No, it's not. Keep in mind in Linux, desktop environment means a big framework such as GNOME or KDE that runs on top of X or Wayland, i.e. a graphics server.
You can run bare X or Wayland, plus a window manager and cherry-picked daemons, to achieve the same sort of functionality e.g. desktop notifications, network roaming or device automounting.
My point is that bare X plus cherry-picked services tends to be much more efficient, because you don't need to pay a performance tax for the things you don't use.
Mac: Battery life sucks, let's make our own chip to make it better
Windows: Battery life sucks, we'll try to improve the software and maybe use a different CPU
Linux: Just turn off your desktop and recreate its functionality using a dozen command line daemons and selectively run graphics only when you need it. It worked in DOS, why not now?
lol and we wonder why desktop Linux never came...
I've seen a lot of Linux apologetics over the years, but this is the single funniest comment I've ever read on the topic
I feel like I'm watching cult members nodding at each other and wondering "why don't they get it, it's so obvious!" while everyone outside just backs away slooowly...
You can run bare X or Wayland, plus a window manager and cherry-picked daemons, to achieve the same sort of functionality e.g. desktop notifications, network roaming or device automounting.
My point is that bare X plus cherry-picked services tends to be much more efficient, because you don't need to pay a performance tax for the things you don't use.