Linux

Very important.

At this stage, I see no reason to use anything other than KDE.

When going over to Linux from Windows full time I landed on Gnome. Despite KDE being superficially like Windows, Gnome keyboard shortcuts are closer to what I’m used to, the defaults feel more sane to me, and the DE gets out of my way faster when in the terminal. I really want to like KDE but it hasn’t clicked for me.

One of the early irritants was way back in the KDE v1 days- the injection of the letter ’K’ in the app names - it harkens back to frat house level shenanigans (at least in the college I attended, except they liked the letter ’Q’). It hasn’t felt right with me.

Dash to panel and a couple of other extensions fixes the main gripes I have with Gnome DE. After testing Cosmic recently I am pretty close to that with my current configuration, and will likely try a transition that DE once it stabilizes.

I can technically manage in any DE generally - heck, I ran CDE on Digital OpenVMS back in the day and it did the job then. It a tool. The terminal is still where things happen for me.

Edits: reformatting the wall of text, added nuance.

Interface matters a ton, of course. But once you switch between a few it gets easier, even if you retain your preferences.

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

I currently use KDE Plasma, Cinnamon and LXQt on three different computers. On most DEs I can manage myself just well. I never liked GNOME post 2. I have recently used MATE, LXDE and Xfce

Distro is more an alignment of philosophy between you and the distro. Something slowly updated but really stable? Debian. Something cutting edge, but with lots of guides? Arch, etc. etc.

Any of them can pretty much run any shell, DE or WM, and as that's what you spend the most of the time interacting with, that's a more personal touch point. The distro is really just the package manager that you regularly interact with, and thats easy enough to hide behind something like topgrade.

I have only used Sway for a few years and anything else feels bloated and slow to use to me now. I spent a long time tweaking to get it how I wanted both in terms of add ons and config, then setting the keyboard shortcuts that work for me. I even have a bunch of them configured on my actual keyboard on layers to make them even easier to activate.

Its worth the investment for me as its now transparent to my workflow. I run the same config across all my machines and its been a stable config for the longest time. Long term stability is the key for me.

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

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'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.

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'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.

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 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).

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.

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.

i prefer WMs

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

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.

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 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've been using Linux for considerably longer, and I started off with things like BB4Win (meant to mimic the Blackbox window manager but on Windows) before I switched, so I was constantly trying different UI experiences and seeking out more customization options even before moving to Linux. Part of the Winamp, "skin all the things," generation. Switching DEs is a non-issue these days but I have my preferences. I loved old Gnome 2 so I found Cinnamon nice enough. xfce too. I don't dislike current Gnome but I've settled in to KDE these day. I lived in Xmonad for a while so I'll also happily take any TWM that preferably isn't it's own hobby project to configure and maintain.

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.

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.

… 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 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.

The importance of choosing the right DE is quite low for me because, with daily use, I can get accustomed to any new environment. It’s uncomfortable at first, but it can be done and, eventually, it grows on me.

In my case, I'm used to window managers because they improve my current workflow; however, the most intuitive DE for me is GNOME. I love its gestures, aesthetics, and functionality.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.