible default" on any PC. With Finder it attempts to rename the file.
          • When you right click on a file and select Properties, Explorer is insanely helpful by providing all sorts of useful information such as file extension, media type, program associated with extension/media type, and all sorts of useful things to help you manage files or at least understand basic properties of the file. Finder does this too via a "Get Info" which essentially replicates a lot of these details, but the UI is absolutely inpenetrable. I feel like I have to have a few cups of coffee before I can fully digest the information.
          • Trying to navigate around different areas of the hard disk is simple in Explorer. In Finder, it's deliberately obtuse and you have to do some three-fingered dance on the keyboard to open up the goto menu. I found some software that somewhat emulates the Explorer experience here.
          • On the same note, because Explorer has an address bar, it has some pretty sensible defaults that I'd like to navigate to by default - including my home folder. Finder does have this, but it's tucked away at the top menu bar.
          • This one I can imagine being a controversial opinion, and it's a very personal opinion, but I do like how Explorer has third party integration into the right menu, even if the right click menu ends up being unnecessarily huge.
          • It's an underlying issue on how Windows and macOS operates, but I absolutely love how Windows can handle a USB drive from being unplugged. This is something that infuriates me every time I just yank out the USB stick on a Mac and I get a notification scolding me for my data recklessness whereas Microsoft devs have figured out how to solve this problem.
          • If I double click a zip file in Explorer, without a third party zip manager thing Explorer will allow you to navigate the entire zip file and browse around before deciding if you want to unzip or not. Finder just flat out unzips into the same directory without any options.

          And these are just the things I dislike about Finder. Since I've come from a Linux background, I found the terminal much easier and simpler to achieve file system operation over Finder. I'm not even getting into window tiling (there was enough discussion above) or anything else. These are things that personally I can live with begrudgingly.

          I guess what frustrates me the most is that I explain to other Windows/Linux users and we agree and then just shrug as we can't do much. If I explain these points to a devout Mac user, I tend to get pretty condescending replies - my favourite one to the Enter issue on Mac was along the lines of "You aren't using it correctly" which is immensely frustrating as this OS is supposed to help me get on with work, not make me fight it to get what I want. I actually want to like macOS and I find it OK but there are several gripes I have about it which I'd love to see resolved so I can be happier when using the OS.

          15 votes
          1. [2]
            Elishah
            Link Parent
            Arguments can be made for either of those approaches. Merging might be what is wanted, but it also produces non-deterministic results, especially once one considers races. Overwriting rather than...

            If there are two folders named the same in different places e.g. /tmp/a and /tmp/b/a, and you wanted to move /tmp/b/a into /tmp, in Explorer it would at least try to merge the files in /tmp/b/a into /tmp/a. Finder deletes /tmp/a and replaces it with /tmp/b/a. I lost a lot of files doing this - luckily they were versioned control with Git or otherwise I'd be screwed.

            Arguments can be made for either of those approaches. Merging might be what is wanted, but it also produces non-deterministic results, especially once one considers races. Overwriting rather than merging has the merits of transparency and predictability.

            I can open a terminal in the current directory in Explorer. With Finder, I had to install a third party application to get the ability to open a terminal.

            I find integration between the finder and a terminal to be quite good, but it is different. In this case, the method that is builtin and consistent with how other things work is that you can drag any finder icon into any terminal window, and it will be translated into that path.

            The other direction is also well supported with open. The open command will do the equivalent of doubleclicking on any item, from within the shell. If that's a directory, then it opens it in a finder window. (I'm not familiar with Windows, so I don't know if it offers similar functionality.)

            When you right click on a file and select Properties, Explorer is insanely helpful by providing all sorts of useful information such as file extension, media type, program associated with extension/media type, and all sorts of useful things to help you manage files or at least understand basic properties of the file. Finder does this too via a "Get Info" which essentially replicates a lot of these details, but the UI is absolutely inpenetrable. I feel like I have to have a few cups of coffee before I can fully digest the information.

            I think this may just be a familiarity issue. The Get Info window seems very clear and useful to me, whereas the few times that I have tried to use the Properties window in Windows it seems like an impenetrable mass of nearly-identically-named tabs, and a giant snipe hunt to find where whatever I'm actually seeking is buried.

