Distro-hoppers anonymous

Pirx · 2025-04-11 20:35:43

Colonel Panic wrote:

To be frank it's the same old story - it works well but looks very retro...

That's the point of LXQT/XFCE/MATE. For a more modern look you should try KDE version or install Budgie desktop. TBH, BunsenLabs looks even more retro (the whole DE, but Conky is the most retro thing you can have on your desktop) and I don't have a problem with it. I use my phone a lot and at work I use Windows 11. I like my home computer to look a bit old-school.

Colonel Panic wrote:

...and I also dislike the logo on the Start button.

Difficult to argue here... I've never really tried LXQT, but it's worth trying to right click on the icon. It may be possible to change it (it is in many DEs).

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-11 20:55:01)

Colonel Panic · 2025-04-12 09:04:48

Pirx wrote:

That's the point of LXQT/XFCE/MATE. For a more modern look you should try KDE version or install Budgie desktop. TBH, BunsenLabs looks even more retro (the whole DE, but Conky is the most retro thing you can have on your desktop) and I don't have a problem with it. I use my phone a lot and at work I use Windows 11. I like my home computer to look a bit old-school.

Thanks for replying.

It looks worse in the Sparky incarnation because all the colours (especially the wallpaper) are so dull; it's like something from the late 90s, or the DOS palate. I’ve used LXQT in other distros (like MX, where I installed it myself) and not had the same problem.

LXQT is very lightweight, that's one big advantage it has over KDE. I quite like Conky and you can easily change the fonts etc. to make it look smarter; there's even a program (Conky Manager) that does it for you.

Budgie's not bad (I use it when I install Ultramarine). Likewise Mate; I’m using now (I’m posting from Debian Stable with Mate installed). The only thing none of them have that XFce, Fluxbox and Openbox all have is the ability to list all the windows that are currently open by clicking on the desktop.

Pirx wrote:

Difficult to argue here... I've never really tried LXQT, but it's worth trying to right click on the icon. It may be possible to change it (it is in many DEs).

Yeah, I suppose some people must like it.

It's a pity because Sparky is, under the surface, a very well worked out distro. I suspect the people behind it are all software engineers (it comes from Poland), and aesthetics has taken a back seat.

Last edited by Colonel Panic (2025-04-12 10:39:50)

Pirx · 2025-04-12 10:39:06

Colonel Panic wrote:

It looks worse in the Sparky incarnation because all the colours (especially the wallpaper) are so dull...

Does anyone use default wallpaper and settings?

Colonel Panic wrote:

LXQT is very lightweight, that's one big advantage it has over KDE.

There is also Sparky Minimal GUI version. It uses openbox and tint.

Colonel Panic wrote:

I quite like Conky and you can easily change the fonts etc. to make it look smarter; there's even a program (Conky Manager) that does it for you.

The whole idea is very retro. To have all this text and numbers on the desktop.

Colonel Panic wrote:

It's a pity because Sparky is, under the surface, a very well worked out distro. I suspect the people behind it are all software engineers (it comes from Poland), and aesthetics has taken a back seat.

The've left aesthetics for the users. I've never used any distro with default settings.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-12 10:40:12)

Colonel Panic · 2025-04-12 18:43:22

Thanks for replying, but I largely disagree. I'm in another Polish distro right now - Mabox, a Manjaro respin - and I haven't either had or wanted to change any of the settings at all, not even the wallpaper; it looks good straight out of the box. It also uses Conky for system info.

It shows what can be done if the devs make the appearance of their distro a priority (and I'm not saying it's the only one).

https://maboxlinux.org/

Last edited by Colonel Panic (2025-04-12 18:54:38)

Pirx · 2025-04-12 20:13:50

I don't expect a distro to look good out of the box. I always change it and my desktops look more or less the same no matter what distro I'm using at the moment. Fedora, Solus, Porteus, Mint, Sparky, Peppermint, wattOS, BunsenLabs - they all looked the same on my laptops. The only one that looked different was Puppy Linux, but that was ages ago.

