What DE you like is very much dependant on your work flow and how well you can adjust to changes.

Personally, I love KDE Plasma. It's the right amount of "bling", bells, whistles, aestetic and settings for me. Gnome feels way to "simple" and XFCE feels reliable but old.

For me, the DE is often more important than the base underneath, but I do like my rolling release. :)

I prefer KDE. It works well out of the box and offers a good amount of customization. I tried gnome for a bit and didn’t like it.

What I like about Linux is that it’s easy to switch between DE. Just try out a few ones until you find something you like. I can recommend looking into Cinnamon (the DE of Mint).

For me it's pretty important because I want my computer to feel good to use, so I'll spend quite a lot of time making sure everything's set up the way I like it. In terms of GNOME vs KDE, I'm definitely a KDE person. Not that I hate GNOME or think there's anything wrong with other people using it, I just don't get along with it personally. For me it feels like there's too much stuff in GNOME that should be part of the core DE that relies on extensions, which tend to break with updates so there's always something that's not quite working.

I honestly think DE is one of the main reasons people don’t switch from windows.

They just want to use what’s comfortable. The large majority of people would be fine with Linux alternatives, but they don’t want to deal with the different designs.

Every decade since 1999 (the year of the Linux desktop—for me) I spend a few weeks trying out all the hot new shit in terms of desktop environments. I'll switch to Gnome for a few days, get disappointed at how much I miss from KDE, and then try one of the newer ones like Cosmic. Then I'll play with the latest versions of the classics (xfce) and marvel that they still make you configure everything in a single file or they still lack basic shit that normal people want like a clipboard manager.

All the actually useful or just plain really, really nice/handy stuff is built into KDE Plasma. I've been using so many of those features for so long, I can't fathom having to go back to a world without say, being able to navigate the filesystems on all my other PCs via ssh:// (and other KIO workers).

I remember when KDE 2.0 came out and it added support for kioslaves (now called KIO Workers) and it completely changed how I viewed desktops. That was in the year 2000. How is it that literally nothing else (not other FOSS desktops nor Windows or Macs) has implemented the same feature?

It's not just the file manager, either. I can access ssh:// (or any other KIO worker) from any file dialog! The closest thing is shared drives in Windows but even that isn't nearly as flexible or feature rich (or efficient, haha).

Then there's the clipboard manager (klipper), Activities, and a control panel that lets you customize everything to extreme degrees. It even supports fractional scaling and has supported that since forever. I remember when they introduced that feature over a decade ago and it still blows my mind to this day just how forward thinking the devs were.

Monitors since forever have had a different X DPI than the Y DPI. Yet only the KDE devs bothered to both query the monitor's DDC info to figure that out and set it correctly when the desktop starts.

There's other features that drive me nuts when I don't have them! For example, the ability to disable global shortcuts on specific windows. So if I've got a remote desktop open to my work I can send Super-. (Win-.) and that'll open the Windows emoji picker in the remote desktop instead of the KDE one (locally). And it will remember this setting for that application!

I can make any window I want stay above others temporarily to take notes, enter values into the calculator, or just turn any window into something like a HUD (you can control any window's transparency on the fly!).

It even supports window tiling! A feature most people aren't aware of. Like, if you're already running KDE, why bother with a tiling window manager? You've already got it (though the keyboard shortcuts to manage the tiling layout in real time are lacking).

TL;DR: KDE Plasma is the best desktop in existence across all platforms and this is easy to prove with empircal evidence.

i prefer WMs

About 0.00001% of my worth as a human being. Wait till you venture out of the DE world and into the WM world. i3, BSPWM, Openbox. Go even farther and try Wayland with Sway, Hyprland, Niri, MangoWC. Make your own bars. Configure your own keybindings. Cuss a lot. Pull your hair out. Feel the pain. When you come out the other side you'll wonder why you ever bothered with so much bloat to begin with. And all of a sudden you might know some CSS and json.

I've used several iterations of Gnome, several iterations of KDE, Mate, Cinnamon, Hyprland, XFCE, LXDE, Fluxbox, and several other things I can't be bothered to remember. I can be productive on any of them given some time to set them up.

I do have preferences though, and I like KDE on a laptop/desktop and Gnome on a tablet. I just wish Gnome would do something about its horrid onscreen keyboard.

The DE is very important to me, and for me that is KDE. Tbh I find Gnome horrendous to use - too locked down, too uncompromising in it's design. If you like the paradigm then I imagine it's decent - certainly looks very slick. KDE on the other hand is very flexible and has been easy to tune it to exactly what I want.

