Arch Linux

Nairou

Member

Registered: 2010-01-12

Posts: 17

Question about using non-KDE/GNOME window managers...

Hello! I am new to Arch and have what is likely a dumb question, but I'm hoping someone will give some insight.

Okay, so there are lots of window managers, with KDE and GNOME being the two biggest. And on Arch I can use any window manager I want. However, the great majority of the applications I'll end up using will be made for KDE or GNOME. Which means that, to run them, I'll have to have KDE and/or GNOME installed. And when running my KDE/GNOME apps, parts of KDE or GNOME (or, likely, both) will be loaded in memory to support the applications.

So then, other than appearance, what is the reason for using another window manager? Aren't you just adding another layer on top of what you're already having  to use?

There are several window managers I'm interested in trying, but I'm not sure if it is worthwhile if, under the scenes, I'm really just using KDE and GNOME still.

robrene

Member

Registered: 2009-04-16

Posts: 168

Re: Question about using non-KDE/GNOME window managers...

KDE and GNOME are not "window managers", but rather "desktop environments". The difference is that a desktop environment gives you a full desktop, usually consisting of a window manager, file manager, a panel and some other tools. GNOME uses "Metacity" as its window manager, KDE uses KWin if I am not mistaken. You can chose to install GNOME or KDE and then use a different window manager such as Compiz or Openbox.

A lot of people on these forums chose not to install GNOME or KDE (which is the full suite of all the tools) but rather to find all the seperate pieces for themselves. For example, I installed Openbox as my window manager, tint2 as my panel and Thunar as my file manager.

There are a lot of applications that do not depend on heavy frameworks that GNOME or KDE are built on. These are usually the applications people like me will chose. Just because a program uses GTK or QT doesn't mean that they depend on GNOME or KDE. I hope I managed to clear it up a little, if not please keep asking.

---

berbae

Member

From: France

Registered: 2007-02-12

Posts: 1,302

Re: Question about using non-KDE/GNOME window managers...

Personally I use openbox as window manager, but I also use KDE applications from habit, but I like the look and features of them too. I use Konsole and some KDE games, I use Krusader and even kdm as login manager.
But concerning KDE as a complete desktop environment, I chose not to use it. I don't use/need many features which are integrated in it : desktop graphical effects, nepomuk/strigi, activity creation (top right sign), plasma widgets, Konqueror, Dolphin, ...
So why use the entire DE if I don't use key features coming with it ? So I chose to taste the freedom of a stand-alone window manager, the freedom to choose the desktop I want to create and the lightness and responsiveness of it. So I chose openbox for now.

But if you like KDE and have the hardware necessary for it to work smoothly, it's your choice, I perfectly understand it, I don't contest that KDE is a nice and modern graphical environment. The same can be said about Gnome, it's a question of personal taste and choice.

Use what you like, and also we can change with time.

Last edited by berbae (2010-01-12 22:38:07)