> In any case, I said it is interesting. But interesting as in: if something
> else fails, it'll still work. But what if the other thing doesn't fail? In
> those cases, I'd like to know what Enlightment brings to me as a desktop.
> The question was asked, but the answer doesn't really give much.
I think that the way Carsten answered was actually pretty clear about where he sees the major strengths of Enlightenment. I've never used it before, but it sounds like it's in the same vein of XFCE: configurable, lean, and geared for folks that don't want a bunch of extra stuff. Some of the choice bits:
- "Our typical user is someone who is keen to explore something new and different. Someone who wants control and power. They are probably already familiar with Linux and have reached the limits of what they have and want to push the boundaries."
- "Today Enlightenment offers most of what you get from GNOME and KDE, and probably the same if not a bit more than XFCE. It just doesn't try and ship a suite of apps with it. It is the desktop (Window manager, settings, file manager, application launching and management) minus the apps."
That doesn't mean that I'm encouraging you to switch, just that I think he did address that very question in the interview directly.