When p:d switched from dyne-based system that used fluxbox as a default, to ubuntu-based model, XFCE was really lightweight (in terms of ram and CPU cycles used), yet very elastic and intuitive. LXDE was just starting as a mainstream software, there was lots of problems that are now solved and some lacking things that are now implemented in it. Openbox was also not as popular, as it is now. XFCE solved many problems (like hardware support), that other (more simplistic) window managers were unable to handle without some external software (so using this would make lots of work for the team to spot what is needed and choose solution). I guess that was the factors that pushed p:d devs to use XFCE as a default environment in the not-so-distant past, and some of those are still vital nowadays.
Cheers, Luke On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Bernardo Barros <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally I like KDE for everyday desktop use. I really don't see any > difference in performance compared to GNOME, and it looks nicer. > > OpenBox is a good choice for very minimal desktop, I like it too. It's > really 'open'. > > 2010/10/2 jm jones <[email protected]>: >> Why XFCE and not LXDE ? and why not gnome? Im just curious. Its >> really an adventage in "speed"? >> >> -- >> JM Jones >> >> --- >> [email protected] >> http://identi.ca/group/puredyne >> irc://irc.goto10.org/puredyne >> > > --- > [email protected] > http://identi.ca/group/puredyne > irc://irc.goto10.org/puredyne --- [email protected] http://identi.ca/group/puredyne irc://irc.goto10.org/puredyne
