Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Aug 2011 22:09 UTC
KDE KDE is working on some interesting stuff. Wayland support for one, but they're also going to work on the frameworks for... KDE 5.0. Yes, I'd say KDE 4 still is far, far from done, but 5.0 is already on the horizon. This time around though, they're not going to pull a KDE 4.0, since this is mostly going to be about lower-level changes.
Thread beginning with comment 484295
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: ...
by pepper on Tue 9th Aug 2011 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
pepper
Member since:
2007-09-18

I'm telling you, I've been running kde 4 series for two years at work, home, and on the go. I've experimented with Gnome, lxde, x-monad, awesomewm, xfce, fluxbox, openstep. KDE with (Kwin with graphical effects off), is as fast as any of them on my modest hardware.


You're joking right? I switched away from KDE/Gnome several years ago because they are so damn slow. I don't see why I should use a desktop environment that presents me with a loading progress bar during startup. Linux and X11 do the driver stuff, the apps do the actual work. The desktop's only task is to make apps accessible and manageable. If I can write it myself in a few weeks, the startup time should not be noticeable on todays systems. Awesome does that for me.

Just look at Okular for an example on how not to write software. Starting okular takes considerable time compared to other readers, especially if not cached. Okular requires about 100 MB of KDE libraries and several KDE services at runtime. It is very sad that no standalone version exists and it can't even open files without those KDE services. But then, those KDE/Gnome people never seemed to understand the Unix design philosophy but only strife for Windows eXPerience. Well, they got too close for my taste...

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[8]: ...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 9th Aug 2011 22:02 in reply to "RE[7]: ..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, I wasn't talking about loading times for the environments, just using them when they're open.

Personally, I love Okular. Its the best PDF reader I've found. It loads faster than adobe, and searches are faster than any other. Memory is something you don't notice, unless you do. If I have 2 GB of memory, do I really care if its 100 MB of libraries or 20? For my systems, thats a non issue for speed or performance. It doesn't mean its a non issue for anyone or any use case or that work should or should not be done to reduce memory foot prints and or speed of application loading. I'm not trying to prove a universal law here, just trying to discredit the belief that anyone who uses KDE is some how ignoring problems that exist with their uses of it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: ...
by Neolander on Wed 10th Aug 2011 06:37 in reply to "RE[8]: ..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If I have 2 GB of memory, do I really care if its 100 MB of libraries or 20?

You do, because the bandwidth of the HDD which stuff is loaded from is around 30MB/s, meaning that the thing will take 3s to load, which is arguably quite a lot when you just double-clicked a PDF and want to see it right away.

Often, when people complain about memory&HDD space usage, they actually want to complain about how much stuff needs to be slowly loaded from disk before the requested application is available.

A possible solution, on modern computers with crazy boatloads of memory, would be to load everything in RAM. You take some serious performance hit at boot time, but then the system is very snappy. Puppy Linux (AFAIK) does that successfully.

Reply Parent Score: 1