- Pros:
- system trays applet already works out of the box (still customizable to some extend at least more than gnome system trays)
- very good support for Wayland and VIDIA GPUs
- easy and quick to customize and you don’t have to deal with CSS if you don’t have much time to waste
- better integrated with KDE’s softwares (Kdenlive, KDE connect, Konsole, Kate, Elisa…) which is my opinion some of the best softwares for Linux even better than Windows’s in some cases
- friendly community (mostly)
- Cons:
- you have to use KDE with Krohnkite
Not OP but the answer is that having windows on top of each other is mostly useless. 99% of the time, when you’re working with multiple windows, you don’t want to see just part of the window. So either your window is minimized or somehow tiled. At that point you are using a worse version of a tiling WM. The 1% of the time, you can just make the tiled window float.
Having windows on top of each other might be useless but it also doesn’t hurt anything, and KDE already has the ability to snap windows into different positions. So this description doesn’t really capture the problem you’re solving.
It does actually hurt something — my time. If the windows are on top of each other, that means I cannot see the one on the bottom. Which means I either have to click between 2 windows or make them tiled like you described (aka using a tiling WM but shit). Both options are inferior experience to a tiling WM which handles this automatically.
I don’t think tiling WMs are some mega productivity boost. But I also think that floating WMs are just a worse workflow with almost no benefits. The only exception is if you want to see only a part of a window, which is easier to do on floating WM. But that’s a rare situation and you can do it on a floating WM too, it just takes like 5 seconds more to set up.
We’re talking about things that take ms to decide and act upon. I mean if you prefer it or you’re used to it that’s fine but for many people I’d argue the cost of change in either direction is higher than the aggregate savings in time.