I am writing this article to discuss a bit about that issue that KDE SC It is a heavy Desktop Environment, which consumes many resources, which is disorganized, and all those arguments that we already know.
I was a user of XFCE, excellent Desktop Environment that still awakens very good feelings in me today, but I changed it the day I found that in a HP Mini 110 Netbook, had a performance very similar to that of KDE SC 4.8, about Debian.
EYE. I mean before continuing (and I may be very wrong) that for me Performance y Consumption they are two totally different things. When i talk about Consumption I mean what an application uses RAM o CPU. When i talk about Performance, I mean how fluid such an application can be, regardless of the Consumption.
And I say again: XFCE 4.10 had the performance very similar to KDE SC 4.8 in a HP Mini 110 Netbook. What was the catch back then? Well disable Nepomuk + Akonadi and kill some processes when starting the desktop.
Table of Contents
Do we need the Semantic Desktop?
Ok, I know what they are going to say:
KDE without Nepomuk is not KDE, it is not semantic, and that is what makes it stand out from the rest of the desktops.
And that's when I tell them they are partly right. I explain:
It is true that KDE is well known for being the semantic desktop, and that once you adapt to working this way, you can't live without Nepomuk y Akonadibut I'll tell you something, I don't see it that way.
If there is something that makes KDE powerful, that something is its applications. I'm talking about Dolphin, Okular, Gwenview, KRunner, just to mention a few. All these applications do not need Nepomuk + Akonadi to do what they do And you know what? They are the best of their kind.
Nautilus, PCManFM, Thunar, Pantheon Files, they all have their good points, but all together do not compete against Dolphin in terms of options and features.
Evince, xPDF, or any other PDF viewer falls short of Okular, which not only allows us to view these types of files, but also a lot of other formats.
Gwenview? Well, honestly, sometimes I don't know if I'm in front of a viewer or an image editor. There may be many lighter or more beautiful, but none is more complete.
And it was all this precisely, what made me go from XFCE a KDE and not Nepomuk + Akonadi. Have a KDE no effects, no semantic desktop, it's the same as using XFCE o LXDE well none of these have any of that, and the best of all is that KDE it's much, much more customizable than these two put together.
Accessibility and Ease of use
Thunar now she has eyelashes, but she didn't have them before. It does not have an integrated console. It has no panels. It does not have an integrated search engine. It does not have file display options (Open compressed as a folder, for example).
In other words, anyway we are much more productive using KDE than any other Desktop Environment. They can come and tell me that they are adapted, that they do not mind opening an external search engine, or an external terminal, but let's be honest, that does not mean that they can stop doing in 3 or 4 steps, what a KDE user can do in one .
KDE is not a pen
What KDE is heavy? Well, it has to be, it is the most complete Desktop Environment that exists. The only one that has an application for almost everything we normally do, and even for what we do not do. It lacks absolutely nothing.
What KDE is slow? If we compare it with LXDE u OpenBox Maybe, but I am an eyewitness that with each new version of KDE, the speed increases when executing the applications and in many cases, it is faster than other Desktops.
What KDE does it consume? Well of course, if only when starting KRunner It is enough, but precisely KRunner does the function of 4 applications together.
However Be careful, be very careful !!! I use a laptop that has 4GB of RAM and when consumption skyrockets it's because I open other third-party applications like Mozilla Firefox for example.
And even so, NEVER, but never, have I seen that with Firefox, Pidgin, Choqok, Nautilus, brackets, Amarok (or Clementine), LibreOffice, Yakuake and other applications open at the same time, the Consumption exceed 2GB of RAM. And the best of all is that Performance, still excellent.
The only time I exceed 2GB is when I have all those applications open and I also have a virtual machine running with KVM, which has 1GB of RAM assigned, and of course, it is logical that it goes off.
KDE Better or worse?
You know Some time ago I was just complaining that in KDE everything was separated, the colors, the theme of KWin, the theme for Plasma, etc. The panel of Las System preferences It made me very big, cumbersome and difficult, but once you adapt, you discover that so much fragmentation is a virtue and not a defect.
Honestly, tell me they don't use KDE because they like GNOME, Cinnamon, Pantheon, XFCE, LXDE, OpenBox, E17, etc ... I understand. Everyone is free to choose and use what they want, but that they do not use KDE because it is Heavy and It consumes many resources, I question it.
As I also question the criteria of those who tell me that they do not use KDE because it is adapted to XFCE, the Unity and Windows. My people, if there is a Desktop Environment that with a little idea (and sometimes patience) can be configured the same as the rest (as mentioned above), that is KDE.
Of course, there will always be the one who out of habit can no longer leave his GTK Desktop and I understand that (for example, compa @yoyo), but at least he has tried KDE and knows what he can or cannot do, and has a solid basis to choose. according to your preferences.
Si KDE it is better or worse, it depends on the taste and criteria of each one. I'm just saying give it a try. Install a Arch Linux or any other distribution with KDE 4.11 and try, I'm sure you will see the difference that has been left behind with versions lower than the one 4.10.
I leave open the debate. 😉