Colonel Panic wrote:

It shows what can be done if the devs make the appearance of their distro a priority (and I'm not saying it's the only one).
https://maboxlinux.org/

Well, I had a look at the screenshots and it doesn't look good at all, IMHO. Too inconsistent, messy and a bit amateurish. And very old-fashioned, as well.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-12 20:30:30)

napcok · 2025-04-13 10:12:12

Pirx wrote:

I don't expect a distro to look good out of the box. I always change it and my desktops look more or less the same no matter what distro I'm using at the moment. Fedora, Solus, Porteus, Mint, Sparky, Peppermint, wattOS, BunsenLabs - they all looked the same on my laptops. The only one that looked different was Puppy Linux, but that was ages ago.
Colonel Panic wrote:
It shows what can be done if the devs make the appearance of their distro a priority (and I'm not saying it's the only one).
https://maboxlinux.org/
Well, I had a look at the screenshots and it doesn't look good at all, IMHO. Too inconsistent, messy and a bit amateurish. And very old-fashioned, as well.
https://maboxlinux.org/wp-content/uploa … panels.jpg

Thanks for reminding me that I need to replace the 4-year-old screenshots on the site. I'll do it soon - after the new release

Pirx · 2025-04-13 12:05:42

Just remember that I don't mind how the system looks out of the box, if it can be easily customized (if it can't then we have a problem). I was just pointing to the Sparky vs Mabox comparison. I simply disagree that one of them looks modern and the other looks retro. IMO, they are both in the same category. Of course, in case of Mabox, I base my opinion on the screenshots only.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-13 12:09:22)

DeepDayze · 2025-04-13 14:11:01

napcok wrote:

Pirx wrote:
I don't expect a distro to look good out of the box. I always change it and my desktops look more or less the same no matter what distro I'm using at the moment. Fedora, Solus, Porteus, Mint, Sparky, Peppermint, wattOS, BunsenLabs - they all looked the same on my laptops. The only one that looked different was Puppy Linux, but that was ages ago.
Colonel Panic wrote:
It shows what can be done if the devs make the appearance of their distro a priority (and I'm not saying it's the only one).
https://maboxlinux.org/
Well, I had a look at the screenshots and it doesn't look good at all, IMHO. Too inconsistent, messy and a bit amateurish. And very old-fashioned, as well.
https://maboxlinux.org/wp-content/uploa … panels.jpg
Thanks for reminding me that I need to replace the 4-year-old screenshots on the site. I'll do it soon - after the new release

That's a great idea to show prospective users of your distro of how it would look right out of the box, especially if there's been recent updates to theming for example.

Colonel Panic · 2025-04-14 18:59:58

Pirx wrote:

Just remember that I don't mind how the system looks out of the box, if it can be easily customized (if it can't then we have a problem). I was just pointing to the Sparky vs Mabox comparison. I simply disagree that one of them looks modern and the other looks retro. IMO, they are both in the same category. Of course, in case of Mabox, I base my opinion on the screenshots only.

Yes, and it's gotten better since that screenshot (21); it's on 23 now.

I suppose there's "good" retro and "bad" retro. Everyone knows that antiX looks a bit retro but those who use it put up with that because of its low demands on system resources compared to, say, a Gnome- or KDE Plasma-based distro like Fedora (whose new release is imminent by the way).

Sparky used to have a variant which was themed to look like CDE (NsCDE), and that looked about 25 years out of date (like the original CDE) but it worked well. I suppose there weren't enough takers for the devs to think it was worth their while continuing with it.

https://sparkylinux.org/nscde

Last edited by Colonel Panic (2025-04-14 19:13:48)

Pirx · 2025-04-14 20:06:15

Colonel Panic wrote:

...KDE Plasma-based distro like Fedora...

Fedora is not a Plasma-based distro. I tried Fedora around a month ago and it was... the LXDE flavour. Does it mean that Fedora is a "retro" distribution? Absolutely not. The same with Sparky. When you choose LXQT, you shouldn't be surprised that it looks old-school. If you want a modern look, choose KDE. That applies to any distro. I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand that a DE is not a distribution. It's just one element of a distribution.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-04-14 20:21:41

Fedora's official "Workstation" ISO images are GNOME based but they do also offer official KDE images as well:

https://fedoraproject.org/kde/

I think any other desktops are considered community spins.

Pirx · 2025-04-14 20:44:19

So? They are still included on Fedora's official website and are considered another way to use Fedora. No one's saying that Fedora XFCE is not Fedora. No one comes to a conclusion that Fedora is a retro distribution just because the LXDE spin exists and is mentioned on Fedora's website.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-14 20:45:59)

Pirx · 2025-04-14 21:29:05

There are two main distribution of Sparky Linux - stable and semi-rolling. XFCE stable and Minimal GUI stable look different, but are, in fact, the same system. Minimal GUI stable and Minimal GUI semi-rolling look identical, but are two different systems.

Things are even more complicated with Puppy Linux. Different puppies may look the same, but often there are based on completely different systems. In case of Sparky the main base is still Debian (so the package manager and all administration tools are the same). In case of Puppy you can have Slackware-based Puppy, Ubuntu-based Puppy, Debian-based Puppy...

