Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE 4.9.3 November Update Fixes 86 Bugs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by orzel View Post
    That's the common lies coming from KDE. Even recently, i had to remove KDE from lots of user computers I administrate. I used to spend time "fixing" their KDE by removing everything related to nepomuk+strigi+plasma, which usually is enough to bring it back to a usable state, but i got fed up of this too.
    Those were the typical kubuntu, centos, debian stuff, updated, so nothing like the even uglier early kde4.
    It seems so common to say this, but KDE is such a bloatware nowadays. Which we used to say about windows or gnome by the time. (yes, "we", i used to be quite a big KDE fan).

    ....lol...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by orzel View Post
      That's the common lies coming from KDE. Even recently, i had to remove KDE from lots of user computers I administrate. I used to spend time "fixing" their KDE by removing everything related to nepomuk+strigi+plasma, which usually is enough to bring it back to a usable state, but i got fed up of this too.
      Those were the typical kubuntu, centos, debian stuff, updated, so nothing like the even uglier early kde4.
      It seems so common to say this, but KDE is such a bloatware nowadays. Which we used to say about windows or gnome by the time. (yes, "we", i used to be quite a big KDE fan).
      Well it is not a lie, it is my experience. I have openSUSE 12.2 (KDE) installed on a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 1012 (very low end), a desktop with intel Core2Quad (2ghz), 4GB RAM, ati radeon 4770 (mid-range) and another desktop with intel i5 (2,8ghz), 16GB RAM, ati radeon 5770 (higher-mid-range :-D). It works very good on all of them with a standard installation (nothing removed, opengl compositing activated and just some additional applications installed).

      I'm not saying it works everywhere, but I haven't found a system where it doesn't work. I'm also not saying you are a liar and you haven't had/have these problems. I'm just sharing my view on this ;-).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by droste View Post
        Well it is not a lie, it is my experience. I have openSUSE 12.2 (KDE) installed on a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 1012 (very low end), a desktop with intel Core2Quad (2ghz), 4GB RAM, ati radeon 4770 (mid-range) and another desktop with intel i5 (2,8ghz), 16GB RAM, ati radeon 5770 (higher-mid-range :-D). It works very good on all of them with a standard installation (nothing removed, opengl compositing activated and just some additional applications installed).
        Several GHz and several Gigabytes ? See..... it's exactly my point. I dont want such high requirements for a desktop environment. Even OpenGL shouldn't be mandatory.

        None of the computers (mostly laptops) i was speaking about have that much and they are few years old, not two decades old.
        Even on my main computer (amd quad-core@2.6GHz, 12G of ram), KDE is slow, takes insane amount of ram, and i had to disable the usual crapware for the desktop just to be usable. 6 months ago. i have to admit i dont try every point release. The changelogs are empty, and most packages doesn't have even a line of difference with the previous version...

        Comment


        • #34
          I hop between KDE and other desktops pretty regularly, never had any real problems since 4.5 odd

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
            True. I had a quick look at the latest KDE commit digest and compared it to last year. KDE have 50 contributors during one year. So you can expect less developers giving a shit about your bugs. They will bitrot.

            KDE lost its place to Unity. What a nice death lol.
            Never laughed so good.

            Comment


            • #36
              Unity is slower and buggier to me than KDE still.

              HOWEVER, I do only use KDE on Arch Linux, where I just install the base KDE packages and only use what I need, which always seems to work quite well.

              Some distros would do well to strip/customize KDE a bit. The entire KDE package can be a bit bloated and you really dont NEED to have all of it. Heck I dont use widgets on the desktop or nepomuk or any of that stuff. But the rest of KDE for me is one of the few remaining sane "traditional" desktops.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by orzel View Post
                Several GHz and several Gigabytes ? See..... it's exactly my point.
                Dell Inspiron Mini 10 has neither several GHz nor several GiB...

                Originally posted by orzel View Post
                Even OpenGL shouldn't be mandatory.
                It isn't! But I like it and that's why I keep it enabled.

