LXQt – The next generation of the Lightweight Desktop Environment

It totally does: fast, stable, restartable (kill -USR1 ), lightweight, stays out of the way, easily configurable, portable config files, and a very, very, very consistent UI over the past 17 years that I've been using it (nearly a decade of which it saw virtually no dev activity and, frankly, didn't need it -- updates have started trickling in again).

Thing is, after nearly two decades, it's solidly ingrained into my desktop use habits. And while I try alternatives from time to time, they always leave me running screaming back to good old wmaker.

Actually, at least two of those (E and WindowMaker) remain alive. And WindowMaker's got its fervent fans (you're hearing from one here).

While Raster's continued to plink away at Enlightenment, among the reasons WindowMaker development's been so modest is that it accomplished its mission: provide an implementation of the NexTstep interface. I use wmaker without most of the rest of the GNUstep tools (I find them kind of funky and cumbersome), but the window manager itself is simple, straightforward, and rocks.

It's also very similar under the hood to Aqua as used now in OS X, which for the most part just skins it differently and removes a bunch of features I like -- so while I love wmaker, I really can't function on Macs.

As for userbase. Yeah. I'm aware that I'm in the minority. I'm totally OK with that.

The first principle of GUIs is that there's been very little real innovation since the first demos at Xerox PARC at the Mother of All Demos 46 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos).

And there's been little reason for it. Once people understand how to interact with the basics of their interface, there's little gain, and a lot of cost, to changing things.

Most computer interaction is textual. Some isn't. Supporting text, formatted text, images, video, and sound is pretty much the entire scope of what needs to be done.

The best interfaces haven't changed much. Apple's Aqua interface is hardly changed from its introduction in 2000 -- that's 14 years. Some visual elements have been modestly restyled, and virtual desktop support added. That's pretty much it.

Other attempts to push radical UI changes on users have been dramatic failures, whether from Microsoft or Linux. Windows 7 was an absolute flop, and I'm among those who've been massively disappointed and frustrated by the GNOME 3 and KDE 4 transitions. While neither is my primary desktop, I do interact with them occasionally, and with apps designed for them more frequently. The experiences have been disappointing and frustrating, to say the least, as well as the attitude shown toward users by the development teams (Linus Torvald's outburst to GNOME was pretty much on point).

The place to experiment, IMO, is precisely where LXQT is: in an experimental space, away from the mainstream. If the desktop does prove useful, people will tend to migrate toward it, as has happened with the xfce desktop: not as featureful as GNOME or KDE, but vastly less frustrating and more useful (I also try it from time to time).

My own home? WindowMaker, which I've used for 17 years. I know it, it knows me, we work well together, and I see no reason to change.