            On the same note, because Explorer has an address bar, it has some pretty sensible defaults that I'd like to navigate to by default - including my home folder. Finder does have this, but it's tucked away at the top menu bar.

            I don't know that I would characterize being a top-level menu item, with a default keyboard shortcut, as "tucked away." Menus are a pretty intrinsic part of the whole platform, and the default first place to go for everything.

            But if you do wish to have it directly in the window, the default for finder windows is to have a sidebar that includes that and several other locations by default, and of course can be customized with whatever items you wish.

            If I double click a zip file in Explorer, without a third party zip manager thing Explorer will allow you to navigate the entire zip file and browse around before deciding if you want to unzip or not. Finder just flat out unzips into the same directory without any options.

            This seems like much more sane behaviour to me. I can count on zero hands the number of times that I have wanted to unzip part of an archive. Again, the few times that I have done this with Windows, I have been baffled and annoyed: "...why did you just throw me into some very opaque application where I guess I need to jump through some more hoops? What do you think I want, just unzip the sodding thing!"

            It's an underlying issue on how Windows and macOS operates, but I absolutely love how Windows can handle a USB drive from being unplugged. This is something that infuriates me every time I just yank out the USB stick on a Mac and I get a notification scolding me for my data recklessness whereas Microsoft devs have figured out how to solve this problem.

            No, they haven't, they've just chosen to lie to you. Filesystem integrity is a property of the filesystem itself, not of the OS. You can usually get away with rudely disconnecting a filesystem, especially if nothing is writing to it or has been recently. But it is never guaranteed to be safe, and the range of risk varies with the filesystem type. MacOS chooses to be honest with you about there being risk, whereas Windows just ignores it and allows users to go on believing that it is a safe thing to do.

            2 votes
            1. feigneddork
              Link Parent
              I don't really think a parent who accidentally copied over their child's photo folder is going to be happy they lost their old precious baby photos of their child because the folder names were...

              Arguments can be made for either of those approaches. Merging might be what is wanted, but it also produces non-deterministic results, especially once one considers races. Overwriting rather than merging has the merits of transparency and predictability.

              I don't really think a parent who accidentally copied over their child's photo folder is going to be happy they lost their old precious baby photos of their child because the folder names were identical and macOS was trying to be deterministic, transparent, and predictable.

              Also, cp b/a/* a/ does a better job than Finder does, and that's a command built into macOS.

              The other direction is also well supported with open. The open command will do the equivalent of doubleclicking on any item, from within the shell. If that's a directory, then it opens it in a finder window. (I'm not familiar with Windows, so I don't know if it offers similar functionality.)

              I think it's start, but I'm not entirely 100% sure.

              I don't know that I would characterize being a top-level menu item, with a default keyboard shortcut, as "tucked away." Menus are a pretty intrinsic part of the whole platform, and the default first place to go for everything.

              Personally I feel like they used to be, but then the mobile/hamburger revolution came along and then people realised all the real estate they could have just by not cramming so much stuff up front and putting the rest into menus and other hamburger menus - at least that's what I've experienced during the past 5-10 years on Windows and on Linux. At least for me, menu bars are soooooo 2001 💅

              This seems like much more sane behaviour to me. I can count on zero hands the number of times that I have wanted to unzip part of an archive. Again, the few times that I have done this with Windows, I have been baffled and annoyed: "...why did you just throw me into some very opaque application where I guess I need to jump through some more hoops? What do you think I want, just unzip the sodding thing!"

              For me, the common use case was just peeking into a zip file to see if I've already extracted this file before or whatever. The use case you've mentioned is rare, but it does happen for me as someone who downloads mods for games and wants to read the README file briefly before deciding if I want the mod or if I'll just delete the zip file. With macOS, I have to extract the file, realise I don't want it, and then delete the directory and the zip file.

              MacOS chooses to be honest with you about there being risk, whereas Windows just ignores it and allows users to go on believing that it is a safe thing to do.

