KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
Andrei Z.:
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
Neither KDE nor GNOME is the best one. Both wasting too much resources.
If you want low resource usage graphical, it needs to be window manager rather than DE.
Mike Easter:
If you want low resource usage graphical, it needs to be window manager
rather than DE.
+1
IMOIAW: openbox.
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount criteria to judge a
DE, especially since I no longer run systems with 1GB of RAM. What I
look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck. If the DE is responsive and the resources support features that improve my workflow
then that is what works for me. Using a super-light DE that is
featureless that impedes workflow is no bargain unless you are stuck
with some 25-year-old meager hardware.
Harold Stevens wrote:
Mike Easter:Sparkylinux stable releases 3 DEs and 2 minimal a CLI and an OB WM
If you want low resource usage graphical, it needs to be window manager
rather than DE.
+1
IMOIAW: openbox.
graphical.
Some mix in some LXDE parts w/ OB. Sparky uses LX term and PCManFM.
What I look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck.
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount criteria to judge a
DE, especially since I no longer run systems with 1GB of RAM.
What I
look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck. If the DE is >responsive and the resources support features that improve my workflow
then that is what works for me. Using a super-light DE that is
featureless that impedes workflow is no bargain unless you are stuck
with some 25-year-old meager hardware.
on the laptop I use the Ubuntu default Gnome setup. I don't notice
an improved workflow on the laptop; maybe I am holding it wrong.
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
What I look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck.
s/bag/bang/
Proofreading is fundamental..
(Not sure if it is Eternal-September or my old SeaMonkey but sometimes
posts are not posting)
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount criteria to judge a
DE, especially since I no longer run systems with 1GB of RAM. What I
look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck. If the DE is
responsive and the resources support features that improve my workflow
then that is what works for me. Using a super-light DE that is
featureless that impedes workflow is no bargain unless you are stuck
with some 25-year-old meager hardware.
I understand that concept; but a DE shouldn't 'waste' ram doing the same thing which can be done w/ less. Gnome seems to me to be quite wasteful
of ram compared to KDE; except for one or two areas mentioned in the OP article (speaking) Gnome is NOT more 'feature-ful' than KDE, but it
uses, say, twice as much ram being whatever it is.
I think Gnome and KDE have different goals in mind; I prefer KDE's
goals, irrespective of the ram 'bonus'.
That 'goal' business accounts for the relative success of such as XFCE, Cinnamon, and Mate, where the latter two are 'breakaways'/forks from
gnome's direction.
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> writes:
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount criteria to judge a
DE, especially since I no longer run systems with 1GB of RAM.
1GB? Luxury! No longer 16MB:-)
What I
look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck. If the DE is
responsive and the resources support features that improve my workflow
then that is what works for me. Using a super-light DE that is
featureless that impedes workflow is no bargain unless you are stuck
with some 25-year-old meager hardware.
I agree.
But do the heavy-weight DEs improve my workflow? No.
On my desktop I use my decades-old twm setup (where the twm process
weighs in at 6MB RSS), on the laptop I use the Ubuntu default Gnome
setup. I don't notice an improved workflow on the laptop; maybe I am
holding it wrong.
- anton
On 2/23/22 10:15, Mike Easter wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount criteria to judge a >>> DE, especially since I no longer run systems with 1GB of RAM. What I
look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck. If the DE is
responsive and the resources support features that improve my workflow
then that is what works for me. Using a super-light DE that is
featureless that impedes workflow is no bargain unless you are stuck
with some 25-year-old meager hardware.
I understand that concept; but a DE shouldn't 'waste' ram doing the
same thing which can be done w/ less. Gnome seems to me to be quite
wasteful of ram compared to KDE; except for one or two areas mentioned
in the OP article (speaking) Gnome is NOT more 'feature-ful' than KDE,
but it uses, say, twice as much ram being whatever it is.
I think Gnome and KDE have different goals in mind; I prefer KDE's
goals, irrespective of the ram 'bonus'.
Gnome and or Unity Goals seem to be the same: To keep the user from understanding how Linux functions. Same Goal as Windows.
That 'goal' business accounts for the relative success of such as
XFCE, Cinnamon, and Mate, where the latter two are 'breakaways'/forks
from gnome's direction.
