Why is Ubuntu not called Gubuntu?

[XubuRoxMySox]

... Gnome is the official and supported one. They aren't treating X/K(ubuntu) equally because they aren't equal. They're spinoffs.

It seems to me that Kubuntu gets alot more love from Canonical than Xubuntu does. To illustrate this, note that while Canonical's ShipIt service ships free CDs of Ubuntu and Kubuntu, it does not ship free Xubuntu CDs. Xubuntu is a step child. They had to make separate arrangements with another vendor to make free Xubuntu CDs available (see here).

Xubuntu is much more independent. Xubuntu did not ship with buggy, troublesome, Beta PulseAudio, for example, until Lucid, now that PulseAudio is ready and most of the bugs have been worked out. I think the Xubuntu developers' approach to the distro has been great, especially lately, as Xubuntu is trimmed back down to it's former leanness and meanness!

I can't help it... I always root for the underdog!

Still rooting,
Robin

[swoll1980]

That has nothing to do with the topic, it's just an article about a person who refuses to learn accepted computer industry terminology because he believes them to be "boring geek things" - a viewpoint I imagine no serious Linux user shares. I agree that Canonical isn't paying enough attention to Kubuntu, and is not advertising it sufficiently compared to (G)ubuntu.

Why don't you fork Ubuntu, and make your own installer that offers a choice? Problem solved.

[Shining Arcanine]

Why don't you fork Ubuntu, and make your own installer that offers a choice? Problem solved.

I think the problem is here is that the naming convention for Ubuntu is inconsistent. You can install Ubuntu with a LiveCD and then install the KDE packages and replace Gnome with KDE, which is completely supported and all of a sudden, you are no longer running Ubuntu, but instead, you are running Kubuntu. The difference is superficial and the naming convention should reflect that.

[ssj6akshat]

A.Because it sounds like Goo.Nobody wants goo on their computers.

[swoll1980]

I think the problem is here is that the naming convention for Ubuntu is inconsistent. You can install Ubuntu with a LiveCD and then install the KDE packages and replace Gnome with KDE, which is completely supported and all of a sudden, you are no longer running Ubuntu, but instead, you are running Kubuntu. The difference is superficial and the naming convention should reflect that.

I don't think the changes are superficial. For an average desktop user there is a huge difference between the two, more so than if you were to switch any other part of the OS, even the kernel itself.

[Shining Arcanine]

I don't think the changes are superficial. For an average desktop user there is a huge difference between the two, more so than if you were to switch any other part of the OS, even the kernel itself.

Usually switching to a different kernel will break your OS. There are some projects to switch to GNU/Hurd, but it is hardly a drop in replacement:

http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

The differences between Ubuntu running KDE and Ubuntu running Gnome are entirely superficial. Your argument against them being superficial is actually an argument for them being superficial if you consider the dictionary definition of the term:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superficial

[swoll1980]

Usually switching to a different kernel will break your OS. There are some projects to switch to GNU/Hurd, but it is hardly a drop in replacement:

http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

The differences between Ubuntu running KDE and Ubuntu running Gnome are entirely superficial. Your argument against them being superficial is actually an argument for them being superficial if you consider the dictionary definition of the term:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superficial

If you gave an average user Linux with kde, then switched them to pcbsd without telling them, they wouldn't know the difference. That's what I was saying. An average user cares about nothing, but the DE. To them that is the OS. I've seen this 100 times. My girlfriend calls Linux, Firefox. To her the browser is the OS.

[Shining Arcanine]

If you gave an average user Linux with kde, then switched them to pcbsd without telling them, they wouldn't know the difference. That's what I was saying. An average user cares about nothing, but the DE. To them that is the OS. I've seen this 100 times. My girlfriend calls Linux, Firefox. To her the browser is the OS.

That is precisely why the differences between Ubuntu with Gnome and Ubuntu with KDE are superficial. It seems to me that we both agree on this conclusion.

[MCVenom]

That is precisely why the differences between Ubuntu with Gnome and Ubuntu with KDE are superficial. It seems to me that we both agree on this conclusion.

I don't think you're seeing his point -- he's saying that most people don't care what goes on under the hood. To them, the desktop environment might as well BE the OS.

For example, show your average Windows user Ubuntu with Gnome, and Ubuntu with KDE. Tell them they're both the same OS. Watch their shock

[swoll1980]

If you ported Explorer to Linux. You could switch 90% of the world to Linux without them knowing about it.