              Not quite - macOS writes using a cache/buffer like any ordinary file system while Windows eats up the performance penalty and writes it to disk directly (Microsoft article explaining this). You can switch to using a buffer, but I've found knowing that once Windows has written data to the USB device and that dialogue has closed, I feel safer knowing I can yank out the disk or whatever without any form of corruption and I really want every other OS out there to just write blocks directly to the USB stick instead of buffering the data and prompting the user to flush the data to disk. It was the smartest thing Microsoft did IMHO regarding USB disk writing.

              1 vote
        2. [2]
          babypuncher
          Link Parent
          feigneddork has covered my issues and then some. I'll reiterate his point about "enter" being used to rename an item rather than open it. It makes keyboard navigation of the file system feel...

          feigneddork has covered my issues and then some.

          I'll reiterate his point about "enter" being used to rename an item rather than open it. It makes keyboard navigation of the file system feel cumbersome.

          3 votes
          1. Elishah
            Link Parent
            If it's helpful, there is a keyboard shortcut to do what you're looking for: command-down. It's part of a whole conceptual framework in which command-up will ascend one level of directory, and...

            I'll reiterate his point about "enter" being used to rename an item rather than open it. It makes keyboard navigation of the file system feel cumbersome.

            If it's helpful, there is a keyboard shortcut to do what you're looking for: command-down.

            It's part of a whole conceptual framework in which command-up will ascend one level of directory, and command-left and -right will close or open disclosure triangles. It's intended to represent navigating the filesystem as moving through a two-dimensional space.

            1 vote
      2. tomf
        Link Parent
        Have you ever tried OneCommander? It's not the prettiest thing, but it works well.

        Have you ever tried OneCommander? It's not the prettiest thing, but it works well.

    3. tomf
      Link Parent
      If you don't mind spending a little time messing around with things, Yabai is a pretty decent twm. It's a full rewrite of chunkwm (same dev.) The main issue I have with it is that macos doesn't...

      If you don't mind spending a little time messing around with things, Yabai is a pretty decent twm. It's a full rewrite of chunkwm (same dev.)

      The main issue I have with it is that macos doesn't have an independent SUPER key. With copy / paste / etc already tied to CMD, it takes away one layer of combos for changing window sizing, positioning, etc.

      Like a lot of people, I mapped CAPS to HYPER. I use HYPER + D to bring up Alfred, similar to DMENU.

      For window navigation, I use HYPER + arrows, but everything else is a combination of CTRL / ALT / SHIFT and arrows.

      At this time with Mojave you do need to disable SIP. For me, I'm totally fine with this trade off. You can also disable certain portions of it (see here) -- but its needed for the scripting agent.

      Yabai is still technically new, but its basically on par with where chunkwm left off.

      I use bsp on my main desktop and then set full screen applications (photoshop, illustrator, premiere, etc) to the second and third desktop, which is set to float.

      Also in Alfred, I mapped HYPER + B to hide the menubar and run Übersicht with some basic widgets to show time, volume, unread email acount, etc.

      1 vote
  3. [10]
    mat
    Link
    KDE. Which is entirely unreasonable of me to say because I haven't tried it for years (easily over a decade, I might have just caught the first release of Plasma). I just thought it was ugly and...

    KDE. Which is entirely unreasonable of me to say because I haven't tried it for years (easily over a decade, I might have just caught the first release of Plasma). I just thought it was ugly and clunky. It is probably neither now.

    I don't like all the 2.x forks of Gnome (MATE, etc) because they feel slow and awkward. I really can't get into menu-driven interfaces since getting used to search-driven ones.

    Shout out to Xiaomi's MIUI which is the worst thing to happen to Android.

    10 votes
    1. [3]
      spctrvl
      Link Parent
      I might be biased as a long time xfce user, but I never really understood what those GNOME 2 forks brought to the table. There's any number of desktop environments, like xfce, that follow the same...

      I might be biased as a long time xfce user, but I never really understood what those GNOME 2 forks brought to the table. There's any number of desktop environments, like xfce, that follow the same basic paradigm while using half the resources. I guess it's moot on modern hardware, but still.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        alexandria
        Link Parent
        I think there's a difference between "following the same basic paradigm" and "being the same thing". When I used to try XFCE from GNOME 2 I used to notice a lot of functionality just outright...

        follow the same basic paradigm while using half the resources.

