Which desktop enviroment do you prefer?

[iago]

Like what? I've used Window Maker, awesome, all of those. I fail to see how those are superior to gnome, KDE, or even windows. Your start menu has options for every important application, search features, help, startup, etc. Your taskbar allows you to easily switch between open applications. Your system tray allows you to easily check the time, and work with applications that use it.

This is a world where a faster computer comes out everyday, and becomes more affordable everyday. How does it make sense to use inferior and "lightweight" enviroments?

I disagree that it's inferior, that isn't at all what the original poster said. He specifically said that it's NOT about being "lightweight".

I use it because it's far faster than the alternatives, both in terms of how fast it runs and in terms of how long it takes me to do things. I'm terrible at sorting through icons or even words. I absolutely hate visual file managers that don't let me type in the directory myself (although that's tangential). When I'm computing, I want a simple, quick interface that I don't have to touch, generally, but that just manages my windows in a nice, clean way. That's why I use WindowMaker.

[nslay]

This is a world where a faster computer comes out everyday, and becomes more affordable everyday. How does it make sense to use inferior and "lightweight" enviroments?

Nothing to do with the discussion, but here's my translation of this quote...
Translation:
It's okay to improperly design and implement software to get to market faster because computer memory is large, and processors fast.

Aside, all of you misunderstand what is meant by lightweight...Sure, WindowMaker doesn't need tons of memory or processor power to run.  It also doesn't need hundreds upon hundreds of dependencies.  When you use Ubuntu or similar, you don't see all those hundreds of useless libraries and programs that are needed to make the magic of KDE and Gnome work do you?  It's like watching a shiny car being built...except it is built out of beer cans, broken glass, used furniture, and other assorted garbage only to be glossed over with a shiny cool body.  But then, your harddrive is so big...so what if your software is made of useless space-consuming junk?  As long as it looks good right?

[Hitmen]

If it looks good, has no adverse effects on performance, doesn't eat up enough hard drive space to matter, and the user likes it, why do you care if they use it? For some people start menu + task bar + system tray is always going to be the best "windowing paradigm."

WindowMaker is awesome though, <3 iago for suggesting things back when I was running linux

[Sidoh]

This is a world where a faster computer comes out everyday, and becomes more affordable everyday. How does it make sense to use inferior and "lightweight" enviroments?

Nothing to do with the discussion, but here's my translation of this quote...
Translation:
It's okay to improperly design and implement software to get to market faster because computer memory is large, and processors fast.

Aside, all of you misunderstand what is meant by lightweight...Sure, WindowMaker doesn't need tons of memory or processor power to run.  It also doesn't need hundreds upon hundreds of dependencies.  When you use Ubuntu or similar, you don't see all those hundreds of useless libraries and programs that are needed to make the magic of KDE and Gnome work do you?  It's like watching a shiny car being built...except it is built out of beer cans, broken glass, used furniture, and other assorted garbage only to be glossed over with a shiny cool body.  But then, your harddrive is so big...so what if your software is made of useless space-consuming junk?  As long as it looks good right?

I like reading your posts, nslay, but I'm not sure I agree with this one.

If it works and I don't notice any performance hits for using it (I don't), why does it matter?  I'm going to use the one that I find the most functional or that's most convenient for me to use.  Gnome may be bulkier than a number of other desktop environments, but it just doesn't bother me if I don't notice it.  I'm not going to use something for performance reasons if the difference is negligible (I've tried other desktop environments.  there isn't a difference).

[nslay]

If it looks good, has no adverse effects on performance, doesn't eat up enough hard drive space to matter, and the user likes it, why do you care if they use it? For some people start menu + task bar + system tray is always going to be the best "windowing paradigm."

WindowMaker is awesome though, <3 iago for suggesting things back when I was running linux

I don't care what people use.  But I do care about what I install on my own system, and I do care how the software I use is designed.  I again reflect on the atrocity of modern software design:

It's okay to improperly design and implement software, memory is large and processors cheap.

I also would like to note that none of my original post had anything to do with advocating WindowMaker solely because it is lightweight, and had everything to do with advocating WindowMaker because it is easy to use and allows me to work more efficiently.  Aside, nobody here understood what I meant by "lightweight" anyhow.  Aside of the fact that I absolutely despise watching nameless library/program being installed and consuming space as well as potentially opening gaping security holes on my system, FreeBSD ports primarily compiles its software.  It takes about 2 days for a modern system to compile KDE, and for comparison, about 2 hours to compile all 200 packages and dependencies for Xorg.

[Sidoh]

I don't care what people use.  But I do care about what I install on my own system, and I do care how the software I use is designed.  I again reflect on the atrocity of modern software design:

It's okay to improperly design and implement software, memory is large and processors cheap.

Define improperly.  How much of that is subjective?  I know what you're getting at, but I don't think you're being fair.  I agree that Gnome, Xorg, etc could be designed better, but almost all things share that same property.  I realize you're saying WindowMaker avoids this accusation because the poor design it contains is negligible/not there, but, again, I think you need to be more specific.

I also would like to note that none of my original post had anything to do with advocating WindowMaker solely because it is lightweight, and had everything to do with advocating WindowMaker because it is easy to use and allows me to work more efficiently.  Aside, nobody here understood what I meant by "lightweight" anyhow.  Aside of the fact that I absolutely despise watching nameless library/program being installed and consuming space as well as potentially opening gaping security holes on my system, FreeBSD ports primarily compiles its software.  It takes about 2 days for a modern system to compile KDE, and for comparison, about 2 hours to compile all 200 packages and dependencies for Xorg.

"lightweight" isn't exactly a precise word to use in this context.  I think you probably should have been more specific.  If you were and I missed it, sorry.  I'm not prepared to involve myself in a long, drawn out debate in this matter.  I just don't care enough.