Why I Use Xubuntu
- 8
- Add a Comment
After reading a review of Xubuntu with an eye towards older hardware, I was prompted to think about why I use it.
The initial reason I looked at Xubuntu was precisely because it was a lighter distribution, written for older hardware. This is the reason the aforementioned fellow re-tried out Xubuntu; he wanted to see how it would perform on an older machine.
What struck me as slightly odd was that the hardware started out as the reason I checked out Xubuntu but it’s not the reason I continue to run Xubuntu. Of course slightly odd tends to be a starting description for me anyway, so I shouldn’t spend any significant amount of time worrying about it.
I’m pretty lucky in that my hardware tends to be up to date (or at least in the neighborhood). So it turns out that I run Xubuntu because I want to, not because of hardware. You might not hear this all that often but then again, this is ThermionicEmissions.
For the Buntu-ignorant, there are a number of Ubuntus, all sharing a common base. The difference is in the desktop. The Big Three are Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu. Ubuntu comes with the Gnome desktop. Kubuntu features the KDE desktop. Xubuntu uses the XFCE desktop.
I played with different desktops when I used Debian, a few years ago. Ubuntu is based on Debian - what luck. I have a vague recollection of trying out XFCE as well as a few others. I remember liking it. I also remember what a pain in the posterior it used to be trying out different desktops, as the documentation was, shall we say, lacking. I could generally bring them up but sometimes I couldn’t use them.
When I started using Ubuntu, I tried the Big Three out. Before I go any further, you need to understand a bit about my requirements (before you start calling me REALLY odd, as opposed to Unconventionally Weird). I don’t need or want blinky lights, noises, or full page announcements in the New York Times whenever I open a program. I don’t want to hear so much as a DING or a BEEP (unless the machine is on fire).
Ubuntu comes with the Gnome desktop. This was obviously my first exposure to Ubuntu (and to Gnome). To be polite, I didn’t like it. There’s just something inherently wrong with the taskbar being up top. That’s for Mac people. Heaven knows I don’t want to look like one of them. :) I tried, unsuccessfully, for a while to get the panel to the bottom but Gnome was having none of it. At about that point, I was having none of Gnome. In all seriousness, things just don’t seem to be where they should be in Gnome (for me), so off I went.
I had tried KDE on top of Debian and it was decent, so I installed it under Ubuntu (you can use the base and install different desktops or install whichever you like up front). KDE is packed so full of GEE WHIZ that it bothered me. I tried to tone it down, with some success, but it certainly ate up resources. I had to struggle to get KDE to do some of the things I wanted also, so it didn’t last too long. At least it had the taskbar in the right place.
Recently I had an XFCE desktop go insane on me, possibly due to an ATI driver. It flatly refused to display anything correctly, no matter how nicely I asked. Finally I purged the installation and installed KDE, while reinstalling XFCE. KDE and Gnome worked wonderfully but XFCE still went nuts. Even more aneurysm-inducing was that I had to install KDE4. If you haven’t had the pleasure, I suggest you RUN AWAY, as fast as you can. Not that you’ll have any choice - apparently it’s now standard.
KDE4 got a lot of bad press when it first came out (and rightfully so). Some of it seemed to be that it wasn’t thoroughly tested enough to include with Kubuntu. A coworker and fan of KDE installed it on his machine. He showed me some of its `features’, including having to click four more times to perform the same actions, menus nested within menus, and some hideously blue theme (and blue is my favorite color).
KDE was supposed to have improved considerably since I saw that `demo.’ It failed.
My first task seemed to be attempting to navigate KDE. One of the design aims seemed to be finding the best place to hide things. And the designers were very successful. I couldn’t seem to find anything I was looking for. I actually avoided using certain programs because I knew I’d have to navigate the menus looking for them.
It also took a while to tame down the basic appearance. Another apparent design goal of KDE4 was to make it look like Vista. Quite frankly, if I had wanted to use Vista, I would have installed Vista. I have no idea why anyone thought plasmoids would be a grand idea, but there they were. Right out of the Vista playbook. And at this point, I hadn’t even seen Vista.
I tried for two weeks. I tried to like KDE. I tried not to dislike KDE. I actually tried really hard because the alternative was to go back to Gnome or do a complete reinstall of Xubuntu (neither of which really appealed to me). But it was not to be.
Xubuntu is Home. I say that because it’s what I like. It’s what I use. There is no inherent WooHoo. No blinky lights. No sounds or noises (or if there were, I turned them all off). There was an annoying bootup noise but I killed that (by ripping out the internal speaker). Let’s start out with Complete Panel Freedom, shall we? You can have as many panels as you want (ok, at least four, as far as I know). You can have them autohide, a favorite of mine. I love screen real estate. I can never get enough of it. Even with dual monitor setups, I still never have enough screen real estate, hence the panel-hiding.
Unfortunately the panel flexibility comes at a price. For some reason known to no one, including the XFCE people themselves, my main panel at the bottom sometimes refuses to hide. Hiding is definitely checked.. I know because I checked it. When I retoggled it, the panel continued its staid refusal to hide.
This does very little to diminish my happiness with XFCE, although it is a bit of a pain in the ass. It brings up something else one needs to know when using Xubuntu: it’s not Gnome and it’s not KDE. No, you are saying to yourself, you’re kidding! Why I’ll bet it’s also not OS-X or Vista either!
Ok, I had that coming. What I actually meant was that KDE and Gnome are somewhat tightly integrated into Ubuntu. They have their own menus and everything. Unfortunately XFCE does not. XFCE is not what we’d call tightly integrated. At times it would appear that it isn’t what we’d call loosely integrated. Sometimes you have trouble locating certain programs that aren’t programmed to appear in the menus.
