digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at desktoplinux.com

Lightweight GNOME alternative emerges [LXDE]

desktoplinux.com — A fast, fast-booting, implementation of GNOME aimed at netbooks and older hardware has emerged, and shows "a lot of promise." LXDE has already stacked up a heap of distribution partners.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ademan, on 08/07/2008, -2/+84How is this an "implementation of GNOME" ?! It's a desktop environment that happens to use gtk+, as does Xfce but no one in their right mind would call Xfce an implementation of Gnome. Unless LXDE uses gconf or implements its own version of it, uses bonobo, or even dbus (would have to use it alot, using dbus is pretty standard these days) calling it an implementation of Gnome is just stupid...

    • leejarratt, on 08/07/2008, -16/+0I am Lee Jarratt and I am your God.
    • greensky, on 08/07/2008, -5/+14It's nice to see all the mentions of XFCE in this threat. I've been using it a long time now and it's great.
    • Rudegar, on 08/07/2008, -2/+6if LXDE is an implementation of gnome so then i guess gimp is a pretty lean implementation of gnome
      no wait gtk was something gnome got from gimp :P
      • sbin, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5Actually if this is an implementation of GNOME then GNOME is an implementation of GIMP what with GTK coming originally from GIMP.

        Anyhow, I'm happy to hear there's more things using GTK :)
    • utnow, on 08/07/2008, -10/+1speak english damnit
      • Stevo23, on 08/07/2008, -1/+6Learn computers, damnit.
      • JonForTheWin, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Get the ***** off Digg go back to your aol chatrooms, damnit.
    • harmil, on 08/07/2008, -0/+6It would appear that that's just a mis-characterization. LXDE is just a desktop environment. I can't tell (mostly because their site has been dugg under) if they conform to the various desktop interoperability "standards" that allow KDE and Gnome to interoperate.

      However, like most new efforts to replace a large system with something lightweight, this project will be impossible to evaluate until it's become mature. For now, it is likely lightweight as a result of a lack of features that will likely be added as their user base grows. Modern desktops are expected to support the handicapped; multiple languages / text directions; interoperation with highly complex applications; integration with operating system management tools; and a host of other things that your average "isn't a desktop just a Window manager and a filebrowser" crowd doesn't see.

    • cynyr, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2actully xfce can start gnome services, or kde services, when you check the gnome box box I'm fairly certian that it does start bonobo, and gnome-settings-daemon. So in that respect I would say that it is a gnome "clone", except with better built in composite support. anyways time to read the article.... looks like a modern icewm...
  • PhailQuail, on 08/07/2008, -12/+3If it lets me change screensaver settings, I will switch.
    • santasing, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Actually you might be better off putting in those hour long "support calls" to Dell for changing your screensaver.
    • Naidel, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Why is he being dugg down? Gnome's screensaver "settings" GUI SUCKS. It's one of many annoyances (like the fact that resizing a window is -hardcoded- to alt+middle click, when alt+right click is so much more superior esp. on laptops without a third mouse button), that makes me want to switch. When KDE4 has matured a bit, I definitely will.
  • geeshock, on 08/07/2008, -1/+13Looks promising but there is strong competition, for example XFCE or even Sugar for netbooks. A "Scaled down" Gnome does not give me a good outlook, lets hope its performance stacks up.
    • moduc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It would be nice to see some benchmarks on startup time.
    • Naidel, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4It's not a scaled down Gnome. It actually has very little to do with Gnome, and is designed with modularity in mind, minimizing the required dependencies to run it. It uses openbox as the window manager.

      And yes, it is fast; it is a lot faster than XFCE on an ancient pIII 700 mhz I have lying around. Configuring the DE is a lot easier on XFCE, however, which is why I still generally prefer it.
  • frontporsche, on 08/07/2008, -6/+1direct link to Ubuntu-install wiki... http://lxde.org/wiki/Ubuntu
  • Nastjuid, on 08/07/2008, -3/+30If only there was a... gnome-light, or something like it... we could call it XFCE or something like that ... damns yous internets! damns yous!

    end lols here.

    guess I'll have to check it out.
    • Daniel0, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Gentoo has a package called gnome-light. I'm not sure what the difference between that and the "normal" gnome package is though.

      http://packages.gentoo.org/package/gnome-base/gnom ...
      • dg10050, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It doesn't have the million and one dependencies that the normal Gnome package has. It just installs Gnome, none of the other apps that are normally bundled with Gnome.
  • djoobacca, on 08/07/2008, -4/+24fluxbox = win
    • solidcube, on 08/07/2008, -2/+7The great thing about fluxbox is that it will run on a teletype.