And they have KDE versions of the Canonicl OS as well. Never used them except to make sure that a DVD or Live Flash Drive was functional.
bliss - brought to you by the power and ease of PCLinuxOS and a minor case of hypergraphia
On 2/23/22 10:15, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
What I look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck.
s/bag/bang/
Proofreading is fundamental..
(Not sure if it is Eternal-September or my old SeaMonkey but sometimes
posts are not posting)
Check your address line. The most common reason for not showing up in my case is failure to hit the Followup to Newsgroup button instead
of the Reply to Original Poster. And whoops I did again but by checking
the address lines I was able to correct the problem.
Marco Moock wrote:
Andrei Z.:Gnome is the big resource user; KDE is comparable to XFCE, less according to some, more depending on the 'implementation' of the KDE.
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
Neither KDE nor GNOME is the best one. Both wasting too much resources.
Neon's default KDE is less than most distro's default XFCE.
If you want low resource usage graphical, it needs to be window manager rather than DE.
Until I read that article, I had always thought that the terms
"window manager" and "desktop environment" were synonymous. Now,
I know that they aren't, but still don't know what the difference
is.
I found Unity really useful for laptops with smaller screens. I
thought the implementation of the multiple desktops to the the most
intuitive and best uses of limited screen real estate. Not a favor of
the global menu and welcomed its optional implementation. The
launcher "dock" evolved to a very intuitive and useful feature. I
just wished they could have fixed the hud's lens and scopes.
I was happy to find that, apart from a few minor issues, my second
trial with the PinePhone was a breath of fresh air. UBports proved to
be faster, easier to navigate, and more reliable compared to my
previous experience. The whole operating system feels more polished,
faster, and better organized.
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
I found Unity really useful for laptops with smaller screens. I
thought the implementation of the multiple desktops to the the most
intuitive and best uses of limited screen real estate. Not a favor of
the global menu and welcomed its optional implementation. The launcher
"dock" evolved to a very intuitive and useful feature. I
just wished they could have fixed the hud's lens and scopes.
I'm glad to see the Unity dev staying alive in such as UBPorts, Lomiri,
and doing well as an OS for the Pine Phone.
https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20220124#ubports
I was happy to find that, apart from a few minor issues, my second
trial with the PinePhone was a breath of fresh air. UBports proved to
be faster, easier to navigate, and more reliable compared to my
previous experience. The whole operating system feels more polished,
faster, and better organized.
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> writes:
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount
criteria to judge a DE, especially since I no longer run
systems with 1GB of RAM.
1GB? Luxury! No longer 16MB:-)
What I
look for is how much bag you get for that resource buck.
If the DE is responsive and the resources support features
that improve my workflow then that is what works for me.
Using a super-light DE that is featureless that impedes
workflow is no bargain unless you are stuck with some
25-year-old meager hardware.
I agree.
But do the heavy-weight DEs improve my workflow? No.
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> writes:
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount
criteria to judge a DE, especially since I no longer run
systems with 1GB of RAM.
1GB? Luxury! No longer 16MB:-)
But do the heavy-weight DEs improve my workflow? No.
...by the same token however, unless you're rendering videos, or running a BitCoin
"Mine"...or some other long-term CPU-super-intensive process, a "heavy-weight" DE isn't
going to *inhibit* your 'workflow' either.
...there's nothing wrong with a visually appealling UI.
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> writes:
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote in
news:2022Feb23.191308@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at:
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> writes:
I my opinion low resource usage is not the paramount
criteria to judge a DE, especially since I no longer run
systems with 1GB of RAM.
1GB? Luxury! No longer 16MB:-)
And two days later I play with a machine (a Starfive Visionfive V1)
where XFCE (supposedly a light-weight environment) is noticably slow, probably due to basic window operations being slow. This machine has
a CPU with a 15 times faster clock than my first Linux box (a 486/66),
runs our LaTeX benchmark 17 times as fast, has twice the number of
cores (2 vs. 1), has 512 times more memory (8GB vs. 16MB); makes me
wonder whether the 486 had a similarly sluggish response and I
accepted it because I was not spoiled by better experience, or whether
the experience was better and on this machine I see the effects of
software bloat that is hidden elsewhere by faster and more specialized hardware. The experience when using the machine through ssh is fine,
BTW.
