I liked the... "launcher" (?) for a builds wifi, and want it

In the KDE plasma sweetified versions of Garuda the wifi interface is perfect for me. I love the connect/disconnect buttons and how it tells you the traffic and all that. Also i could SWEAR its faster at connecting and telling me if the pw was put in wrongly...
I am on the Xfce version though, and the connections thing here is a little lame.
So, is this possible to do? and be it a learnable skill for like, pulling something I want and implementing it?

P.S. what are the proper terminology's?
PP.S. I am going to download a WM asap, and ill be sure to use this wifi panel in the .config from now on if this works out!

Thanks,

install
knetworkmanager

This does not describe clearly what is your problem.
XFCE has its own relevant wifi tools. Don't they work?
Provide objective info and error messages. We are not mind readers (yet...).

1 Like

I think he is saying he doesn't find the Xfce network utility visually appealing The main problem with switching to a KDE utility to do this, is that it may pull in a ton of KDE dependencies if installing the KDE version. Not something I've tried, as Xfce isn't really my cup of tea.

If you use XFCE you can't use kde widgets, even if you have kde installed (and not logged in KDE session) AFAIK.

1 Like

Yes of course, then perhaps if the users system is older and he needs a DE lighter on resources, LXQT might be worth trying. LXQT being Qt based may allow him to do what he wants. I personally like LXQT although it isn't a feature rich DE like KDE by any means. Other than KDE, I always opt for LXQT on older hardware.

1 Like

Clarity: the wifi tools on xfce, for what ever reason, is slower to connect to my wifi than that of the kde ver.. If the xfce wifi tool was as good, i wouldnt mind.

That, and the wifi tools on dragonized KDE are nice and I want them on my xfce.

Is that what kde on garuda dragonized uses? Because Its vastly different to it.
Though, it is nicer than xfce's :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

AFAIK they both use networkmanager as backend.
So, until you provide objective proof for what you describe as difference, I take your reports as subjective. Sorry... :man_shrugging:

1 Like

ah well fair enough. Though on the interface level of things, what does kde use?

My feeling is that i3wm does everything faster than KDE (starting with booting) but some like the look of KDE.

As always with Linux, there is something for everyone. :slight_smile:

1 Like

ah well yes I find awesomeWM faster than anything I have ever tried, but Ive never used arch before and wanna get used to doing stuff more graphicaly before i use a wm :stuck_out_tongue:

KDE Plasma Version: 5.20.5
KDE Frameworks Version: 5.78.0
Qt Version: 5.15.2

3 Likes