      There's such a thing as too much minimalism.
    • depro9, on 08/07/2008, -0/+8I loves the fluxbox
      • sx66gns, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2as do I , but it's not practical for most.
    • hafbaked, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1amen to that
    • sdubois92, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1evilwm > *
    • fatsobob, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah...but this uses openbox!
      *box = win
  • mk3k, on 08/07/2008, -6/+14Boy just what Linux needed.
    • gplpark92, on 08/07/2008, -7/+2yeah, my home computer which i bought a few years ago and use for the internet definitely struggled to run ubuntu.
      now that it runs, i'll switch over from windows so i can have great fun learning how to edit config files and gain root.

      /s
      • mk3k, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Wasn't really what I meant. I mean do we need another windows manager? I don't think so.
  • regeya, on 08/07/2008, -1/+23I guess I'll have to add my voice to the "why not XFCE?" hoard. I guess it's a matter of preference, but between PCmanFM and Thunar, I'll choose Thunar. I much prefer it to Nautilus.
    • bruenig, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3urxvt is better than both of those.
    • sbin, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Despite my using Nautilus. I think Thunar's not bad at all.

      And all of us who code for a living know: It takes the threat of something like Thunar to motivate the Nautilus guys to make it faster/improve it.

      But you know, anyone else is welcome to add their FM in the mix.
      I don't really want one of them to "win" the competition.
      I just want them all to be different. So that I can choose one of many, instead of having a billion options in the same FM.
    • Naidel, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2LXDE is a lot faster than XFCE. It is not nearly as mature, and easy to configure, however.
  • stevensj2, on 08/07/2008, -5/+24Why re-invent the wheel?

    XFCE has a lot more development behind it, and does quite the nice job for anyone who doesn't like Gnome, and isn't fond of the *box setups (or any pure-WM environment, for that matter).
    • Megatog615, on 08/07/2008, -1/+13"Why re-invent the wheel?"

      From the site: "Because it's cool!"
    • sx66gns, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2No native network browsing function means it looses , honestly wtf.

      Never understood that.
    • rocknrolf77, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Check out slitaz and you will see how lighweight lxde is. 80 mb installed on disk.
  • freezerburn666, on 08/07/2008, -3/+8my trust is with XFCE... but i dunno, two dudes from Taiwan... u know, it could just be THAT much better... ahem..
  • UltamateAddict, on 08/07/2008, -15/+2Hey everyone, if you want to try Ubuntu without messing with partitions, try wubi!

    http://wubi-installer.org/
  • webhead74, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5ooh! and it even comes with interweb explorer!!
  • xsquirrel378x, on 08/07/2008, -3/+14hijacked thread in progress.
    XFCE best desktop ever. Runs on on less than half the resources and memory than GNOME or KDE and looks better by default. The XFCE team pay attention to being more minimal and aesthetically pleasing, I never even have to customize it, it just looks so nice on install.
    • freezerburn666, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3ding ding ding!
    • einsteinx2, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2We have a winner!

      *goes back to using his Xubuntu laptop*
    • abbathdoom, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Even if I had a Quad Core with 4GB of RAM I'd still run XFCE. It is like gnome but without the fuglyness.
  • J4k3, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5Anything based on Openbox is a winner in my book.
  • growler1, on 08/07/2008, -1/+8XFCE fanboy here, too. It runs great with Compiz Fusion and Emerald, and makes my poor Celeron D salvaged box run smoothly and efficiently.
  • digitallysick, on 08/07/2008, -1/+10Xfce = win , you can see the difference compared to gnome or kde. But i'm mad that it doesn't come with a built in network browser, = fail
  • solidcube, on 08/07/2008, -3/+11Is there no better use for development time than yet another linux WM?