But do the heavy-weight DEs improve my workflow? No.
...by the same token however, unless you're rendering videos, or running a BitCoin
"Mine"...or some other long-term CPU-super-intensive process, a "heavy-weight" DE isn't
going to *inhibit* your 'workflow' either.
If the Ubuntu default had inhibited my workflow, I would have invested
the time to set up my twm environment.
...there's nothing wrong with a visually appealling UI.
Sure. But I don't find the heavy-weight DEs visually appealing.
- anton
On 2/26/2022 2:53 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: >https://www.embeddedcomputing.com/technology/processing/chips-and-socs/starfive-officially-releases-the-visionfive-v1-sbc
"The SoC comes with a 4K-ready VPU, but lacks a 3D GPU,
a future edition of the boards is expected to feature this."
Inxi -F or Inxi -G might give you more info about drivers.
It could be that OpenGL and Compositing are using the CPU.
"SiFive’s U74 Dual-Core 64-bit RV64GFC ISA clock at 1.5 GHz clock frequency"
"Memory: 8GB LPDDR4 which is divided into 2 x 4GB LPDDR4-2800MHz SDRAM" # could be two 32-bit chips soldered down
# RAM appears to be TSOP
64-bit RISC-V Application Core
32KB L1 I-cache with ECC
32KB L1 D-cache with ECC
8 Region Physical Memory Protection
Virtual Memory support with up to 47 Physical Address bits
Integrated 128KB L2 Cache with ECC
Well... it has to lean on its L2. The DDR4 is in the design,
because it's the cheapest memory at the moment.
The megatransfers/second
is usually higher on modern hardware.
https://forums.sifive.com/t/memory-access-is-too-slow/5018/2
Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, um 12:18:01 Uhr schrieb Andrei Z.:
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
Neither KDE nor GNOME is the best one. Both wasting too much resources.
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes:
The megatransfers/second
is usually higher on modern hardware.
https://forums.sifive.com/t/memory-access-is-too-slow/5018/2
You really see with such from-the-ground-up efforts how many
performance features (that we take for granted) at how many places
there are in mainstream hardware.
- anton
On 02/23/2022 07:27 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, um 12:18:01 Uhr schrieb Andrei Z.:
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
Neither KDE nor GNOME is the best one. Both wasting too much resources.
Yup! I'm on XFCE now and it's faster than kDE.
What's interesting, is not even the mainstream CPU designs,
use all the features provided by current DRAM. It's been like
that for at least four generations.
There are no long bursts, even though long bursts are supported.
Usually the designers are cache-line-size oriented. And this
means an access cycle is pretty expensive (taking 100 cycles
for a 4 cycle burst). Perhaps this design would have an
8 cycle burst, depending on the size of the cache line.
And modern processors also fabricate the details of their
transfer bandwidth. The marketing materials tends to take
the number of channels and multiply by the theoretical bandwidth,
when nothing could be further from the truth. The numbers
can be off by a factor of 8, just for starters.
But at least for a DRAM controller, there's a chance you could
buy a decent one.
Maybe instead of using Ubuntu designed to use Gnome you might switch
to a distro designed from the getgo to use KDE.
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
https://itsfoss.com/kde-vs-gnome/
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:18:01 +0300, Andrei Z. wrote:
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
https://itsfoss.com/kde-vs-gnome/
They both suck.
The only sensible/useable DE is Xfce.
On 3/7/2022 11:49 AM, Dan C wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:18:01 +0300, Andrei Z. wrote:
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
https://itsfoss.com/kde-vs-gnome/
They both suck.
The only sensible/useable DE is Xfce.
And now we can settle the much more important question of:
Which is better, vi or emacs?
Which is better, vi or emacs?
Errrrrrr I'm prejudiced. :)
On 3/7/2022 11:49 AM, Dan C wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:18:01 +0300, Andrei Z. wrote:And now we can settle the much more important question of:
KDE vs GNOME: What's the Ultimate Linux Desktop Choice? - It's FOSS
https://itsfoss.com/kde-vs-gnome/
They both suck.
The only sensible/useable DE is Xfce.
Which is better, vi or emacs?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:32:19 |
| Calls: | 9,719 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,741 |
| Messages: | 6,182,081 |