By default certain programs are going to be loaded. If I install K3B, the really good CD/DVD burning program, there are KDE libraries that are going to be loaded. This holds for Gnome programs too. So the lighter weight desktop comes with its own baggage.
Again, this is not to say this is a huge problem. It’s not for me.
This is why, out of the Big Three, Xubuntu is the one for me.

8 Comments
Ninesvnsicks
January 4th, 2009
at 12:19am
My brother has an older laptop a Dell Latitude D800 so when he came to me about being sick of getting virus’s and malware I recommended Ubuntu to him and we put it on it ran video most importantly Flash video choppy and I couldn’t get it to run nice at all so I put Xubuntu on and shazam everything worked great of course he didn’t have the nice compiz graphics but everything works and no problems as of yet except for his iPod going nuts but were pretty sure it’s just the hdd in it going. I myself use Ubuntu with Gnome I’m not sure why you couldn’t get rid of the top panel, if you right click it and go to delete this panel it disappears and you can drag them to the sides or to the bottom by just clicking and dragging.
Charles Darke
January 4th, 2009
at 12:58am
I also have a silent desktop profile and panel at the bottom (agree that top panel is an abomination).
I use Gnome - and yes, the panel is at the bottom (tip: delete the top panel).
I thought KDE was OK but took too much time to customise and I wanted a lighterweight desktop.
I did try XFCE but it had memory leak problems (perhaps fixed by now).
kovacz
January 4th, 2009
at 3:32am
Hm…
How long ago was it that you tried ubuntu/gnome?
You can avoid looking like a mac-user: panels/taskbars can be dragged wherever you want them just like on vista, only with a lot more options to ‘personalise’…
Ubuntu 8.10 is so easy and user-friendly it’s unbelievable. Maybe you should revisit before you compare other distros to an old cliche?
Pax
January 10th, 2009
at 10:20am
I had been testing a number of lightweight OSes over the last month (quite a few, about 25 - LinuxDistros, OpenSolaris, *BSDs, etc).
I simply got tired of bloated OSes and wanted to get the best performance on my machine. I saved the Ubuntu derivatives for last and it really helped solidify my final choice - Xubuntu.
Not to knock some of the other lightweight distros out there (each has their own purpose), but when I finally got to Xubuntu - I found it was exactly what I was looking for. A complete, modern OS ready for modern hardware and focused speed.
The support for the Ubuntu-family of OSes is arguably unmatched, complete system updates turned out to be a rare find on alternative light and middleweight distros, the package manager is fantastic (especially when comparing with some of the alternatives I came across) and finally the packages available makes me comfortable that I will eventually find viable alternatives to many of those available on XP.
I’m currently running Xubuntu on VirtualBox and came across a screen resolution issue that is apparently common to all (most?) Ubuntu derivatives. That is, the screen defaults to 800×600 with the only other available display mode being 640×480.
After trying a bunch of other suggested methods, the VirtualBox on XP problem was solved via the link below:
How To Increase Screen Resolution with VirtualBox and Ubuntu (print version of page):
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=6438&start=0
Hope the above helps with users experiencing the same problem.
sparky
February 4th, 2009
at 6:55pm
I’ve tried all three myself - albeit briefly - and now need to choose something and stick with it. I definitely found the Xubuntu Xfce DE the most preferable, however there is one big issue I am trying to resolve. It’s very important that I’m able to interoperate with several other workstions and servers, most of which are running Windows, and this does seem to be the one area where Xubuntu is lacking.
Now this is not to say that I haven’t identified at least seven (7!) different workarounds to “fix” the problem created by Xfce’s use of Thunar, it’s just that so often what “worked great” for someone else (for some mysterious reason) does not give the same results for others. I’d like to believe that at least one of those fixes will work for me, but I’m trying to research a little more to (at least) decide which of the workarounds to try first.
My question is this: Do you require file and directory sharing between Xubuntu and Windows machines? If so, what was the remedy for Thunar’s lack of network file sharing support that you used.
TIA for any useful advice,
sparky
leftystrat
February 5th, 2009
at 9:22am
Sparky: I have a few different ways to go about this. I’d typically get there via Konqueror, which obviously doesn’t come with XFCE.
You can also go with something like Filezilla, which does http://FTP. If you’re going Win–>Lin, you can set up a Samba share or an SSH server (making sure the workgroup name is the same). Filezilla will do SFTP with this. You can also ssh or scp (secure copy) from the command line.
You can also mount from linux or map from Windows.
There’s an SMB4k program which is supposed to browse. I haven’t had much success with it.
Some of the VNC’s have file xfer.
Hope at least one works for you.
sparky
February 6th, 2009
at 10:56am
Thanks, lefty..now I have seven more workarounds to ponder and try! ;-) I think I’ll just end up copping out, installing Ubuntu or Kubuntu, and putting up with any characteristics and behaviors that I didn’t favor about their respective DE’s. At least I can go that route without any overhead or uncertainty - and I might even just get over whatever it was that I didn’t like about Gnome or KDE. I’ll definitely pick one or the other, because from what I’ve gathered from those who’ve installed multiple DE’s in order to sample them, it is pretty chaotic what happens to your desktop when the applications from all available DE’s get mixed together in your menus. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Ubuntu For Free
June 1st, 2009
at 8:15pm
I really suggest being flexible enough to work with them in the environments they are best tailored towards. Xubuntu’s great on my machines with lowest requirements, Gnome’s firing away on my middle-weight champion, and KDE flies on my fastest. If your concern is accessing samba shares, learn how to mount them via smbfs. After all, you would take the time to figure out how to map them to a drive in Windows, right? :)