LXQt?
  • lxlelxle
    PMPosts: 2,656
    I absolutely hate the panel and lack of options in lxqt among other things.
  • NixcatNixcat
    PMPosts: 3
    i agree with LXLE keep it so it usable in most hardware. KLS Keep Light Simple
  • rfry85rfry85
    PMPosts: 210
    It's not ready for prime time yet. But will it ever have the options regular LXDE does?
  • eugen_beugen_b
    PMPosts: 6
    LXQt is becoming more and more usable. I tried the LXQt ISO in Manjaro and it is light and fast.
    The main problem of LXQt now as it seems to me (with my limited understanding of Linux) is that there aren't as many Qt5 applications available as there are gtk2 and gtk3. Here LXDE and Xfce have a real advantage.
    The problem that you need to install many KDE dependecies on LXQt which made it heavy previously are now solved. But you still need to install gtk3 as a dependecy, because there ar 2 or 3 apps which are not available or do not work well in Qt5, nm-applet for example. The long term aim is to get rid of gtk3 and then of gtk2, then the system will become very lightweight and have a future when Wayland will be usable. At present to make a LXQt OS lightweight a user has to be aware of the dependencies of the programms he or she wants to install and choose those based on Qt5. There are lists of such applications available in Arch Wiki for example.
    In Qt5 there is a very good lightweight browser - Qupzilla and an other one is being developed Otter Browser.
  • LaneLesterLaneLester
    PMPosts: 12
    I'm running ExTIX, which comes with either KDE or LXQT. Here's part of
    the description: ExTiX 15.3 LXQt DVD 64 bit is based on Debian 8.1
    Jessie/Ubuntu 15.04. I have installed LXQt 0.9.0.

    I'm pleased with the way ExTIX runs, but I don't like the fact that it is a one-man distro with no support. I just bought a new PC, and I'm going to download the 64-bit LXLE for a separate partition.

    Lane
  • LamentConfigurationLamentConfiguration
    PMPosts: 8
    I too have given ExTIX a spin, but it just feels very unpolished and disjointed compared to LXLE. I do hope that LXQt ends up doing well and making itself a lightweight contender in the future.
  • fredbird67fredbird67
    PMPosts: 24
    I was just wondering what the RAM usage of LXQt is versus LXDE.  This sounds very disappointing.  I hate to say it, but I could eventually be forced to switch to either Xfce (depending on how much RAM it uses after it's forced to switch to a GTK3 base) or, if Xfce on a GTK3 base sucks, go for broke with just pure Openbox.  I swear the GTK devs are trying their best to defeat one of the purposes of Linux -- namely, trying to undermine its usability on old computers. :-(
  • lxlelxle
    PMPosts: 2,656
    Ram usage is higher, also, no one can answer me on this, even if you get lxqt version down to the same memory usage of lxde, what 'lightweight' QT apps are you going to use with it, as using gtk lightweight apps will just bring in more libraries, also is any app written in QT lightweight?
    Thanked by 1Robin
  • LamentConfigurationLamentConfiguration
    PMPosts: 8
    I know there are not many (any?) lightweight Qt5 apps out there right now, *but* are they possible given the toolkit is a more important question I'd think when looking towards the future of LXLE.

    edit: that is unless gtk can get itself... cleaned up somewhat promptly :p
  • lxlelxle
    PMPosts: 2,656
    I think if Qt could do anything truly lightweight relatively easily it would have been done many times over by now. I've been hearing the death of gtk for about a decade now. GTK is still alive and kicking and probably will be for another decade or more.
Add a Comment