        I think there's a difference between "following the same basic paradigm" and "being the same thing". When I used to try XFCE from GNOME 2 I used to notice a lot of functionality just outright missing, or straight up not configurable in the same way.

        1 vote
    2. [6]
      CashewGuy
      Link Parent
      I had the exact experience. Last KDE use was probably 10 years ago just as Plasma came around, and I hated it so much that I still have it on my black list. I used xfce for the longest time.

      I had the exact experience. Last KDE use was probably 10 years ago just as Plasma came around, and I hated it so much that I still have it on my black list.

      I used xfce for the longest time.

      1 vote
      1. [5]
        Diff
        Link Parent
        I keep trying KDE periodically but it seems like whenever I try to play around with these cool little "Get New XXXX" buttons, everything starts breaking. At least on GNOME I get an "ERROR:...

        I keep trying KDE periodically but it seems like whenever I try to play around with these cool little "Get New XXXX" buttons, everything starts breaking. At least on GNOME I get an "ERROR: Extension failed to load" when it's too out of date. I feel like KDE's a bit of a tease that way. It looks like it should be as crazy customizable as GNOME, with each type of extension even filtered down into categories based on what it changes, but. Nope, none of them work outside of themes.

        Which really, really sucks because I do still love KDE. I get so hyped every time I read one of their blog posts about a new release, they keep releasing all these cool features and improvements and KDE Connect even on GNOME (through GSConnect extension) is the best thing since sliced bread. But I can't use the actual environment itself. It doesn't feel nice like GNOME does.

        2 votes
        1. [2]
          Grand0rbiter
          Link Parent
          I tried KDE a lot and always came back to bspwm or openbox. I was always a WM guy because i don't need a lot and like to do things by myself. Tried KDE this weekend and it's so polished i'm loving...

          I tried KDE a lot and always came back to bspwm or openbox. I was always a WM guy because i don't need a lot and like to do things by myself.

          Tried KDE this weekend and it's so polished i'm loving it. Make sure you grab a recent version tho. KDE connect is the best software i ever used.

          3 votes
          1. spctrvl
            Link Parent
            KDE connect is absolutely brilliant, but it's worth noting that it works just fine on any other DE.

            KDE connect is absolutely brilliant, but it's worth noting that it works just fine on any other DE.

            2 votes
        2. [2]
          xyquadrat
          Link Parent
          We are working on the "Get new XXX" buttons, see https://phabricator.kde.org/T8126. It's quite unfortunate to see that so much content is broken, but it turns out to be rather difficult to find a...

          We are working on the "Get new XXX" buttons, see https://phabricator.kde.org/T8126. It's quite unfortunate to see that so much content is broken, but it turns out to be rather difficult to find a satisfying solution.

          2 votes
          1. Diff
            Link Parent
            Fantastic to hear this isn't being forgotten, keep up the great work!

            Fantastic to hear this isn't being forgotten, keep up the great work!

  4. [4]
    timo
    Link
    I've tried quite a few, although most only briefly. Unity, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, MATE, i3, Cinnamon and currently running Budgie. But my least favorite would probably be i3. And it's not that I hate...

    I've tried quite a few, although most only briefly. Unity, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, MATE, i3, Cinnamon and currently running Budgie.

    But my least favorite would probably be i3. And it's not that I hate it. I actually enjoy the concept of tiling and feel it is incredibly useful. But what i3 brings with tiling and shortcut/keyboard based interface, it lacks in other areas.

    Having a user experience where so much relies on customization, just doesnt't do much for me. It costs a lot of time to setup properly. You need to know a lot of shortcuts. There is no easy, figure it out on the fly, way. For example: Set up WiFi or Bluetooth? You can't simply figure it out in the UI, you need to either know how to do it in the terminal, or look it up.

    For some reason all this bothers me. I just want it to work, be intuitive and provide useful yet limited customization. I can truly see it working for other people. But after actively trying to use it for a couple of days, it's just not for me.

    8 votes
    1. Kremor
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I use Awesome (another tilling window manager) with the xfce settings daemon (xfsettingsd) running on the background, that gives you a functional taskbar, and of course, the ability to manage:...

