Linux

One for xfce. I have installed it too many times, very rarely crashes, very friedly, reliable, fast. However, it is a matter of taste / habit really.

I use Xfce, as do most of my Linux friends, it's lightweight and simple yet also very customizable.

Afaik the most stable DEs on Linux are GNOME and Xfce. I don't see many advantages of MATE so Xfce is my preferred option. MATE has a better app selection though.

XFCE for the aforementioned reasons and not depending on gnome. Xmonad otherwise.

been using xfce4 since it's the default desktop environment for MX Linux and it's really rock solid whilst treading the line between a full-on DE and a WM. To me it's a lot more customizable than mate and has significantly more development behind it (can't wait for 4.20!). With that being said i don't necessarily have a problem with using mate and its app suite, the bottom being a taskbar instead of that just being part of the top bar is something i can get behind but you can achieve that with a panel profile on xfce just fine

I use XFCE for the recent years I love it. It's stable, fast and feature complete. XFCE4 terminal works great as well as other XFCE4 apps. I only wish they implement proper high DPI support!

I'm happy with XFCE and am looking forward to Wayland support.

My vote is with the Rat and I refuse to elaborate.

Xfce. It does what I want it to do and little else.

I'm happy with KDE since 2009. But I'd have a really hard time if I were to choose between those two.

I think I "know" MATE because before KDE I used to use Gnome2 so it feels nostalgic to me. The Applications/Places/System menu was the tits and it beat the shit of whatever start menu you put in front of it, and Gnome's decision to get rid of it was the stupidest idea ever (among many other of their utterly stupid decisions). I'd really miss that menu if it weren't for that I got used to associate some keystrokes to launch my favorite apps so I don't even use a start menu or whatever, rather than Krunner.

On the con side it seems to me MATE is being developed at a slower pace than Xfce's, and it seems less customizable than it - well, at least for me that's a con - thought I'm not really a "ricer" or anything I just got used to a certain way to do things on the desktop and I remember having to fiddle with Gconf2 to do stuff like you did with friggin' Windows Registry editor.

I got to use Xfce back in the day too. It has an Applications/Places menu just so people wouldn't think they blatantly copied Gnome, but it's more than 10 years since Gnome got rid of it so I don't know why they haven't took it. Xfce feels somewhat more customizable, has the veteran badge and seems to have more developers backing it up.

But it's being developed with GTK+3/4 so I guess at some point they'll suffer from the ~~shittification~~Gnome-ization of GTK and, as I said before in some other post, if I were them I'd move all my shit to the E libraries (even more, I'd do a fusion of the Enlightenment desktop and Xfce). Also I happen to be a graphic designer so the lack of care they have onto some things sticks like a sore thumb to me, like those poorly designed settings dialogs on some stuff that even have some dumb horizontal scrolling just because they couldn't care less about that.

I've been using XFCE for so long that it feels really awkward when I have to use Gnome or KDE.

XFCE is solid, reliable, stable, unobtrusive, lean, responsive.

It is also the reason I've not used Wayland yet.

Nobody ever talks about LxQt, that was my first GNU/Linux experience on Lubuntu 19.10. It had a modern design only using about 300 MB of RAM. LxQt is watching the match outside the ring

I've been using mate, generally happily. I don't remember what if any issues I had with xfce. I hated gnome.

Love how 2/5 comments suggest using KDE (like any sane person) and I totally wasn't going to do the same (like any sane person).

i use xfce, but entirely because it worked well when 16 megabytes of ram was considered average and it literally took almost a half hour to log in and start using a browser on both gnome and kde.

is mate as lightweight as xfce?

Xfce works nicely with Bspwm window manager. I dont need polybar or other hard to configure status bars. Xfce panels are easier and you can make them looking like a typical polybar if you want 😉. Maybe Mate can do the same, idon't know.

KDE because I have 64GB and I don't care about memory usage and I like using a computer that looks like it's from the 2010s at least.

I have used both as Ubuntu flavours when I needed a lighter desktop on older hardware. XFCE was absolutely solid, worked and brought new life to the hardware. But, I wanted just a little more pizazz so, I moved to Mate. It was just as quick, felt a bit more modern but it wasn't as rock solid as XFCE. XFCE is perfect for stability. Mate is more modern but younger so maybe not as solid. It's been a while since I took either out for a spin though. Time to fire up the VirtualBox I suppose.

XFCE or LxQT > MATE in my opinion, but if I was trying to make a lean system I would just use a tiling wm, probably sway.

With that little ram, you're better off with jwm, lxqt, lxde, or icewm. Not xfce or mate, that require over 600-800 MB of ram just to start up. In fact, with so low ram, you're better off with something like Haiku.

For me it's MATE.

For some reason I've never really gotten on with XFCE. Tried it in earnest many years ago, and have dipped into it a few more times over the years, and for whatever reason it just doesn't gel with me. Always feels like I'm fighting it to get it to do what I want it to do.

MATE has the familiarity and comfort for anyone who spent serious years running GNOME 2. It's pretty much as lightweight as XFCE these days, but feels more polished and intuitive for it.

Ubuntu MATE is still one of my go-to distros for limited hardware (even though that project specifically seems to have stagnated somewhat in recent years).

I have used both in the past, but now use neither of them, have been exclusively a KDE Plasma user for several years by now and no longer feel like trying much different.

GNOME 2 was the first DE I ever used on GNU/Linux, so MATE has a nostalgic feel to me. I do not think Xfce is very radically different from it in its functionality, although the default configuration is somewhat different. This is really mostly a matter of personal taste.

I’ve never used MATE - almost always been an XFCE guy since I got serious about Linux.

It was sort of an accident. After a while of using Ubuntu in a VM (including a weird IceWM stint), I tried installing Debian on an old laptop I had sitting around. The first attempt, where I tried KDE, something went wrong with the Network Manager install. At this point, I can never know what went wrong - it’s been years All I know is that I chose XFCE on the second attempt and didn’t have the problems, likely due to coincidence. Still, I stick with XFCE out of satisfaction.

I've been using MATE since Gnome 3. I really liked the simplicity of Gnome 2 and was unable to adapt to their "new" way so I switched to MATE and it just clicked. I tried Gnome 3 a few times again but I just can't.

As for why MATE instead of XFCE or others? Because I already used and tried XFCE in the past and prefered Gnome 2's look and feel. In fact, I have been going out of my way for years to keep every app using GTK2 and my favourite theme because I like how it looks and feel, and Gnome 3 and GTK3 broke this. So MATE it was. They switched to GTK3 too eventually but it gave my time to adjust.

My only "complaints" about it are the file manager Caja, and the way you can list windows, which both feel very basic. I would like those two to get better.

I try and use different DE from time to time, from Fluxbox to E17, but I just go back to MATE. My favorite DE of all time was E16 but it took waaay too long for E17 to be functional and I ended up keeping MATE.

Neither. Cinnamon on Debian. Has just enough bling to be pretty and still manages not to be fat, and pretty similar to both your choices.