KDE 4.9.3 November Update Fixes 86 Bugs

[droste]

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.

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.

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.

[cardboard]

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.

[a user]

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.

[orzel]

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.

[Panix]

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.

[droste]

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.

[orzel]

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.

[droste]

Several GHz and several Gigabytes ? See..... it's exactly my point.

Dell Inspiron Mini 10 has neither several GHz nor several GiB...

Even OpenGL shouldn't be mandatory.

It isn't! But I like it and that's why I keep it enabled.

Even on my main computer (amd [email protected], 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?

[ElderSnake]

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.

[Thaodan]

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.