Whats the difference between MATE, KDE Plasma, LXDE, Cinnamon?

[4klips]

Gnome looks different but MATE, KDE Plasma, LXDE, Cinnamon all looks almost the same. Then whats the difference?

[noahdvs]

LXDE is super lightweight, which means it's fast and can run well on old hardware, but it's basic. MATE is supposed to be just like Gnome 2 since Gnome 3 (current version of Gnome) is very different from Gnome 2 and it's lighter than Gnome, Cinnamon or KDE (I think). Cinnamon was forked from Gnome 3 by the developers of Linux Mint and is kind of like Gnome for people coming from Windows 7, which is why Linux Mint is often recommended to Linux newbies alongside Ubuntu, which Linux Mint is based on. KDE Plasma is kind of like Windows 7 by default, but it's super customizable and pretty. In older versions it got a reputation for being bloated and buggy, but it has improved greatly since then and it's actually one of the nicest DEs you can use right now.

[4klips]

6 minutes ago, noahdvs said:

LXDE is super lightweight, which means it's fast and can run well on old hardware, but it's basic. MATE is supposed to be just like Gnome 2 since Gnome 3 (current version of Gnome) is very different from Gnome 2. Cinnamon was forked from Gnome 3 by the developers of Linux Mint and is kind of like Gnome for people coming from Windows 7, which is why Linux Mint is often recommended to Linux newbies alongside Ubuntu, which Linux Mint is based on. KDE Plasma is kind of like Windows 7 by default, but it's super customizable and pretty. In older versions it got a reputation for being bloated and buggy, but it has improved greatly since then and it's actually one of the nicest DEs you can use right now.

Thanks for the information.

 

But GNOME has its quick launch bar on the left side and is hidden on dekstop until you press activities. And the status bar is on the top if the window. Which looks cools and different to me as I am a windows user I wanted a change to the status bar on the bottom and the same start menu, etc.

 

But on the other hand other environments looks pretty much same as windows. All have the same status bar on the bottom and the same app launcher. So, why are there same type of environment with different name?

 

I am a newbie to linux and sorry for the silly question.

[SCHISCHKA]

The biggest difference would be the spelling. Some are just abbreviations. There are a million blogs, benchmarks and comparison tables, but because you asked; theres not much difference at all. Maybe a small RAM difference that doesn't matter in 2017. In terms of looks they all rip off windows and mac in some way so functionally its not going to be some weird alien interface. Your grandma can use any of them.

[SCHISCHKA]

Just now, 4klips said:

But on the other hand other environments looks pretty much same as windows. All have the same status bar on the bottom and the same app launcher. So, why are there same type of environment with different name?

competition. people just like to make their own shit. Some linux distributions like to make their own UI; Ubuntu made Unity because they wanted to branch into mobile devices. Some are intentionally designed to make it easy for windows users. You will have to head over to wikipedia and read up on each as to why they forked or started their own.

[4klips]

1 minute ago, SCHISCHKA said:

competition. people just like to make their own shit. Some linux distributions like to make their own UI; Ubuntu made Unity because they wanted to branch into mobile devices. Some are intentionally designed to make it easy for windows users. You will have to head over to wikipedia and read up on each as to why they forked or started their own.

Thanks mate

[noahdvs]

1 minute ago, 4klips said:

Thanks for the information.

 

But GNOME has its quick launch bar on the left side and is hidden on dekstop until you press activities. And the status bar is on the top if the window. Which looks cools and different to me as I am a windows user I wanted a change to the status bar on the bottom and the same start menu, etc.

 

But on the other hand other environments looks pretty much same as windows. All have the same status bar on the bottom and the same app launcher. So, why are there same type of environment with different name?

 

I am a newbie to linux and sorry for the silly question.

This is default KDE (as you've seen it):

This is my KDE:

[noahdvs]

Check out https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/, though it's kind of over saturated with people's tiling window manager setups (mostly i3).

[4klips]

3 minutes ago, noahdvs said:

This is default KDE (as you've seen it):

This is my KDE:

?

 

Thats is why linux looks confusing to me. There are lots of customizationsin it. So its hard to choose the best UI environment.

 

 

I am totally blank for the best UI for me

[noahdvs]

4 minutes ago, 4klips said:

?

 

Thats is why linux looks confusing to me. There are lots of customizationsin it. So its hard to choose the best UI environment.

