Pro and cons about your KDE experiences

hd_scania · 08-28-2017, 02:20 AM

I think it NEEDS to be explicit which a good integration over Qt apps and Gtk+ ones needs to be the dominant pro for KDE, however, does it HENCE also need to be the element under its con to be Qt libs demanding, also Gtk+ libs, filesystems, finally hardware memories demanding?

jsbjsb001 · 08-28-2017, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hd_scania

I think it NEEDS to be explicit which a good integration over Qt apps and Gtk+ ones needs to be the dominant pro for KDE, however, does it HENCE also need to be the element under its con to be Qt libs demanding, also Gtk+ libs, filesystems, finally hardware memories demanding?

I prefer KDE because it looks better for starters. I prefer the look of Qt because it looks a LOT better than gtk.

Cons: (at least back in the day, anyway)

HDMI audio

DavidMcCann · 08-28-2017, 11:32 AM

I don't generally care what things look like, although I find KDE too cluttered and distracting. If I were asked its pros, I'd say the ease and scope of the configuration options, and the fact that it hasn't succumbed to the temptation to abandon plain text configuration files, unlike Gnome and Mate.

hd_scania · 08-29-2017, 01:30 AM

I have thought for which the few ''Qt-centrist'' OS distro are using KDE to be their default desktop, but it is fully problematic, which KDE is to integrate over Qt and Gtk+, which could NEVER make them Qt-centrist, they instead need LXQt, and other Qt-purely desktops, now LXQt is the only and first one known to me being ones in Qt-purely desktops upto now.

hd_scania · 08-29-2017, 01:48 AM

Although switching to Qt I am still disappointed to Budgie desktop shell which it is STILL NOT re-composed to any LXQt relations since its v11, Budgie instead still uses GNOME apps before the Budgie 11 developments from now but being an Qt-powered desktop shell.