Posted by: Anonymous
on September 03, 2008 10:29 AM
Disregarding licences, privacy and closed code Window's problem IS the close integration between the various segments of the OS. The jacking policy between Msoft and Intel is basicly a lame duck (finally).
Although the Linux part of a GNU/Linux could indeed be lean, many distros activates tons of unneeded services by default. Good thing for a troublefree start for a new user, but bad for resource management. This is in fact a common "issue" between XP/Vista and Linux distros. Therefore tuning of the system itself should be a priority before addressing the Desktop Environment. Next one up is to install only what the user need - avoid duplication of libraries and applications if at all possible. Many applications are resourcehungry. OpenOffice is one, Firefox is another. Excessive services, and duplication of applications and libraries is something that should be addressed by "any user" irrespective of DE. Almost forgot to mention that unneeded drivers are installed by many "userfriendly" distros.
Then comes the Desktop Environment.
If the hardware is limiting to the DE when everything else is tuned it's time to optimise the DE. One does NOT need to use all the effects. Switch them off! Although some of them are actually useful. If users restrict themselves to the effects and functions that are useful to them it IS absolutely possible to run a DE such as KDE 4.1 rather lean. It's the distro or the user (or their neglect) that actually bloats a DE. On my previous machine (fairly standard with TL56/Go7200/1gb) I used Gnome/Ubuntu and it really made sense to optimise everything from DE to services and drivers. I took XFce for a spin and it was a great experience in many ways.
But still KDE 4.1 was a better solution. Why? Appearance is certainly a issue as I feel no need to alter anything significant. At application level the GUI's of applications suits me or could very easily be modified to my taste - (I prefer a low blingfactor and high usability). But the real important part is the obvious Koffice/Amarok/Kontact/Nepomuk/Dolphin/Okular/etc potential for seemless interaction. Productivity through improved workflow. This is the area where KDE 4.X wil excel in the future. And that's the main reason that made me switch from Gnome to KDE 4.1. Certainly KDE 4.X will go through an evolution - any application, OS or Desktop Environment will. In the coming months the porting of applications will proceed with good speed (Just look at the enthusiasm among the KDE developers!)
I used the 700mhz/1ghz as examples (I'm not saying it's perfect HW) and look forward to see what KDE could do on the Nokia Surfboards. Trolltech also promises improved graphicsperfomance in their next version of QT and KDE continues looking for code optimisation.
If you prefer XFce/Gnome/Enlightment/no GUI/DE or whatever there is nothing with KDE 4.1 that forces you to change the way you prefer to work. But hey - users are different, have different needs and different preferences. Gnu/Linux is more or less whatever you want it to be.
I find this article to be a good one as it attempts to turn focus towards merits and facts. Constructive critsism i a good thing. Having used KDE 4.1 since it appeared as beta I strongly disagree with the "bloatstatements" that keeps coming. It simply makes me question whether such statements are made on basis of screenshot-evaluation or someone not taking a objective approach to the thing. Learn it and use it with objectivity for some time first. Sure - it's not everyone's cup of tea, but what is?