      I use Awesome (another tilling window manager) with the xfce settings daemon (xfsettingsd) running on the background, that gives you a functional taskbar, and of course, the ability to manage: WiFi; Bluetooth; volume; etc. I would assume is the same with i3.

      You need to initialize every single applet too though. I do it in the same script where I initialize xfsettingsd.

      Edit: I haven't touched my config files in a while so I got a little confused. Awesome comes with a functional taskbar, if you initialize an applet, for example network-manager, it'll appear on the taskbar.

      4 votes
    2. ubergeek
      Link Parent
      I tend to see i3 like I see a Linux OS as a whole: A box of legos. i3 just manages windows for you. i3status gives you a status bar (If you want it). dmenu gives you a launcher of sorts. etc etc...

      I tend to see i3 like I see a Linux OS as a whole: A box of legos. i3 just manages windows for you. i3status gives you a status bar (If you want it). dmenu gives you a launcher of sorts. etc etc etc.

      You get to put the legos together however you like, even leaving some of the blocks out, if you want.

      It's a window manager. Not a Desktop Environment.

      Manjaro i3wm edition puts together a nice i3 based DE.

      3 votes
    3. Whom
      Link Parent
      It isn't really required to customize it that far, you just shouldn't start from a bare installation unless that's what you want. Already finished setups like the one that ships with Manjaro or...

      It isn't really required to customize it that far, you just shouldn't start from a bare installation unless that's what you want. Already finished setups like the one that ships with Manjaro or this themer that I started with are really the way to go.

      I wish there was an easy way to recommend running a theme like that and running i3 with GNOME session shit. It "just works" for handling sound, wifi, bluetooth, etc. and doesn't rely on customization...but as far as I found the only program to do it automatically was super old and tough to get working. I'd feel a lot better pointing people in the direction of i3 if there was an easy installer to get that going.

      2 votes
  5. [2]
    Artrax
    Link
    tldr of this thread: All Software sucks, with awfulness being proportional to the number of it's users. I use i3 btw.

    tldr of this thread: All Software sucks, with awfulness being proportional to the number of it's users.
    I use i3 btw.

    6 votes
    1. ubergeek
      Link Parent
      Do you use Arch, as well? :P btw, I use Arch.

      Do you use Arch, as well? :P

      btw, I use Arch.

      7 votes
  6. Whom
    Link
    Windows 10's is pretty worthless and a giant mess but in the Linux world I'll say KDE is the worst popular one. Similar to Windows 10, it feels like a bunch of unrelated tools slapped together...

    Windows 10's is pretty worthless and a giant mess but in the Linux world I'll say KDE is the worst popular one. Similar to Windows 10, it feels like a bunch of unrelated tools slapped together with barely any thought to consistency. It's pretty in screenshots, but I'm not a fan outside of that. I get why people would complain about GNOME 3 and it's far from my favorite, but it at least feels like a unified experience, like there was thought to making things work the same way everywhere.

    Really though it's tough for me to complain...there's a lot of wonderful choices out there. Windows has been taking step backwards for a long time, but macOS is still solid and the options for Linux are better than ever. As much nostalgia as I have for the compiz cube and all that, I don't really miss the GNOME 2 days. Maybe I would've said differently not too long ago, but I recently went through a few DEs before settling back into i3 and I was impressed across the board. I'm a bit concerned with some things moving in a more touch screen-oriented direction, but this is one area of design that hasn't crashed and burned lately. If desktops a decade ago were anywhere near as nice as they are now, I may have switched over entirely instead of years of half-assed dual boot hell.

    5 votes
  7. [2]
    Amarok
    Link
    If I said 'most of them' would you be mad? I like a simple, basic wm, but not so basic that it's little more than a whirlwind of terminals tied to command key combos. KDE as many have mentioned...

    If I said 'most of them' would you be mad? I like a simple, basic wm, but not so basic that it's little more than a whirlwind of terminals tied to command key combos. KDE as many have mentioned bothers me because it's kinda wonky, some shit just breaks. I like gnome a bit better, but I don't need or care for all the flashy stuff. I gravitate towards xfce because I'd rather save the resources and I'm happy with what it provides. Manjaro with xfce works for me.

    What ever happened to enlightenment, anyway? That was the poster child for fancy screenshots once upon a time. Haven't seen it in years and years.

