On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 07:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell <email@example.com> wrote: > I have yet to try xfce since accessibility support from what I've read > to date is very immature compared to mate and gnome possibly as poor as > kde. I have spare hard drives and can try this out and will find out > what happens with xfce a little later this weekend. I'm not really sure what accessibility is like in GNOME these days, but I would assume it has only gotten better, since GNOME is our flagship DE. Usability, on the other hand, is still just as shit. MATE and Xfce are more or less equal (as of 1.8 and 4.10) on the accessibility side of things- they just require a bit more work to get set up for the nature of the impairment in question. Both MATE and Xfce offer integration with screen readers (Orca, etc.) and programs for visual assistance, as well as a whole host of keyboard and mouse settings designed to make life easier for impaired users. > I'm running > computers not servers on my end so due to technology differences beyond > expanded memory I would suspect server experience to be different than > is the case on computers. "Server" is a term used to describe a computer performing a particular role. Any computer can become a server simply by using it as a server. If I were to get a static IP and install Apache or nginx on my laptop and start *serving* web pages, my computer would be a server. I presume you meant computers specifically *designed* to be used as dedicated servers. > How is xfce with memory compared to mate? Virtually the same. MATE uses ~300 MB of memory on my system, while Xfce used to average around ~250. Unless your RAM is *very* limited, either should be fine, and both are pretty lightweight (as DEs go these days).
Description: OpenPGP digital signature