But i'd say switching DE shouldn't be a "barrier". Almost all distros support multiple DEs, and Gnome or KDE is a common choice.

When is comes to VR, you can set up an alternate X11 session which only runs Steam in gamescope mode, with minimal or no desktop environment. /usr/share/xsessions/ contains defined X11 sessions; you can manually add one that literally only launches one program via a .desktop file pointing to a script (e.g. launches steam in gamescope mode with a specified resolution). Or you can install a very minimal DE such as OpenBox or i3 and set that up to autolaunch Steam in a window or big picture/gamescope mode. This way whenever you want to VR, you log out of your Gnome desktop session and then login to your "Steam" session, and almost all resources are available for Steam and games with minimal overhead. The minimal DE route is probably the better route just because of options to get out of crashes and problem solve. Either way, this route bypasses the Gnome / and general Wayland issues with VR.

… I feel like picking the right DE makes much bigger impact

For me too!

I was used to Gnome and Ubuntu style, and since I bought a Tuxedo I use their OS with KDE, and even if I love a lots of things there is often little things like gesture that are different and I sometimes miss.

i've tried gnome, cinnamon, hyprland, lxqt and whatnot... but everything i have settles on KDE

I don't care at all about DE, as long as it is not gnome. I run vanilla kde with minimal configuration. I tried many DEs through the years, tiling wm and so on. Now I just want something that works and that I don't worry about. But gnome, I don't get it. I did try it a couple years ago and my colleagues at work use it, it feels like it is hindering me. I don't like how the application switcher works, the software launcher and so on. When I use it it feels to me I'm fighting the UI in order to do very simple things.

I hate a fee things about Gnome, like how hacky it is to get any screen shot app other than Gnome's to work. Having said that, I tried KDE for a few days, then I tried to customize it to simulate my workflow I think it Gnome as much as possible. Both experiences were a complete fail. It's very hard for me to move from Gnome. Let's see what Cosmic brings to the table in 2026. It's way closer to Gnome in many ways.

As for tour question, to me the DE is 80% of the experience.

I feel like picking the right DE makes much bigger impact.

I made the same point to someone on Reddit who asked earlier today what a good distro is from swapping from macOS.

I've only been using Linux for a year or so, so I'm still very much learning how things work, but from my (limited) perspective, whether you use Ubuntu/Fedora/Arch etc... is essentially meaningless to a new user. But how you interact with it isn't.

Personally, I tried Mint first because that's the default answer, and while Cinnamon is fine, I find it too restrictive. Which makes GNOME a no-gno for me. I've tried GNOME, and I hate it. I've landed on Plasma, and I like Plasma.

And crucially, I can use Plasma on my Kubuntu machines, my old MacBook that's now running Arch(btw), and my M1 Mac mini that's running Asahi, and the experience is pretty much the same for what I do. The only difference is the command I use to update my software in Konsole.

It's very important. I use KDE. Historically I've used xfce and lxde. I want something with sane defaults that will let me tweak things. I very much don't want something that wants to limit you by pretending you're on a touch device when you're on mouse and keyboard, or insists it knows better than you what you want

Gnome get's up and out of my way. 9/10.

My priority is speed. I don't want a beautiful but slow DE, especially since the PCs I install linux on are usually older. That's why I usually just run openbox most of the time.

DE completely depends on your workflow. The way you do things directly impacts what DEs you'll like and which ones you won't.

I'm with you on KDE: I respect it and it clearly seems to be one of the most feature-rich DEs, but I've had trouble actually using it regularly.

I have been using Cosmic DE for the last 6 months or so. I love it because it seamlessly blends tiled and non-tiled workspaces in an effective way. Part of me really enjoys the simplicity of things like i3, but part of me just wants floating windows. It fully depends on what I'm working on and sometimes just my mood, so for me, the seamless blending in Cosmic has felt perfect.

But how important is DE? Tbh I think it is the most important part of a setup, because you interact with it more than any other piece of the system.

Very important. I spend a lot of time at my computer and my desktop environment is like my home. I want it to look in a way that I find aesthetically pleasing and it mustn't try to force me to change the way I work because some UX designer decided that their way was much better than everybody else's. Perhaps you can guess where this is going :D but I've tried to like Gnome 3 since it was first announced. I've given it multiple chances but it just doesn't work for me. It feels like they're going down the same road as all "modern" UIs, where only the most basic features are visible and everything else is either dumped into the "advanced" category or removed entirely. On the other hand, I have a coworker who only uses his PC like a tool, and he thinks Gnome is the best DE ever and can't understand why anyone would want something else.