 

 

I am totally blank for the best UI for me

Well, if you want customization, KDE is a decent option. KDE is making big strides as of lately, so you should use a distro that gets newer KDE software sooner like KDE neon, Manjaro or OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. The DE you pick doesn't actually matter that much. A lot of the same things can be achieved in different DEs, but usually not in exactly the same ways.

[slicknux]

Quote

Thats is why linux looks confusing to me. There are lots of customizationsin it. So its hard to choose the best UI environment.

That's normal as you're starting out. In Windows you only have one pair of jeans and everybody's wearing it. Makes it easy, no choice, just go with the flow, less neuron activity. Later, when you'll start to get the hang of it, you won't see it as confusion anymore, you will see it as choice and feel free because you can do it YOUR WAY. Freedom is confusing when you get out of prison.

[Timmbits]

First, choose the right flavor of Linux, not the window-manager / desktop: 

As a newbie, you should concern yourself more with the user-friendliness of the distro, programs availability (the ones you need, that is), stability, the community that is there to support you, and of course, suitability for your hardware (in theory you should be buying whatever hardware is required to run your software, not he other way around, but I digress).  For example, Mint pioneered including codecs and everything just working out of the box, developed quite a nice software manager/installer that lets you search not only by name, but by task or category, (but it no longer conforms to their long-time-ago philosophy of fitting onto 1 CD). This is why it has steadily moved ahead over the years and is now #1 on the Distrowatch.com list (which is a great place to search for a distro). 

If you're looking to revive old hardware, look at PepperMint and Bodhi.  Slitaz (80MB) and Porteus (300MB) require impressively little RAM, but aren't as out-of-the-box no-brainers as the former two.  If you have more horsepower, take a serious look at Mint.  It's an Ubuntu done better, with the absurdities of Canonical's decisions subtracted.  Double-bonus.  This is really a no-brainer of a choice. You can try Arch derivatives like Manjaro, but you have to be OK with them discontinuing support for 32bit processors.  If you have a new and an older computer in the house, there is definitely an advantage of running the same OS on both: easier learning curve. 

 

Once you've decided on your OS (flavor of Linux), only then choose it's color (the window manager, or if you prefer, the desktop environment (wm+apps). 

 

xfce:  It used to be that XFCE was the compact more efficient window manager.  XFCE was more plain, offered a few compromises but was lightweight.  But that was a very long time ago, before other WMs were developed or matured (for example  OpenBox, then fancier FluxBox).  When you look at the actual size of window managers, you will notice that MATÉ takes up only about half (47% less) megabytes than XFCE.  Why would you use xfce if it is no longer more lightweight and there were better choices that used less system resources?  

With Maté being the more familiar Gnome2 continuation, which has proven itself from a user-interface standpoint, I don't even consider XFCE anymore, ever.  I just don't bother with it, and that would be my recommendation. 

 

Cinnammon (and KDE) should only be used on the latest-crazy-awesomest hardware.  Cinnammon is supposed to be an improved Gnome3 environment.   If you don't mind it not yet being mature:  it is reputed to not be quite as stable, according to reputation, although that should be ironed out over this year.  And it has more configuration (adding to system resources being taken up) that you, are not yet ready to explore, and may not for quite some time.  Leave it to more experienced users. 

 

KDE was the original Linux desktop environment.  So it is normal that old-timers will stick with this.  The first programs came out under KDE, people learned to use those, and most hate having to learn new software to do the same old tasks.  But it's a memory hog.  Today there are plenty of apps for most other environments.  And unless you can name a single app that has a name that starts with a K, that you cannot live without and of which there is no equivalent under Gnome (Maté, Cinammon) or LXDE, then don't even bother with it.  It's configuration options are for those who don't actually use computers - they just like to tinker with an OS without actually doing any useful work on their puters.  (I'm just kidding of course - just a friendly playful jab at the config-freaks).  

 

LXDE is pretty good, but it only shaves a few MegaBytes off of Maté - is it worth it?  You won't even notice a few MB - usability will trump a few MB any day.  But you'll have to decide which you prefer.  

 

PepperMint6 (forget 7) uses a customized version of LXDE with some xfce components, but you can't configure it much, while Mint is available in Maté (and a few other window-managers / desktop environments). 

