4 ms·

I don't know if QT is part of the reason what makes KDE so sluggish, but if thats the case, Lubuntu switching to LXQT might have a lot to do with this challenge

I don't know if QT is part of the reason what makes KDE so sluggish, but if thats the case, Lubuntu switching to LXQT might have a lot to do with this challenge. If that's the case, I really have no idea why they're so hell bent on the transition from GTK. If love for them to migrate to JWM, but last time I checked the L in Lubuntu is for LXDE. Is there really any benefit in adopting QT or are they just following what they see as the "forward" direction. LXDE doesn't have to look glossy, skeumorphic, and outdated. A skin is superficial, I would do anything to avoid QTumor.

youwishboye 8y ago
> I don't know if QT is part of the reason what makes KDE so sluggish What are you talking about mate? Have you tried KDE in the last 3 years?
genghizkhan 8y ago
As far as I've seen, it's not. I used razor-qt when it was still an independent project and I pretty much fell in love with the idea of it. Gnome 3 was being a PITA (I remember throwing things when my artfully crafted css broke with an upgrade) and KDE hadn't crossed over into version 5. I'd tried out XFCE at that point. It didn't excite me because I didn't want to get stuck with GTK 2. I just downloaded razor-qt and realised that with a bit of spit, shine and polish, this had the potential to become what LXDE was to Gnome. I'm pretty happy about LXQT emerging from the LXDE/razor-qt merger. Anyway, back to your question. razor-qt was pretty snappy on my machine, leading me to conclude that KDE was slow because it was KDE. Akonadi, slow animations, buggy widgets, you name it. I haven't tried KDE since then (this was back in 2012 or so), but I've heard that the latest incarnations are pretty snappy and light. Even if they aren't, I highly doubt LXQT will have any problems with lag.
simion314 8y ago
Qt works on embedded systems so it is an optimized toolkit, if a Qt app feels slow then most of the time the fault is with the app developer.
slezyr 8y ago
> I really have no idea why they're so hell bent on the transition from GTK Because otherwise they have to develop it? > A skin is superficial, I would do anything to avoid QTumor. Do me a favour.

youwishboye 8y ago

> I don't know if QT is part of the reason what makes KDE so sluggish What are you talking about mate? Have you tried KDE in the last 3 years?

genghizkhan 8y ago

As far as I've seen, it's not. I used razor-qt when it was still an independent project and I pretty much fell in love with the idea of it. Gnome 3 was being a PITA (I remember throwing things when my artfully crafted css broke with an upgrade) and KDE hadn't crossed over into version 5. I'd tried out XFCE at that point. It didn't excite me because I didn't want to get stuck with GTK 2. I just downloaded razor-qt and realised that with a bit of spit, shine and polish, this had the potential to become what LXDE was to Gnome. I'm pretty happy about LXQT emerging from the LXDE/razor-qt merger. Anyway, back to your question. razor-qt was pretty snappy on my machine, leading me to conclude that KDE was slow because it was KDE. Akonadi, slow animations, buggy widgets, you name it. I haven't tried KDE since then (this was back in 2012 or so), but I've heard that the latest incarnations are pretty snappy and light. Even if they aren't, I highly doubt LXQT will have any problems with lag.

simion314 8y ago

Qt works on embedded systems so it is an optimized toolkit, if a Qt app feels slow then most of the time the fault is with the app developer.

slezyr 8y ago

> I really have no idea why they're so hell bent on the transition from GTK Because otherwise they have to develop it? > A skin is superficial, I would do anything to avoid QTumor. Do me a favour.