Seven factors promote the rapid development of Xfce

For a long time, Xfce has been the third most popular Linux desktop. For more than ten years, it has been less popular than GNOME and KDE. Then, just a few years ago, it became a major force in the opposition to GNOME and Unity; since then, it has been firmly in second place, behind KDE. Nothing has changed in Xfce itself, but users are looking for alternative technologies, which makes them like Xfce to an unprecedented degree.

What is the secret that makes Xfce so attractive? After asking around, I came to the conclusion that there are at least the following seven reasons:

Xfce has a layout that users on all operating systems have been using for more than two decades: menus, panels, and workspaces, with support for icons and open windows. In the past, it had a few quirks, such as the way to add icons, but overall, it looked immediately familiar, especially to GNOME 2, which has been discontinued by many. This sense of familiarity stands in stark contrast to the innovations introduced in other major desktop releases in recent years, and it's clearly a relief not to have to worry about the learning curve.

Xfce sometimes benefits from its reputation as a lightweight desktop. Today, however, it is more often thought of as striking a balance between lightweight graphical interfaces (such as LXDE) and feature-rich desktops (such as MATE and Cinnamon). For example, the official website of the project describes that the purpose of Xfce is to "run fast, occupy less system resources, while still looking attractive and easy to use."

In order to be lightweight, many desktops often sacrifice customization. For example, LXDE basically doesn't have many options other than customizing the panel and general appearance options.

However, the current version of Xfce has 18 categories in its Setting Manager - only 2 less than GNOME, which has much more comprehensive features. Customizability has always been a priority for Linux desktop users; by any measure, Xfce does it pretty well, and does it much better than most desktops that would be classified as lightweight desktops. . Xfce has one or two customizations (such as notification locations) that make even the most customizable desktops: something that KDE doesn't have.

GNOME and KDE are more than just graphical interfaces, they are complete ecosystems of applications and utilities. This idea was popular in the mid-1990s, when the two desktops were beginning to gain prominence; it had the advantage of allowing applications to take advantage of the desktop environment. However, the ecosystem philosophy encourages dazzling visual effects and may mean the need for a long list of dependencies.

In contrast, Xfce only includes a few utilities, and does not deviate too far from the basic goal of providing a place to launch applications and display windows. The result is less to learn and often less to install. As one popular explanation goes, Xfce "gets out of the way."

Although Xfce does not have many practical tools, Thunar is undoubtedly one of the best. Like Xfce itself, Thunar is praised for being lightweight. Many also rave about its well-chosen features, including menu items for opening a terminal, creating documents, and opening the parent directory of the current directory, as well as its high degree of customization.

Thunar's reputation has not been tarnished by its continued use of standard menus at a time when other file managers have reduced top-level menus to single items.

The most popular feature in Xfce after Thunar is the default bottom panel, which is used as a launcher for commonly used applications. The bottom panel is not at all a feature that cannot be replicated in many Linux desktops, but it is reminiscent of the mature and sophisticated OS X; similar panels are common in attempts to borrow innovations from other desktops. It probably doesn't hurt that the bottom panel is where many users continue to think Unity's launcher should be.

Despite occasional displays of cooperation, neither GNOME nor KDE can run the other's applications particularly smoothly. For example, both take a longer time to open the other's app. As a result, users tend to continue using applications designed for their chosen desktop environment; over time, the other desktop environment becomes almost another operating system.

In contrast, Xfce can run GNOME and KDE applications smoothly, but it is just a little slower than they run on the native desktop. This feature makes Xfce the choice for those who prefer to choose preferred applications based on merit rather than choosing applications based on which desktop design they are designed for.

What is unexpected is that despite Xfce's current popularity, this project has done nothing; in fact, it has done nothing for many years. Its purpose has not changed; unless a new version is released, the project rarely communicates with the public.

However, you might say that Xfce has caught up with the good situation. Alienated by other desktops, users have finally considered Xfce worth considering in recent years; and unsurprisingly, they love it.

The above is the detailed content of Seven factors promote the rapid development of Xfce. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!