    3 votes
    1. Diff
      Link Parent
      I'm not sure. I think it went through an update that bled off most of its userbase. Apparently its codebase was a hot mess, I guess everything under the sun was passed around as a single data type...

      I'm not sure. I think it went through an update that bled off most of its userbase. Apparently its codebase was a hot mess, I guess everything under the sun was passed around as a single data type so you could never be sure what you were actually dealing with. And I tried but I never did figure out how to get into theming it, even though everything I heard said that it was supposed to be super customizable. I think there's a distro that forked and older version of it, maybe Shakti?

      1 vote
  8. Silbern
    Link
    My least favorite window manager that I've ever used would probably be xmonad. It's supposed to be super customizable and configurable... but requires you to learn haskell, a really unique...

    My least favorite window manager that I've ever used would probably be xmonad. It's supposed to be super customizable and configurable... but requires you to learn haskell, a really unique programming language that the vast majority of people have no knowledge of, which really limits you in terms of what you can do with it until you learn it, and makes configurations unnecessarily complex and obtuse. When there are alternatives like dwm and awesomewm, that are almost or equally as powerful but far more accessible, it makes it xmonad just a hassle to use instead of them.

    My least favorite desktop environment is Gnome 3; the animations on it are abysmally terrible and stutter on every computer I've tried compared to KDE's, and it's more resource heavy while being significantly less capable and configurable.

    2 votes
  9. Arshan
    Link
    I have been using sway/i3 for a while now, and I generally agree. I have to us Win10 at work, and I feel like total doofus when I hit meta + d. I have trialed a few other windows managers, but...

    I have been using sway/i3 for a while now, and I generally agree. I have to us Win10 at work, and I feel like total doofus when I hit meta + d. I have trialed a few other windows managers, but none grabbed me. I do want to try way-cooler, but its not on gentoo, so I will have to see if I want to support it.

    1 vote
  10. [3]
    mftrhu
    Link
    I'll have to add another voice to the i3 contingent. I tried a few other DEs - XFCE, MATE, Cinnamon - but i3 just... gets out of the way. It took a bit to configure it to my liking - to get things...

    I'll have to add another voice to the i3 contingent. I tried a few other DEs - XFCE, MATE, Cinnamon - but i3 just... gets out of the way. It took a bit to configure it to my liking - to get things like a notification demon and applets and whatnot - but I did it more than a year ago, and I learned quite a bit in the process.

    I have tried exwm, too - it's still running on my netbook, in fact - but I'm not used to it, and common chords tend to collide with the ones expected by Emacs, and it's a bit of an hassle. For that one, though, I didn't even bother with setting up the network applet, I just call wpa_supplicant from a terminal.

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      Diff
      Link Parent
      Heads up my dude:

      Heads up my dude:

      least favorite

      16 votes
  11. apoctr
    Link
    Going against the grain here, but I'd have to say i3 or bspwm are my least favourite. After experimenting between them both and dwm for about a year, in the end my workflow and usage habits just...

    Going against the grain here, but I'd have to say i3 or bspwm are my least favourite. After experimenting between them both and dwm for about a year, in the end my workflow and usage habits just don't fit nicely with tiling wms. I much prefer floating wms that come with options for manual (keybound) tiling.

    1 vote
  12. [2]
    loto
    Link
    My least favourite is probably Windows, but that's likely just because I've had so many small issues with it that it's left a bad taste in my mouth (for example, Windows overwriting the default...

    My least favourite is probably Windows, but that's likely just because I've had so many small issues with it that it's left a bad taste in my mouth (for example, Windows overwriting the default boot option on every update, not being able to change some settings without a pro/enterprise license). Most of my issues are probably fixable however, and I just didn't have to motivation to try to fix everything when I have a linux install that works already. When Windows has worked fine however, the experience has been just fine.

    On a side note, is there anyway to (legally) get the ltsb edition of Win10, or is it strictly for businesses? I have to use Win10 for school sometimes so a stable OS I don't have to worry about needing an update/having features change would be nice.

    1 vote
  13. [2]
    Akir
    (edited )
    Link
    The one I actually use is KDE. I like it's extensibility and customizability, but the defaults are so good that I don't really mess with them too much. That being said, I really like blackbox and...

