XFCE: The Stability Workhorse Versus the Wayland Protocol Headache
XFCE is recognized for minimal resource drain and rock-solid stability, making it a functional default for specific deployments, such as providing a "quick and dirty GUI for this server." It is often seen as the logical, stable successor to classic GNOME experiences on x11.
The debate centers on aesthetics versus capability. Some users call XFCE 'ugly' (FishFace), while others, like ExtremeUnicorn, argue that themes and compositors neutralize any visual complaints. Support for XFCE's reliability is evident in DeuxChevaux noting it "never gets in my way," while kumi praises its 'just works' stability. The technical weak spot cited is the perceived lack of native Wayland support (bender223).
Ultimately, the consensus pegs XFCE as a reliable tool when functionality trumps flair. The fault lines remain: is its limited modern protocol support a dealbreaker, or is its superior stability enough for its core user base? Separately, mech established Slackware's niche as the 'Linux from Scratch, but with updates' benchmark for advanced tinkerers.
Key Points
XFCE excels in low resource consumption and stability.
General consensus praises it as a non-distracting, reliable environment compared to heavier DEs.
XFCE's appearance is a major point of contention.
Criticized as inherently 'ugly' by some, but defended by ExtremeUnicorn as customizable via themes and compositors.
The environment is highly reliable for specific tasks.
Lka1988 recommends it for 'quick and dirty GUI for this server'; DeuxChevaux notes it 'never gets in my way.'
Native Wayland support is cited as a technical deficiency.
bender223 points out the lack of native Wayland support as a key limitation preventing universal adoption.
Slackware occupies a precise, highly stable niche.
mech defined it as offering 'more KISS than Arch and more stable than Debian,' for advanced users.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.