                Originally posted by orzel View Post
                Even on my main computer (amd quad-core@2.6GHz, 12G of ram), KDE is slow, takes insane amount of ram, and i had to disable the usual crapware for the desktop just to be usable.
                I simply can't believe this, see my previous post. And what is an "insane amount of ram"? How do you measure what is used by the DE?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by droste View Post
                  I simply can't believe this, see my previous post. And what is an "insane amount of ram"? How do you measure what is used by the DE?
                  Check available free ram between a freshly started session with KDE and with any lightweight DE (last kid: razorqt), using the same applications/widgets.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    This is not a good way to measure this (buffers/caches, preloaded stuff, shared libraries, etc.). Also simply "more than a lightweight DE" doesn't count as "insane amount of ram" :-P.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I wish this site would do a comprehensive DE comparison. It might be more useful and practical than some of the other benchmark/tests I see on here.

                      There is so many different and various statements and assertions regarding memory usage and utility of the main DEs, it's difficult to decide which ones are accurate.

                      From my most recent experience, KDE is a mess. I get constant crashes regardless of distro and often, Iceweasel seems to perform much worse with KDE. I don't like the features and tools of XFCE as much but at least there's way less crashes with XFCE.

                      It's easy to see why Torvalds would be laughing at what KDE offers with the widget stuff. They seem to have made a lot of changes that makes one roll their eyes and scratch their head.

                      Still, Gnome 3 does the same. However, I don't recall as many crashes but I only used it briefly. Too many features were annoying or required way too many tweaks. It's counter-productive, imho, if the default settings are so cumbersome and poor that you have to tweak it so much just so you can use it without cursing.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by droste View Post
                        This is not a good way to measure this (buffers/caches, preloaded stuff, shared libraries, etc.). Also simply "more than a lightweight DE" doesn't count as "insane amount of ram" :-P.
                        This is the KDE favorite answer : "you're too dumb to know how to compute memory usage while we are very smart, hence KDE is not bloatware". I dont have time to provide details (again) on the methodology.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by droste View Post
                          You should have done it the other way around (wait 2 years then use it). KDE is way more stable than 2 years ago. It is true that there might be bugs (I can see none in the stuff I'm using), but that doesn't mean it's unusable.
                          so they fixed the bad coding and bad design (codewise) they had in the previous 10 years now in the last two years? interesting. sounds more like windows patchwork: making a bad design and concept working "stable" with a lots of patches and blinding the customer with eyecandy.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            So much Works For Me™ going on in this thread. On both sides of the fence.

                            I can list a whole lot of problems with every DE I've tried. They all have serious issues. KDE included.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by orzel View Post
                              This is the KDE favorite answer : "you're too dumb to know how to compute memory usage while we are very smart, hence KDE is not bloatware". I dont have time to provide details (again) on the methodology.
                              I didn't call you dumb and I don't know a really good way to measure this, so I'm not smarter than you in this respect.

                              Originally posted by a user View Post
                              so they fixed the bad coding and bad design (codewise) they had in the previous 10 years now in the last two years?
                              I didn't say anything about how things are done, but how things are feel when using it. It feels very stable now.

                              Originally posted by cardboard View Post
                              So much Works For Me™ going on in this thread.
                              It was clearly stated in may first post, that it is my personal experience and I just wanted to say that there are actually people using it without problems.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by droste View Post
                                I didn't say anything about how things are done, but how things are feel when using it. It feels very stable now.

                                It was clearly stated in may first post, that it is my personal experience and I just wanted to say that there are actually people using it without problems.
                                That's fine to say that. We don't need to argue, though, right?

                                I'd like to know how a stable KDE (edition) is. :-) Which distro and KDE edition do you use?

                                I like some of the features, don't like others but the bottom line, is every distro that I've used it with has had serious crashes/freezes. I tried to pinpoint to certain software or was told to check hardware but most of it was declared okay.

                                I think it could just be using too many tabs or apps in Iceweasel/Firefox (I have been using KDE with Debian and Debian variants) but it even feels a bit unstable with other apps as well.

                                I am wondering if it is bloated since some people think it is whereas others think it's improving. I'm not sure how it could be both.

                                I agree with the previous comment that all the DEs have major issues. I guess that is why so many people are trying them all out now, it seems. DE hopping...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X