Reply to Message

I try new stuff all the time. I tried Ubuntu Unity not too long ago. I tried KDE 2, 3, and also 4 when it was new, and 4 again when it was supposedly stable. I've tried every major GNOME version since the late '90s. I've tried several versions of XFCE. I've used every version of MS Windows from 3.11 up to 7, at least a little bit, with the sole exception of MS WinNT 3.5 -- some of them quite a lot more than a little bit. I've used the OS on pre-Mac Apples, I've used classic MacOS, and MacOS X -- on at least one occasion in a professional capacity. Back in the '80s, I used an Atari OS, Commodores of various vintages, several DOS versions, and probably half a dozen other OSes as well, including the DOS Shell interface. In my use of MS Windows, I've used WindowBlinds and LiteStep and one or two other alternate environments for more modern MS Windows systems as far back as the late '90s.

In terms of my preferences for environments on Unix-like systems, they have followed a pretty clear path, from KDE to IceWM to Fluxbox to WindowMaker to Sawfish to AHWM to i3, with brief diversions when trying out other stuff, over a period of quite a few years now. The unifying principles in my steady migration along this path are lightweight software, friendly licensing, flexibility, good defaults, easy management and customization, stability, lack of stupidity that gets in my way, optimal use of screen real estate, and an interface that helps me maximize my efficiency and productivity.

. . .

1. keyboard shortcuts

This is, obviously, important for my purposes.

2. clean in look and feel

Anyone who thinks GNOME, Unity, MS Windows, MacOS, KDE, or XFCE is a dominant player in this realm has not used most of what I have used.

3. access to applications, files, et cetera

Once one gets used to them, tools like a good terminal emulator and a text-driven menu that has no physical presence on the screen when it is not being used -- like Unity's HUD or the Suckless project's dmenu -- provide far faster, easier, and more predictable access to such resources than the things people have come to expect from their heavyweight desktop environments.

4. file manager

There's nothing more "powerful" and extensible as a file manager than the command line and all the tools provided there. As for user friendliness, well, I guess it depends on the user.

5. application and media awareness

What the heck does that mean?

6. system tray

I loathe the traditional "system tray". No thank you.

7. hardware awareness

This is probably the big downside of the toolset I use, but it's not not that big, and there are ways to deal with it -- workarounds and separate applications that can be installed to deal with some of it. It's not ideal, but I'm unwilling to give up the advantages of the way I do things to get this advantage when my workarounds actually work for my purposes.

8. software management

That's key to any OS, and not particularly specific to the desktop environment, so I think it's misplaced by being included in this list. Yes, I make sure I have good software management tools. No, I don't see what this has to do with desktop environment selection.

9. themes

I think the real key here is not "themes". It's simple customization. That might include themes in some cases. In other cases, "themes" might not have any relevant meaning at all. Point 9 here assumes far too much about other people having exactly the same preferences as you, and choosing the same types of desktop environments as you, which is silly.

10. effects

What the heck does that mean?

. . .

Obviously, I answered "other" on that poll. This is my take. Your mileage may vary.