    The one I actually use is KDE. I like it's extensibility and customizability, but the defaults are so good that I don't really mess with them too much.

    That being said, I really like blackbox and cde. I like the minimalism. That being said, the reason I don't use them too much is that simple things like editing menus is painfully difficult to do, and many distributions don't even bother trying to auto-populate their software menus. Some of them even have the menus default to applications that aren't even installed by default. Beyond that, there are a small number of quality of life improvements I would like to add to them.

    EDIT:

    Boy I did not read the prompt. I have to agree that the worst is probably MacOS. I can't stand how much it still seems to want to force me to use the mouse for things I should be able to use the keyboard for.

    A close second is Unity, which is just all of the choices I would generally hate put together into a single package.

    1. Crespyl
      Link Parent
      The thing that really bugs me with MacOS is the way it keeps wanting to re-arrange my maximized window "workspaces", which breaks my mental model of where everything is. I normally keep one or two...

      The thing that really bugs me with MacOS is the way it keeps wanting to re-arrange my maximized window "workspaces", which breaks my mental model of where everything is. I normally keep one or two messaging/mail apps on the far left, then my browser, then a full screen tmux session, then the "normal" desktop panel which is mostly just for misc clutter windows that are intermittently necessary. The OS for some reason keeps trying to find excuses to re-shuffle this arrangement, I think it has to do with how it handles new windows and pop-ups. Instead of just moving focus to the desktop workspace, it moves the desktop workspace to where the focus was, forcing my other apps out of my preferred layout. Things also seem to get re-shuffled when adding or removing monitors. It's a recurring low-grade annoyance but not important enough to get me to look into an alternative WM for Mac.

      Most of my work is done on a Dell XPS with KDE Neon/Plasma, which I absolutely love, and provides the same workflow without the annoyances and with every other nice feature I could want. Maximized apps in virtual desktops, multi-touch gestures to navigate smoothly, quick-tile hotkeys and sticky window snapping/resize behavior all come together to make the (to me) ideal hybrid between tiling and floating window management.

  14. ubergeek
    Link
    My favorite is tied between KDE Plasma, i3 and Enlightenment. Second fav is MacOS, as long as it's a laptop use case. It doesn't translate well to multiple monitors, and a mouse. On a laptop, I...

    My favorite is tied between KDE Plasma, i3 and Enlightenment.

    Second fav is MacOS, as long as it's a laptop use case. It doesn't translate well to multiple monitors, and a mouse. On a laptop, I just full screen everything and swipe between (Or command-tab) though the apps.

    The rest (Windows included) are just "meh".

    Least favorite is Gnome.

  15. knocklessmonster
    Link
    For me, it's GNOME Shell. I don't like that I need to add third-party extensions that don't update as fast as my distro (Arch). I've had some decent setups, but nothing I really stuck to, they...

    For me, it's GNOME Shell. I don't like that I need to add third-party extensions that don't update as fast as my distro (Arch). I've had some decent setups, but nothing I really stuck to, they were more to see if I could do it as a concept. I feel like it tries to remove me too much from my system, and without a proper system tray, it becomes difficult to use things like JACK that don't quite have the right interactions for GNOME's planned workflow.

  16. acdw
    Link
    I just quit using KDE (on Manjaro) because startup got so slow, it took like 5 minutes to boot up my computer and to do other things too. So maybe that one is my least favorite, at least right...

    I just quit using KDE (on Manjaro) because startup got so slow, it took like 5 minutes to boot up my computer and to do other things too. So maybe that one is my least favorite, at least right now. Windows's Explorer (?) isn't great, either -- I'm having this problem now where I turned backgrounds off (somewhere in the accessibility settings) and turned them back on, but they still aren't anywhere, which can make things hard to read sometimes.

    I've since installed Void with i3, and while it's okay, I'm really used to $mod-j and $mod-k going to the next and previous windows in the "stack" instead of up and down geometrically, so that's a pain point. I've used awesome and love it, but it eats up way too much of my time as I try to get it just right (and shoe-horn in some half-baked ideas about how windows should be managed, especially because all I do on the computer is surf the web and edit text).