Should Canonical make KDE it's default desktop environment?

[ezcomputersolutions]

I have been reading about how Canonical is going to port Unity to Qt, create their own display manger and all. What I am wondering is why don't they just make KDE their default desktop? You can make KDE look like, and act almost exactly like Unity on the desktop. KDE has Plasma Desktop, Netbook, and Plasma Active for tablets and phones already. Yes these look slightly different, but it seems just as different from Unity on the desktop to the way it looks on the tablets. KDE has been built on Qt & QML for 17 years whereas Canonical is just now starting to use it and are going to port Unity 3D to it.

Yes we already have the Kubuntu project, but it still isn't quite as user-friendly has Ubuntu. You have to install "pavucontrol" so that a lot of sound apps work with KDE, and other things. So why can't Canonical just switch to KDE, and make a super polished KDE desktop like openSUSE?

KDE is a vibrant, innovative, advanced, modern looking and full-featured desktop environment that already has a Desktop, Netbook, Tablet, & Phone UI that is based on Qt QML. So why doesn't canonical switch to that as it's main desktop environment?

If Canonical switched to KDE as it's main desktop environment, then I think it would absolutely rule the Linux Desktop for consumers.

So what are your thoughts?

[JLeon85]

I agree that KDE would be better than it is now, but I would rather they switch to LXDE like Lubuntu. IMO, that's the easiest to use, and the least daunting for refugees coming over from Windows 8.

[ezcomputersolutions]

I agree that KDE would be better than it is now, but I would rather they switch to LXDE like Lubuntu. IMO, that's the easiest to use, and the least daunting for refugees coming over from Windows 8.

KDE is very powerful and configurable. I can make it look and act like Unity and I am not a programmer. If you put Canonical's team behind it, then they could make KDE look and act very simple while still having the entire power of KDE behind the scenes.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

No, thank you.

[mamamia88]

It already is in Kubuntu. If you want kde use kubuntu if you want xfce use xubuntu if you want lxde use lubuntu. It's not rocket science. If Canonical wants to develop Unity in the main branch they have every right to do so. If you don't like it either install a different de on the side or use a ubuntu based distro with that de by default.

[ezcomputersolutions]

It already is in Kubuntu. If you want kde use kubuntu if you want xfce use xubuntu if you want lxde use lubuntu. It's not rocket science. If Canonical wants to develop Unity in the main branch they have every right to do so. If you don't like it either install a different de on the side or use a ubuntu based distro with that de by default.

It's not about what I like better or not. It's about Canonical re-inventing the wheel with something that has already been done. KDE already works great on Desktops, Netbooks, Tablets, and phones.

Yes Canonical has every right to do whatever they want, it just seems like their vision for Unity/Ubuntu has already been done with KDE. And lets face it, companies aren't going to install a community driven Linux distro like Kubuntu on their machines. They are going to put ubuntu on their machines. That's why I am saying Canonical should move to KDE.

[Roasted]

KDE and Unity are two different entirely different beasts, even if they may someday be based entirely on QT. It's no different than XFCE/Gnome. Both are largely based on GTK, so the same argument can apply there. While I do wish Canonical invested a little more time and energy into the derivatives of *ubuntu, I by no means would advocate that KDE be the "default". Different variants exist for a reason.

For what it's worth, when we deployed Ubuntu to our work place across 2,000 systems or so, we took a long hard look at every desktop environment. While each one has pros and cons, we went with a heavily in-house modified variant of XFCE on top of Ubuntu as our desktop environment. Any company that has a team familiar with Linux and is serious about moving to some sort of Linux distribution on their desktops will almost undoubtedly look at each desktop environment and choose the best one to suit their needs. If they don't and simply pick Unity, that's fine too, but since each one has pros/cons, they may or may not be limiting themselves by not exploring other avenues first.

[mamamia88]

It's not about what I like better or not. It's about Canonical re-inventing the wheel with something that has already been done. KDE already works great on Desktops, Netbooks, Tablets, and phones.

Yes Canonical has every right to do whatever they want, it just seems like their vision for Unity/Ubuntu has already been done with KDE. And lets face it, companies aren't going to install a community driven Linux distro like Kubuntu on their machines. They are going to put ubuntu on their machines. That's why I am saying Canonical should move to KDE.

Why come out with a ps3 when the 360 was already out? Heck why even come out with consoles at all when pcs and arcade existed? The choice is what makes linux great imo.

[Dry Lips]

A quick question: Let me see if I get this right... Unity being ported to Qt means that they'll completely abandon Gnome, or have I misunderstood something here?

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

No, thank you. KDE is way too busy and about as stylish as a burger bar in a shopping mall. It's like those North American versions of recipes, where a whole load of non-essential ingredients are thrown in, half of which are sugar.