Currently I use KDE and I'm pretty happy with it. It's highly configurable, and I've made it look and feel the way I want. I used mainly Xfce for a long time but now I prefer KDE.

GNOME and KDE have large philosophical differences and those show when you use them. I really like KDE and the way I can turn it into a tiling window manager.

Comparing a full DE to a WM is a massive difference. DEs have batteries included, you don't need to worry about which notification daemon to use, which tool can do power management or what renders your task bar. You just get every tool and it works.

I used to use i3, then migrated to sway, but the finding of tools that do X or Y got annoying after a while. In KDE everything just works together with no or minimal configuration and I get more features more easily.

Many people equate the DE with the distro they tried it on. So yeah, DE is a huge factor. There's a lot of them out there and too many people think you have to switch distribution to try a new one.

If you don't like KDE, can't you just stay on Gnome?

I've changed DE multiple times, most of them are fine. KDE is a bit obtuse but it's ultimately what I settled on because I want good built-in themes. If KDE didn't exist I'd go with Xfce, followed by LXQt (never tried LXQt though).

In terms of how important a DE is, I think picking the right distro is more important. This basically means staying away from anything Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based because in my experience those are the least stable.

I don’t think I will ever be able to use anything but KDE. Tried every last one of them and this is the only one that clicked for me. On the steam frame, your interaction with KDE shouldn’t be significant since you’re mainly using this thing to play your games. So, I wouldn’t worry about it too much if I were you.

Gnome is soooo annoying. You can't customize anything without "tweaks" that barely work.

I definitely prefer the customization of KDE.

I usually see people discussing distros but I feel like picking the right DE makes much bigger impact.

Yeah I often wonder about this too. I think that the package manager is another major factor. But I think I might be happy with any distro running KDE. I've gotta get outside my Debian bubble to see.

Gnome is where the heart is for me! It's just so customizable, the extension framework is such a cool concept. And yes, I know, KDE has a lot of bells and whistles, and I think think that's why I dislike it. It's cluttered, Gnome is simple. I like the polish and the smoothness, KDE is nice for people who want more but I'm happy with less. Thanks for coming to my TED talk!

Pretty?

In my mind, I equate Gnome with OS X, while KDE is more like Windows.

I can use both competently, but I prefer KDE. Back when I used Ubuntu, I'd always use Kubuntu.

Very critical. GNOME and KDE have two very different UX paradigms.

Usually people used to Windows opt for KDE, and Mac or older Ubuntu users opt for GNOME.

The thing is though, a golden standard DE can easily be setup to act as both. XFCE is so customizable that I've seen both DE types setup as UNIX like or Windows like workflow.

I'm not sure if KDE or GNOME can do the same because I'm pretty sure they focus on a target audience.

What are your issues with KDE exactly? I always hated GNOME's lack of standard window buttons and handling multiple windows in a Mac like fashion. Also the app menu which gives me flashbacks of ChromeOS.

I have seen people already say similar, but felt like chiming in.

The underlying djstro chosen matters less than the desktop environment or lack thereof. Well, sure you want to pick a district that aligns with your ideals and philosophies. However, as a lot of windows users delve into using Linux they see the distro as what decides the look (and feel) of their new OS.

While many learn about different DEs through different distros, I do think that the DE matters more for workflow for average users.

That being said, I jumped from windows to Arch. I didn't want to be behind on updates. I also am a tinkerer by nature. And I am in the IT industry, have been for more than a decade. So Arch felt right ti me. So I have tried many DE and always go back to KDE. I want war over any being "better." That's a personal choice sincerely.

Hyprland was fun to tinker with, and it can be pretty. But I dont care about ricing as much as many of the stereotypical Arch users.

I used to feel the same. At some point I put some time into setting up KDE how I wanted it and then I just kinda kept using it. Still use it today. I do find the editing tools of the toolbars etc to be extremely chaotic. But once that's in place it's actually nicer than Gnome imo

Like others have said, it's very dependent on work flows and personal preference.

I dislike the MacOS interface. Gnome and its derivatives aren't that, but it borrows enough design cues that I don't find it intuitive. (Though I recognize why other people do find it intuitive.)

Most other DEs jive with me. I can effortlessly switch between Plasma or XFCE. I like Enlightenment and LXQT, but generally don't go for them first. Cinnamon is fine, but I like most others more.

