As I asked in the titles, I’m not asking which one’s better , but which is your choice and why ?
Also I’m not decided either, should I get xfce, gnome or KDE since the external SSD will be slower and I need the total size of the OS to be smaller so it boots faster, cuz the whole Linux os will run through a usb 3.1 cable
The same question applies to grub vs systemD, which one boots faster ?
Xfce is the lighter option compared to the other two choices.
I’m unsure about the speed, but on my P3 Plus (Gen 4 M.2 SSD), systemD-boot was faster.
Openbox with systemd-boot from the day that I bought it.
[sam@arch ~]$ stat / | awk '/Birth: /{print $2}'
2022-10-18
Have other computers that I have systemd-boot on for longer with Openbox. Never had a failure yet, can’t fix what’s not broken.
Boots faster is systemd boot. I don’t think you even need a poll for that.
I use grub.
Fwiw, I use systemd-boot on my desktop and grub on my business laptop since it’s easier to boot into btrfs snapshots.
I use grub with btrfs and btrfs-assistant and snapper on KDE.
Systemd-boot all day because Grub is a finicky PITA.
Also Gnome because you can’t beat it in terms of consistency and polish.
This would depend on the type of work flow you are used to and the work flow you are looking for. Us telling you what we use wont help you figure out your work flow.
This would be dependent on the work flow you desire and what other apps you install along with the OS. A WM is going to have a smaller footprint than a full fledge DE but a WM is going to be minimal and may not have everything you want.
There was that whole “GRUB kerfuffle” affecting Arch. I mean, I got GRUB working again but, it wasn’t the same and, after giving systemd-boot a try, I think I like it better.
I use Grub, and still Plasma, but the latter will change soon.
Interesting, I think the rumors of Plasma going “full wayland” may have been premature after all.
Is it possible to combine xfce with systemD?
Yes, your desktop environment and your bootloader are completely unrelated.
Also, when you say systemd, you actually mean systemd-boot. They are not the same thing. Everyone uses systemd on Arch, but not everyone uses systemd-boot.
I think you mean systemd-boot, not systemd. My own choices are as follows:
Bootloader: systemd-boot
Reason: It’s simpler and smaller, which, at least in principle, means that it’s less likely to fail.
DE: None. I use i3wm, which is a window manager, not a DE.
Reason: DEs are just too bloated for me. A keyboard-centric approach to window management simply suits my workflow better.
if you are only asking about the “why” then it’s easy: headaches with grub far outnumber my headaches with bootloader.
uefi over legacy any day.
but I know one better than the other so there is an inherent bias built into any subjective question you ask.
that’s why I won’t touch DE question with a 10 foot pole. but budgie since you asked (eye candy, uncomplicated, dependable & never buggy). I don’t like KDE or K packages or the lifestyle, Maybe someday. I give everything a chance. I’ve not exhausted the gnome/gtk life I really still like it.
I gave you a thumbs up because I value your research method: cast a wide net, then mull it over.
An external USB 3.1 SSD will be plenty fast to run any DE unless it has atypical performance characteristics.
You should use the one you prefer using the most.
Size of the installed system, as in number of packages, has nothing to do with boot speed.
systemd-boot might be marginally faster than Grub but may not even be perceivable with “naked eyes”.
The running of the bootloader is a rather small part of the boot process. So at the end the boot speed gained is probably not perceptible.
Bootloader: systemd-boot
DE: None. I use swaywm
systemd-boot, because I wanted to try it and to see how it worked compared to Grub.
Gnome, because I wanted to use a DE with good Wayland support and I like the Gnome workflow.