I know. I'm explaining the obvious stuff, but I'm really surprised by some posts in this topic. Default wallpaper and colour scheme are the most important elements of a distribution? Really?

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-14 21:30:04)

Sector11 · 2025-04-15 01:29:08

And I have never heard of a distro called Hoppers Anonymous.

OK OK I'll leave, just point the way to the door.

greenjeans · 2025-04-15 02:48:40

You post this:

Pirx wrote:

I know. I'm explaining the obvious stuff, but I'm really surprised by some posts in this topic. Default wallpaper and colour scheme are the most important elements of a distribution? Really?

But on the previous page in this thread, you post this:

I base my opinion on the screenshots only.

Getting harder to take your opinion seriously.

Pirx · 2025-04-15 07:29:39

greenjeans wrote:

You post this:
But on the previous page in this thread, you post this:
I base my opinion on the screenshots only.

Yes, my opinion about the default look in Mabox. It was an answer to the claim that Sparky looks bad out of the box while Mabox is a beauty. I'm not judging Mabox as a whole. Like I said before, the default wallpaper and colour scheme are not things you should base your opinion about a distribution on. And sorry, it's not my fault that the screenshots on the website are four years old.

greenjeans wrote:

Getting harder to take your opinion seriously.

Getting harder to take this forum seriously when users are twisting other peoples' words, posting stuff like "KDE Plasma-based distro like Fedora" or talking about the default wallpaper like it's something important.

And what know? Are you gonna ask me why I'm here if I don't like it? Will you advise me that I'm free to leave? Or is it gonna be something else?

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-15 07:30:45)

Colonel Panic · 2025-04-15 07:53:42

Pirx wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:
...KDE Plasma-based distro like Fedora...
Fedora is not a Plasma-based distro. I tried Fedora around a month ago and it was... the LXDE flavour. Does it mean that Fedora is a "retro" distribution? Absolutely not. The same with Sparky. When you choose LXQT, you shouldn't be surprised that it looks old-school. If you want a modern look, choose KDE. That applies to any distro. I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand that a DE is not a distribution. It's just one element of a distribution.

I said Gnome- or KDE Plasma- based, referring to the two together. This is valid because the argument I was trying to make was about resource usage, and both are heavy on system resources compared to, say, XFce or LXQT.

Hope that helps.

Last edited by Colonel Panic (2025-04-15 07:56:24)

Pirx · 2025-04-15 07:59:47

Colonel Panic wrote:

Hope that helps.

No, it doesn't. Fedora is not Gnome-based or KDE Plasma-based. Mint is not Cinnamon-based and Lubuntu is not LXQT-based.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-15 08:13:43)

Colonel Panic · 2025-04-15 09:59:57

Pirx wrote:

No, it doesn't. Fedora is not Gnome-based or KDE Plasma-based. Mint is not Cinnamon-based and Lubuntu is not LXQT-based.

Why is it then that when Fedora releases a beta, it's available in Gnome only, and then when an official release is made it's issued in all its various spins?

Clearly Gnome enjoys a status within the Fedora camp that the other DEs don't; the same is true of Mint and Cinnamon (there is also an XFce version of Mint).

Last edited by Colonel Panic (2025-04-15 10:03:33)

Pirx · 2025-04-15 10:28:42

They enjoy status of the main DEs, but you can't say that Fedora is Gnome-based or Mint is Cinnamon-based. Firefox ESR enjoys status of the default browser in Debian, but you can't say that Debian is Firefox ESR-based.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-04-15 10:51:54)

#2581 2025-04-11 20:35:43

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2582 2025-04-12 09:04:48

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2583 2025-04-12 10:39:06

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2584 2025-04-12 18:43:22

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2585 2025-04-12 20:13:50

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2586 2025-04-13 10:12:12

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2587 2025-04-13 12:05:42

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2588 2025-04-13 14:11:01

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2589 2025-04-14 18:59:58

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2590 2025-04-14 20:06:15

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2591 2025-04-14 20:21:41

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2592 2025-04-14 20:44:19

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2593 2025-04-14 21:29:05

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2594 2025-04-15 01:29:08

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2595 2025-04-15 02:48:40

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2596 2025-04-15 07:29:39

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2597 2025-04-15 07:53:42

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2598 2025-04-15 07:59:47

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2599 2025-04-15 09:59:57

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

#2600 2025-04-15 10:28:42

Re: Distro-hoppers anonymous

Board footer