    There are seriously like 50 or so. In 2 years, current Gnome will be a minimal WM. Cutting edge window managers become minimal over time. Windowmaker is still a great windowmanager, as are blackbox and fluxbox. And XFCE. So, did they really need to make yet another?
    • bruenig, on 08/07/2008, -1/+10It uses openbox as its window manager, so there was no wasted development time there. Oh and you may want to read up on the difference between a WM and a DE. Gnome is a DE, nautilus is a WM. KDE is a DE, kwin is a WM.

      And furthermore, these guys are writing this for free and because they want to. There cannot be any "better use for development time" than the time you spend developing ***** you feel like.
      • trogdoor, on 08/07/2008, -0/+9*Metacity is a WM ( nautilus is a file browser )
      • solidcube, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1Way to split hairs, dude. I do know the difference-- I was programming for X back in 1990 on dumb xterminals that ran to Nextcubes-- but I have to say, I don't think most people give a rat's ass about your overprecise nerd-labeling.

        Not to be too snarky, but damn, man.

        And yeah, code what you want. But don't reinvent the wheel, that's just stupid.
    • Misos, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2It's sort of the beauty and crux of FOSS. Anyone can do what they want to do, but that's generally what they do; not always what may be 'necessary' or 'best' for the public.

      Anyway, if someone doesn't like the existing products so much that they'd be willing to build another DE, then yes, there's no better use of that developer's time than build a DE, as that developer has deemed by following such a course of action.

      Some other developer will eventually do something you think may be more important.
    • ilgaz, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Real victims of this pointless "my desktop looks better" fight is WindowMaker and OpenStep and Linux desktop developers still think the problem is "skins" not looking pretty as OS X while as a OS X user, I would kill for a "theme". People talking about bloat didn't see OS X gigantic frameworks and weird need for being still compatible with pre OS X applications/frameworks :)

      I would explain my "victim" point further but last time I tried, some random idiot Apple fan along with a clueless Linux fan(!) censored my post. I think you can imagine what would mean openstep matching cocoa specs.

    • neko, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1"So, did they really need to make yet another?"

      "They?" Who the hell are you talking about?
  • dellis, on 08/07/2008, -14/+4After looking at the first pic from the link all I can say is:

    Dear UI Designers,

    Please stop copying Windows95. That is all.
    • BurgerPunch, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2***** SECONDED!

      and stop ripping off Mac OSX too, come up with your own ***** ideas.
  • oobuntu, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5Sorry but that looks ugly to me. reminds me of puppy linux or windows 98. netbooks/eee pcs don't have to have ugly UI just because the screen is small!
    • Naidel, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2In Puppy's defense, the latest release actually looks quite nice. And LXDE is a lot better than Win 98. If you have an old PC lying around and even XFCE runs slow on it, consider giving LXDE a shot.
  • Taiyoryu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+8I predict a digg for an XFCE vs LXDE head-to-head article
  • larryjr88, on 08/07/2008, -1/+9Stupid story, but Dugg for being Linux related and not a lolcat or Obama spam.
  • Stiverton, on 08/07/2008, -1/+18Lightweight GNOME alternative eh, aren't those called Halflings?
  • BurgerPunch, on 08/07/2008, -9/+1lame just another Windows Explorer ripoff
  • Stevo23, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4XFCE FTW
  • scy1192, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4what's with all the crappy names?
  • depro9, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1XFCE or stfu :P
  • arobicha, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Ahem ... XDM = As lightweight as they get.
  • JonForTheWin, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2GNOME is far from bloated any way.
    • sx66gns, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I disagree , not to the extent that vista is , but It's heavy, the terminology I use when speaking with someone IRL is it's meant for "High Performance hardware".
  • Vadi0, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3Here's a challenge - make something *better* than Gnome, not worse. Like, actually add stuff instead of stripping it. My dualcore can run it just fine, and it idles most of the time anyway.
    • palta38, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1from the article:

      "Not everyone on this earth is rich. There must be a nice desktop environment for those who can't afford new fancy hardware, and we have the ability to help them."
  • Protoss, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Openbox if you want a REALLY light desktop.
  • jejones, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Woot! If LXDE makes it easy to replace that non-user-configurable POS, gnome-screensaver, I'm ditching GNOME in a heartbeat!
  • FolkTheory, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3god! can't software people make a ***** pronouncable name?? seriously, how hard is it to name something? this is almost as bad a name as cuil wtf!
    two of my friends died prnouncing XFCE, i dont wanna know what'll happen to the rest of my friends with this LXDE...
  • Kral, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Why not just optimize GNOME?
  • lemur, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4I used to only use very minimal/light desktop environments or standalone window mangers with some DE features such as wmaker and fluxbox. Those were nice, and for a while I used to use XFCE because I just liked the way that GTK looked when properly themed.

