Do you view Kubuntu as a separate distro?

[Gijith]

I didn't even think of it that way until I noticed how it was listed on distrowatch. If combined, we'd have more than twice Fedora's ranking.

What makes the gubuntu/kubuntu split greater than other projects that support both DEs?

[tikal26]

I see it as one distwo with different option even though kubuntu is supposed to be more community supported. I think that at least for distowatch purposes they should keep it togheter.

[stuporglue]

It's probably a separate distro because it's got it's own CDs and website.

[asimon]

I see the Ubuntu family as only one distribution, because they share all packages and everything is developed in a single repository, no seperation. They just offer different install/live media.

If there is some problem with a (main) KDE package in Kubuntu, then the very same KDE package has the same problem in Ubuntu too (being in main, it's also part of Ubuntu by definition). There is just no need to differenciate these 'distros' beyond the install media.

I also dislike the existance of kubuntuforums.net and prefer one forum for all Ubuntu family members. It makes it just cumbersome to search for solutions, especially if they are not Desktop/GUI related.

[Bandit]

I view Kubuntu as a Sister project. But not a seperate distro..

[Jucato]

Kubuntu user here. And yeah, I don't view Kubuntu as a separate distro, but as Ubuntu + KDE. (But strangely enough, I also view Ubuntu as Ubuntu + GNOME. :D)

But I don't agree that the only difference that the two have is the install media. Development also progresses a bit separately. For example, Kubuntu Flight-4 doesn't have the espresso system yet as compared to Ubuntu Flight-4, at least last time I checked.

About the existence of Kubuntuforums.net, I asked the founder about it and he said that he has nothing against Ubuntuforums.org except that this site had a lot of down times. I personally experience this, but once only, last January if I remember correctly. He just wanted to offer an alternative place to find answers. And there are some things/answers found in one that isn't found in the other. But I don't really see this as being a problem. I see aysiu posting in both places. :D

[Lovechild]

Seeing as I don't care one bit about Kubuntu, I don't see it at all - if tomorrow there was no Kubuntu the impact on my life would be nill.

I think the divide is good for both parties looking at how it works within Fedora I can see a lot of flak being handed out for mistreating KDE and a proper solution would be to break it out into Extras for easier community management. I think it's healthy for those who care about software to handle it, it shines it's brightest when polished by someone who loves it.

[asimon]

But I don't agree that the only difference that the two have is the install media. Development also progresses a bit separately. For example, Kubuntu Flight-4 doesn't have the espresso system yet as compared to Ubuntu Flight-4, at least last time I checked.
But this is a difference in the install media, more specifically espresso is contained on one install CD but not on the other. You can install Ubuntu and later install espresso from a remote repository, can't you? There is only on espresso package in the repositories.



He just wanted to offer an alternative place to find answers. And there are some things/answers found in one that isn't found in the other.
A unconvenient situation that wouldn't be there if we would have only one forum. Anyway people are familiar with the need that information has to be gathered from many sources.

[benplaut]

i view it as a part of Ubuntu... just a nice play-on-words to refer to ubuntu with KDE.

[Jucato]

But this is a difference in the install media, more specifically espresso is contained on one install CD but not on the other. You can install Ubuntu and later install espresso from a remote repository, can't you? There is only on espresso package in the repositories.

Espresso is the system that they've developed to allow installation from the Live CD. I don't think it would be of much use if it were installed after installation. But the fact that some features such as this are not implemented at the same time demonstrates that development on the two does not proceed at the same pace. Add that to the fact that the two web pages (Ubuntu.org and Kubuntu.org) have striking dissimilarities.

Putting these differences aside, I still say that Kubuntu is NOT a separate distro, but more a different flavor of the same distro. I have nothing against the *buntu naming convention, as long as it's clear that Ubuntu is the base distro. I wonder what the people at Canonical would say to this...

The unconvenient situation was produced by the inconvenience of down times of this site, at least according to the founder. I for one, found it rather inconvenient (which reminds me of my project to re-post, not just link, some guides from here to there). But nonetheless, if it helps other people, then let it live. :D

[vayu]

It's Ubuntu for me. I start with Ubuntu then apt-get kubuntu-desktop and have the best of both worlds.

[coolclassic]

Although the core packages are the same it is the desktop that differs and this can be confusing for the newbie on what the difference is, after all Ubuntu is:
Ubuntu + Gnome and
Kubuntu is Ubuntu without Gnome plus KDE

To differentiate between the two should we not have Gubuntu as well? or even Iubuntu ect

[Jucato]

To differentiate between the two should we not have Gubuntu as well? or even Iubuntu ect

Iubuntu? for IceWM? IceWM is a window manager, not a desktop environment.

But anyway, historically speaking, Ubuntu really started out with GNOME. I guess they didn't really envision KDE coming along so they had no reason to use the "G". But Kubuntu was born, and Xubuntu and Edubuntu followed suit. But no reason really to change the Ubuntu name. It's not like Knoppix vs. Gnoppix, which are really different distros.

[GreyFox503]

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Why is Ubuntu so special that we have different names for our distro based on its DE? Two listings under distrowatch is crazy. It's the same thing, people.

We can't be the first distro ever to offer a choice between GNOME and KDE. Surely someone before us has shipped different discs based on choice of DE.

If every distro did this, distrowatch would be a LOT more crowded.

[Jucato]

I also don't know. I think it is the people at Canonical who decided on Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu. Maybe the devs wanted more distinction?

At least it make Ubuntu unique: the only distro that has a different name for different DE's/versions. /sarcasm
Who knows. Maybe the other distros will follow suit?

Btw, it's not only distrowatch that lists Ubuntu and Kubuntu as separate distros. The Linux Distribution Chooser (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/) also lists them as different results.

[xequence]

I view it as the same distro.

Just an easier way to install KDE then using the ubuntu CD and apt-getting kde.

[towsonu2003]

Do you view Kubuntu as a separate distro?yep


What makes the gubuntu/kubuntu split
come in different CDs, prefer to be treated as different distros. that's enough for me :)

[mstlyevil]

I view them as the same. Suse gives you the choice of either using KDE or Gnome at install but you have to use 5 CD's or a dvd to install it. The Ubuntu Devs have decided to keep an install down to just one cd so it makes sense they offer them as seperate cd's. They also have to consider their primary target audience may live in countries where there is no affordable broadband access so doing a server install and then doing sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop is not an option to many people. The unintended consequence is some view Kubuntu and Ubuntu as seperate distros but that is actually not the truth since the base of both is exactly the same.