Slitaz uses JWM (but only needs 30MB of RAM - talk about impressive programming - just add Midori as your efficient web-browser, just don't expect to use FB on Midori - youtube and everything else work fine though, and there's nothing wrong with having 2 browsers for different tasks).  Bodhi 4.1 is really a gem - it uses an improved Enlightenment E17 with centralized configuration, and a very user-friendly webinstall where you just visit their website and point at the apps you want to add. Check their apps list before selecting, to make sure they have what you want. 

 

If you are really looking into saving system resources, look into what flavors of Linux use Fluxbox (or Openbox).  Those are quite compact.  Pretty good programming there.  JWM is even smaller, but it's really not fancy (and there is plenty worse out there). 

 

But it may be, that your choice of a WM may not be offered in the Linux distro that is best for you. That could be because of the developers' personal preferences, because of compatibility issues,  because of stability issues that may bother some but not others, or other reasons (like diverting development resources to maintaining a version no one wants).  Sometimes you just have to trust that the expert developers had their reasons. 

 

Closing word: 

Don't blow your window manager's importance out of proportion.  It affects the usability of your computer.  But, just as with Windoze, it's not going to make your word-processor, your spreadsheet, or your inkscape work any different, no matter what you run them in. And it's your programs you care about.  The rest is just window-dressing, and convenience for maintenance. 

 

CAUTION: 

In Linux, it is possible to install a program designed for, say KDE, into, say, a Gnome environment.  BUT, that will pull in a whole bunch of KDE support programs (called dependencies) that are required behind the scenes to make it work. This will make your system heavier, more resource hungry.  So choose wisely.  Choose one that suits you, the programs you wish to run, and your system.  

Generally speaking, both KDE and Gnome have the largest software app libraries.  And Gnome resurrected as Maté (and Cinammon) is lighter.  So go with one of those, based on my commentary on them above.  Unless you have an old netbook or something - then look at Peppermint6 (not 7, it's much heavier), or Bodhi 4.1 which both are great out of the box, beginner friendly, and run in less RAM. 

 

Below: Window Managers size comparison.  This is the latest available, but from a couple of years ago.  Things have changed (but not by enough for it to really count). 

[Timmbits]

On 4/24/2017 at 2:49 AM, 4klips said:

But GNOME has its quick launch bar on the left side and is hidden on dekstop until you press activities. And the status bar is on the top if the window. Which looks cools and different to me as I am a windows user I wanted a change to the status bar on the bottom and the same start menu, etc.

Perhaps you were thinking of Unity under Ubuntu. It's just been announced that the Unity nonsense is being discontinued, (as it turned out that not all users were blindly subservient to Ubuntu at any cost). 

As for the taskbars/shelves/panel(whatever they want to call them) being on the top, bottom, left, right, centered, left/right aligned, minimizing, staying up to consume valuable screen real-estate - all that can be configured.  In most window managers, you just right-click in the taskbar/panel/shelf/whatever and you can edit settings for that. In others, you can right-click on the desktop, or just pull up the menu, and go into system settings user interface or something of the sort.  Just explore - you won't break it.  

 

On 4/24/2017 at 2:49 AM, 4klips said:

But on the other hand other environments looks pretty much same as windows. All have the same status bar on the bottom and the same app launcher. So, why are there same type of environment with different name?

 

I am a newbie to linux and sorry for the silly question.

 

Originally it was KDE.  Then they wanted to license KDE and charge big bucks for that.  Then humans did the logical things humans would do: react by developing alternate window managers.  Enter the birth of multiple replacement projects, all with their own philosophies and priorities.  Some of those priorities were to use programming languages that sped up the process (but resulted in more code), while others were old-school programmers skilled at making things really small and efficient who didn't mind the extra gruntwork that it entailed.  That is an example of a philosophy, or priority - but only one, on a very long list of many. 

[noahdvs]

2 hours ago, Timmbits said:

KDE was the original Linux desktop environment.  So it is normal that old-timers will stick with this.  The first programs came out under KDE, people learned to use those, and most hate having to learn new software to do the same old tasks.  But it's a memory hog.

In the past, yes, but KDE Plasma 5 is actually pretty good with speed and memory usage and it has been gaining popularity since the release of KDE neon. Development has been pretty quick lately.

2 hours ago, Timmbits said:

CAUTION: 

In Linux, it is possible to install a program designed for, say KDE, into, say, a Gnome environment.  BUT, that will pull in a whole bunch of KDE support programs (called dependencies) that are required behind the scenes to make it work. This will make your system heavier, more resource hungry.