    However, the reason why these things don't really compete with a full Desktop Environment is because the DE does too many things that window managers and "light" desktops will never do. For example, I'm using GNOME right now, and I don't feel like I can't live without services like automatic disk mounting and the hordes of useful tools that come along for the ride.

    The Desktop itself provides applications with the tools and infrastructure they need to integrate. Anyone who has used KDE for a while knows how beautifully KDE apps interact with one another, and GNOME also works to provide a cohesive environment.

    While the Linux philosophy of combining disparate parts sometimes works out beautifully, it just doesn't work on the GUI. Things like LXDE can provide a little window manager and lovingly handcraft a few simple tools to "fake" the DE such as a basic file manager, image viewer, text editor, icons, etc, but they just can't match the deeper, hidden functionality that has spent years in implementation on the older, more well established desktops.
  • rtechie, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2Just what Linux needs; another completely redundant desktop.
    • Knet88, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Just what we need, another completely useless comment
  • nmnnotmyname, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2I look forward to this since XFCE was a disappointment for me.
  • tvanwyk, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3"Not everyone on this earth is rich. There must be a nice desktop environment for those who can't afford new fancy hardware, and we have the ability to help them."
    Fluxbox (on Slackware) runs great on my old PIII 500mhz box with 128MB of very slow DDR. Of course, Flux is "just" a window manager (it also happens to be a standalone window manager that blows the bloated big two way the hell out of the water).
  • sx66gns, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1After playing with this , I must say it's very good and not such a radical change from what I'm accustomed to and the use of PCFileman gives you native network browsing capabilities.

    A+ , well thought out.
  • jcunews, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0Does that means GNOME is considered as bloated?
  • ilgaz, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2The problem of Gnome isn't the bloat, the problem is its creator and some of the developers forming some kind of gang to push Microsoft technologies/patents to users. How many full feature gnome desktops out there which will function without Mono framework?

  • drag, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Well First Off:

    XCFE isn't really that "lite". It just isn't. People who say 'it uses half the ram' either are not comparing equivelent functionality or are comparing the version of Gnome that Ubuntu ships or Fedora ships vs XFCE, which are not the same thing.

    For example Ubuntu will ship Gnome with Firefox and OpenOffice.org. Firefox is _not_ part of Gnome. OpenOffice.org is _not_ part of Gnome. Beagle desktop search is not part of gnome. Instead the default Gnome applications are Epiphany Browser and things like Abiword and Gnumeric for office tools and Tracker for search. All of these default Gnome components use much less resources then what most people end up using.

    So when you compare the _default_ Gnome configuration with the default XFCE environment you'll quickly find that while XFCE uses less resources, it's not by a large amount. If your system is unusable with Gnome with 256 it will only be very slighlty more usable with XFCE. And on top of that because XFCE only provides a subset of functionality that Gnome provides when you try to do a Apples to Apples comparison based on functionality you'll see that you can actually end up with XFCE using _more_ resources then Gnome.

    If your going to want to use a 'lite' desktop your going to end up having much less functionality available to you then if you used Gnome or KDE.

    Less resources == Less functionality.

    So I am just going start trying out LXDE... I have some projects were a truly lightweight desktop will be very nice.
  • fredbird67, on 08/12/2008, -0/+0I ditched KDE last winter due to the introduction of KDE4. In case anyone hasn't told you, KDE4 SUCKS!!!!! KDE3 was just fine for me, but NOOOO...KDE felt like it had to be scrapped.

    I then switched to a distro that uses GNOME. I was fine with it for a while, but when I learned that there's been some Microsoft technology in it, I then switched to XFCE, and it's become my desktop environment of choice, even though I can and have run KDE and GNOME on my computer with no major slowdowns.

    That said, I have heard lots of good things about LXDE and plan to try it out sometime. I too would like to see an XFCE vs. LXDE matchup sometime, because I'd be willing to try it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.