I like to play with things. I'll get my hands on a beat-up old laptop, try a few distros and desktop environments on it, then find it a new home. Linux makes it great to experiment like that.

Still to this day I switch DEs/WMs every so often to try and find that right "fit". I think that's the biggest minor issue with Linux right now. IMHO there's not a single perfect DE. I like KDE, everything just works, BUT how workspaces/virtual desktops work with multiple monitors is an absolute pain. Yes I'm aware with the update coming this month it'll improve slightly but all I want from it is to have each monitor have it's own set of dedicated workspaces like every other WM has. KDE just won't do that regardless of the fact it's been asked for for like 20 years now.

So I constantly end up switching. Niri, Hyprland, Plasma, whatever. None of them feel perfect and they all have their deal breaker quirks that I tolerate for awhile until I just can't and end up switching. Like for example on Niri with some games when scrolling through windows and going back to the game it doesn't pick up the mouse immediately so you have to do a quick switch to either another window and back or another workspace and back. similar issue with Hyprland except it's with the keyboard instead of the mouse. Sway has similar issues. Hyprland I don't like how workspaces work with multiple monitors either.

This is just the nature of Linux overall. sometimes you just have to tolerate the minor issues for the overall better performance/features. and it doesn't just apply to DEs/WMs. there's rarely anything on Linux that is the total package and 100% everything you want. Take terminals for example. Alacritty is great, fast, responsive...doesn't do images. Kitty is awesome with images, gpu stuff, fast, smooth...doesn't work great with tmux/multiplexers cause the dev hates them. or how about editors? DOOM Emacs has all the features I could ever want...slow as shit on startup. Lazyvim is fantastic with all the plugins available...absolute pain in the ass to get working 100% on my distro NixOS. I could go on and on. none of these are absolute dealbreakers just minor annoyances that make me constantly switch things.

So I completely 100% hear you. you like GNOME, it's your preferred DE, BUT the potential issues with Steam Frame and VR are a deal breaker. And those things work on KDE BUT you're just not happy with how KDE works overall. I get it man. I'm not a fan of GNOME but I get it. I mean give hyprland a shot but try it out with the defaults first before you invest too much time into configuring it and then finding there's like one or two things that just won't work. I've done that before. spent hours configuring like Sway or something to my liking and then finding out one particular application just doesn't play well with it. It's frustrating. Good luck.

After 2y on Linux I can say with full confidence that switching from GNOME to KDE (for me) is a bigger barrier than switching from Windows to Linux ever was.

Huh?

How's that a bigger barrier?

You install it, you select it from your login("display") manager on next login, et viola, you're using it... and you still have access to all your prior installed programs too. No backup required, no complete operating system install, no great leap of learning an entirely different operating system paradigm, no reading new software licenses... it's just install it, and log in to it.

How important is a DE to you?

None at all.

Xmonad's been my fave since around 2007-2008ish.

Tried dozens of other window managers. [Special honourable mention to herbstluftwm.]

Tried over half the desktop environments too.

Much more nice without unnecessary clutter and resource wastage and faff of a desktop environment, and just a window manager.

And, as for trying new DE/WM, and needing to log out and back in to try them... even that hurdle can be eliminated. ;) There be ways to switch them without losing everything you're currently running. https://codeberg.org/Digit/wminizer

I’m also trying to enjoy KDE as everyone is praising it and Gnome lacks a tiny bit of customization.

But I really prefer Gnome and feel really different than everyone on Lemmy.

So yeah a DE is more important than the distro to me.

Yeah - I've even seen people recommend switching distros just because another has a different default DE without understanding that most distros let you install multiple DEs...

The differences between distros aren't as big as people make them out to be*. Mostly just installer, how packages are managed, what versions of packages you get, etc.

• Unless you're on an "immutable" distro in which case - yeah - shit is different.

I think for most people and normal users, its the most important part of a system.

I'm a software engineer and I've been using only i3wm and sway for the past 3 years. I don't really need a DE. But when I do (very,very rarely) I always prefer Xfce, and after that, Plasma.

Functionally, not really. I can get my work done on anything from FVWM to GNOME without a hitch.

Aesthetically, very much. The Chicago95 theme sparks joy and makes work just a bit more enjoyable. KDE and GNOME might have more creature comforts, but I will happily tolerate XFCE because it works well with Chicago95. I don't even do fresh installs anymore because of the time it takes for me to configure the visual style just right. I'll instead image from an install I've prepared on a VM.