Opt out? Opt in? Opt Green!

50% of consumers buy new devices due to unsupported software, while the “tsunami of #eWaste” continues to rise.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource can keep those devices in use and out of the landfill. Today!

Say hello to the new #KDEEco project “#OptGreen: #SustainableSoftware For Sustainable Hardware”.

https://eco.kde.org/blog/2024-05-29_introducing-ns4nh/

You don’t need new hardware for a secure, up-to-date device; you just need the right software!

@kde

#KDE #FOSS #RightToRepair #Sustainability

  • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
    112·
    7 months ago

    You’re arguing semantics and that’s not the point I’m trying to argue here. Forget the term “Plasma”. I don’t really care about what the DE is branded as or what’s in “Plasma” the software package. When I say “KDE”, I mean the desktop + all the basic default/recommended apps that you’d see on a typical KDE installation, such as Dolphin, Konsole, Kate, Kalculator, Spectacle etc that’s part of the KDE project. IDK whether the apps I’ve mentioned are considered part of “Plasma” or not, but again, that’s not the point, I’m saying this is what I meant when I said “KDE” - and what most people would expect when they picture a “KDE” environment.

    Anyways, I tested this myself on two identical VMs with 2GB RAM, one installed with Fedora 40 KDE, and another with Fedora 40 LXQt, both set to use X11 (because LXQt isn’t Wayland ready yet), both updated and running the latest kernel 6.8.10-300.fc40. I logged into the DEs, opened only two terminal windows and nothing else, ran, and ran htop. The screenshot speaks for itself:

    And when I tried disabling swap on both machines, the KDE machine was practically unusable, with only 53MB RAM remaining before it completely froze on me. Meanwhile, the LXQt one was still very much usable even without swap enabled.

    I’d like to see you try running without swap and see how it fares. And if you think it’s unfair disabling swap on a 2GB machine - try installing LXQt yourself, disable swap and see for yourself how much more usable it is compared to KDE.

    And this is why I say KDE is bloated and not suitable for old machines.

    Edit: Also, check out the memory consumption listed by a user in this post: https://lemmy.nz/comment/9070317

    Edit2: Here’s a screenshot of the top 30 processes on my test systems, side-by-side:

    Of the above, I calculated the usage of the top 10 processes specific to each respective DE, and you can see that KDE’s memory usage is almost double that of LXQt. Had I counted all the DE-specific processes, it’d no doubt be a lot more than double.

    • Bro666@lemmy.kde.socialM
      3·
      7 months ago

      You are moving the goalpost once again. First to be light the DE (i.e. Plasma) had to be light; then the DE had to be light, but not Plasma (?), but your redefinition of DE as in Plasma, plus a random set of apps (Dolphin, Konsole and Kate – none of which are distributed with Plasma, by the way).

      As that also proved to be light, now you are basing your argument on (a) a poll (?) and (b) that there is at least one desktop that is lighter and that does not need swap.

      I am perfectly willing to admit the latter, mainly because it is true: there ARE DEs lighter than Plasma. But it is a strawman argument, as admitting that does not invalidate the statement that “Plasma is light” and “KDE’S software is not bloated”.

      I wish you would stick to one thing and argue in good faith. You seem incapable of that so, I’m done.

      • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
        22·
        7 months ago

        I’m not moving any goalposts. You’re the one arguing about the semantics around “Plasma”, and I keep saying that’s irrelevant.

        Refer back to my original comment which was, and I quote:

        So, are there any plans to reduce the bloat in KDE, maybe even make a lightweight version (like LXQt) that’s suitable for older PCs with limited resources?

        To clarify, here I was:

        • Referring to KDE + default apps that are part of a typical KDE installation
        • Stating that a typical KDE installation is bloated compared to a typical lightweight DE like LXQt
        • Saying with the intention that the “bloat” is RELATIVE, with respect to a older PC with limited resources

        The ENTIRE point of my argument was the KDE isn’t really ideal RELATIVELY, for older PCs with limited resources, and I’m using LXQt here are a reference.

        In a subsequent test, here’s a direct apples-to-apples(ish) component comparison:

        Component Process_KDE RAM_KDE Process_LXQt RAM_LXQt
        WM kwin_x11 99 openbox 18
        Terminal konsole 76 qterminal 75
        File Manager Dolphin 135 pcmanfm-qt 80
        File Archiver ark 122 Lxqt-archiver 73
        Text Editor kwrite 121 featherpad 73
        Image Viewer gwenview 129 lximage-qt 76
        Document Viewer okular 128 qpdfview-qt6 51
        Total 810 446

        plasmashell was sitting at 250MB btw in this instance btw.

        The numbers speak for themselves - no one in their right minds would consider KDE (or plasmashell, since you want to be pedantic) to be “light”, in RELATION to an older PC with limited resources - which btw, was the premise of my entire argument. Of course KDE or plasmashell might be considered “light” on a modern system, but not an old PC with 2GB RAM. Whether something is considered light or bloated is always relative, and in this instance, it’s obvious to anyone that KDE/plasmashell isn’t “light”.