XFCE is good, but it is outdated.
The current version is 4.20, and the interface is still almost the same as it was 20 years ago.
The so-called Unix philosophy may only apply at the level of system programming. It is not suitable as a guideline for graphical environments built on top of an operating system kernel.
Hot take: XFCE can only be a fallback when other desktops cannot be used properly, because it can still run well without GPU acceleration. Otherwise, this desktop would have been outdated long ago. If possible, you should use the KDE or GNOME desktop. Whenever I see people recommend users anything outside these two desktops, I think they are developers who do not treat users as users, but assume everyone is a kernel hacker. Either that, or boomer mentality is acting up and leaning on seniority.
Tell those anti-Systemd people who keep shouting that Linux should stick to the “Unix philosophy” to use FreeBSD, and they will shut up immediately. After all, in an environment where even graphics drivers can easily have problems, they might not even be able to get online to complain. As for those who can get past this barrier? They will quietly use the system.
If you use a BSD system in pursuit of simplicity, you will also face the fact that desktop environments are influenced by Linux.
BSD’s advantage over Linux is that the system is designed as a complete whole, with system software and third-party software well separated. FreeBSD keeps system configuration files and user configuration files separate; one is /etc, the other is /etc/usr/local/. And FreeBSD’s init has not changed from the past to the present.
This insistence on traditional values of course affects FreeBSD’s mainstream desktop choices. According to a 2022 poll, Preferred DE of the FreeBSD users, the mainstream desktops, aside from KDE Plasma, are XFCE. GNOME does not even rank here.
Some people may be perfectly happy using XFCE. It indeed does not rely so much on the latest Linux technologies, so it can be used across Unix-like systems. There are certainly still many people in the Linux community who prefer XFCE.
But for a user who did not live through the old era, XFCE just looks extremely ugly and outdated. Mate, Cinnamon, and LXDE are not much better. As for the design after GNOME 40, it is too radical. It feels like only zoomers who have had more exposure to mobile devices would like it.
If you dislike all these desktops and want to use a WM? Then it cannot really be called a desktop at all. You cannot say modern people have become decadent, can you, boomer? Nobody can really use a WM comfortably, even if they only use a browser to get online. Desktop functionality is missing here and there, so you install a bunch of independent little tools to fill the gaps. In the end, aren’t you just reinventing the wheel?
The only X11 desktop heavyweight that can look modern while preserving the multifunctionality of a traditional desktop is still KDE Plasma 6. Some people may wonder: did I not install BSD in pursuit of a simple system? Would installing such a huge package of a desktop like KDE not seem to violate the philosophy? I think some people’s obsession with KISS has already reached a pathological level. They always criticize modern desktops as “bloated”, but modern desktops have long since stopped being made from such simple components. They have many services that need to run in order to provide users with a good experience. They have to handle changes across all kinds of different monitor parameters without making users manually write xorg.conf, and that inevitably increases complexity. Otherwise, just use tty.
In short, the point is that we cannot look at how desktop graphical environments should be designed from a developer’s perspective. We need to care more about ordinary users.