It depends on the program. KDE Frameworks 5 is more modular, so programs that depend on parts of it don't need to pull in as much. Also, just because you installed a bunch of dependencies doesn't mean your computer will become slower. In most cases, it just means more disk space will be used. Once you open up Chromium or Firefox, the memory usage differences between DEs kind of slips away anyway.

2 hours ago, Timmbits said:

 

Below: Window Managers size comparison.  This is the latest available, but from a couple of years ago.  Things have changed (but not by enough for it to really count). 

This graph has no labeled axes. Is size supposed to be RAM usage or disk usage? The ram usage of KDE Plasma, Gnome 3, Cinnamon and Unity are currently all about the same, but I could see KDE Plasma using more disk space.

[JimakosOSX]

my favorite DE is KDE Plasma

[Timmbits]

Update on the Graphic, LXDE, Cinnamon and other notes: 

 

About the graph, that is memory usage of the respective window managers as of a couple years ago when that comparison was made.  Things will be slightly different today, but relatively similar. 

 

LXDE: some mentioned that lxde should be considered. I apologize for not giving it better coverage. It is indeed a good WM, but the few popular distros that use it and I tested, were just not as finished as I would like - and being in the same category as Mint, were eliminated (if my aging memory still works, those were WattOS,LXLE,LinuxLite - no sense in naming them all - hundreds of distros didn't make the final cut, in fact). The aforementioned PepperMint does use elements of both LXDE and XFCE (I believe lxde WM and menu elements from xfce), and is a very stable, finished distro, with slightly lower system requirements than the average Mint. 

 

Having placed too much reliance on feedback from the Cinnamon community, it turns out I was a little off the mark: it looks pretty, but is not quite ready yet for primetime (including an important sound issue left untouched since 2015).  I've posted a review on my fb page outlining first looks at Mint18.2Cinnamon and the issues that have turned up in the first few days of use. I am a strong believer that stability and reliability trump nostalgia any day, even over Gnome3 nostalgia. 

Luckily there are other "flavors" of Mint:  XFCE, KDE, MATÉ. Choose one of those instead, for now. KDE will be the heaviest, but because based on the oldest WM, has a choice of much of the best software out there. This is a great choice for the latest hardware which makes a mockery of current system requirements. Consider xfce for compatibility/continuity with an old lightweight WM. And if you have no allegiance to the past, have an aversion to bloatware, go with Maté. 

 

XFCE is not dead. The folks who develop mepis and AntiX (a lightweight distro that novices may not be ready for), came out with MX-16 (and now MX-17), which uses XFCE.  Feedback from people far more experienced than myself have nothing but praise for it.  Here xfce is not an afterthought, but rather, more intimately interlinked with the design. 

 

Bodhi 4.2, with it's modified e17 environment, could have been a contender for one of the very nicest and most user-friendly no-nonsense distros out there... if it weren't for one little annoyance that the developers are obstinately refusing to change: the way the menu acts when it is launched near the right border of the screen.  It does not cascade to the other side, even when you launch it from the right side of the screen (instead it shifts, once you touch the last column of pixels on our screen's border, and you have to do that each time another menu level is reached - you are effectively manually moving it to reach the other menu levels). One of the important elements we look at, when searching for a suitable distro, is the team behind it. Should the team expand, and become more democratic in it's decisions, we could change our mind on Bodhi and give it the look it deserves. 

 

[noahdvs]

Since this thread is back, I'd like to post some more recent stats on memory usage that should give a clearer picture on how heavy various distros and DEs actually are:

 

Linux distros RAM consumption comparison (updated, 20 distros - flavours compared)

 

As you can see, when you have a distribution that's pretty minimal by default such as Debian, RAM usage is almost the same across DEs. Even when comparing Xubuntu to Kubuntu, the difference is less than 100MB.

 

The stats do not contain anything about CPU or GPU usage though, so if you know your CPU is very weak, you should probably still go for a lightweight DE. If you have a decent CPU made in the last 5-7 years, you should be able to use KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, Budgie or Pantheon just fine.

[DS115]

On 5/4/2017 at 0:38 AM, noahdvs said:

This graph has no labeled axes. Is size supposed to be RAM usage or disk usage? The ram usage of KDE Plasma, Gnome 3, Cinnamon and Unity are currently all about the same, but I could see KDE Plasma using more disk space.

Sounds like number of libraries