From my POV, KDE is closer to experience Win XP gave at time which is not bad at all. Gnome is like Vista, annoying as hell. From there Win 8/10 was big improvement. = = = = @schmidtbag : I moved to XFCE many years ago. And I am fully aware of some missing functionality features which are still in development pipeline. (KDE has them.) But in general, I use same customization on all my linux installs with XFCE. In the end, it can do as much as KDE at least on surface. My original reason to move from KDE to XFCE was because my primary work ultrabook running RHEL froze like once every few days while running. I managed to track it down to intel iGPU power management hardware bug which was triggered between KDE-RHEL. (No logs as it was hard locks.) Power management overrides did fix it at cost of power efficiency. And it was still freezing during hybrid-sleep. With XFCE/lightdm, power states overrides worked 100% as preventive measure. Then with new ultrabook, I gave KDE chance again. But it managed to freeze even when awake and no logs again. (Can't say, I like intel's mobile chips from 4rd to 8th generation as RHEL was happy with KDE with older CPUs.) But XFCE/lightdm had no issue even without power management overrides. (And as you can guess with RHEL, I am not fond of Gnome which was free of freezes.) With CLI for packages, Ubuntu has more separate binaries with more separated functionality than AIX and I always had to man it. And that says something. Sure, it is not only one using dpkg/apt/... . But that's one combination I really dislike. I view AIX, Solaris, RHEL/SLES as user friendly in contrast. So I am quite happy that there are really not servers w/ dpkg/apt/... around. Linux is secure till privileged user breaks it. Windows starts as hazard playground where attempts to make it secure via TrustedInstaller user is more annoying than useful.