2004 Linux distro

[Sorin Paliga]

Ubuntu should be, I think, the Linux distro of 2004; not because it is significantly better than others, but because it is the first, after years, which is launched for the intel, amd and ppc platforms.
I think much is to be done regarding gui; many are kde-biased. I personally have no particular bias, but the last updates of kde look indeed better than gnome.
Congratulations indeed. What else now?

[asimon]

Ubuntu should be, I think, the Linux distro of 2004; not because it is significantly better than others, but because it is the first, after years, which is launched for the intel, amd and ppc platforms.

The first since years? AFAIK there are other distributions which already support these architectures, no? Debian (okay hasn't realeased yet but Ubuntu's platfrom support is based on the work of the debian developers) and Gentoo for example?

[nuopus]

Ubuntu should be, I think, the Linux distro of 2004; not because it is significantly better than others, but because it is the first, after years, which is launched for the intel, amd and ppc platforms.
I think much is to be done regarding gui; many are kde-biased. I personally have no particular bias, but the last updates of kde look indeed better than gnome.
Congratulations indeed. What else now? Actually Gentoo supports more platforms than Ubuntu supports. They support x86 (Intel), amd64, alpha, hppa, mips, ppc and sparc. Heck ... it even can be installed on an SGI which is something no other distro can claim (to my knowledge at least).

I am glad Ubuntu chose GNOME 2.8. It just "feels" right to me. KDE is too much like Windows ... which I never really went to so I dont get the attraction. I actually much prefer the good ol' CDE feel of things which is why I like XFCE ... but GNOME is just as good. Nothing in KDE is in the right places ... too cluttered ... too confusing. Things just arent where you would expect them to be. GNOME is clean.

Anyway ... I am biased! lol cheers!

[jayclark]

I used to be all for kde. But Ubuntu has changed this. Gnome is far better. Gnome is slick, smooth, and clean. Kde feels bloated. I hate how kde is setup. Gnome all the way. I don't see why anyone would like kde over gnome. Now all gnome needs is a good cd-burning app on par with k3b or better,

[asimon]

I don't see why anyone would like kde over gnome. Now all gnome needs is a good cd-burning app on par with k3b or better,

There are many reasons. Some things I am missing under Gnome are for example a printing dialog as powerful as KDE's, configurable keyboard shortcuts in every application (I don't use Evolution because of that, using Evo via keyboard only is horror), integrated and guided bogofilter and spamassassin handling in the mail application, a file dialog which can display image thumbnails, as a developer programming for Gnome is no fun for me, a dcop like interface which I often use in shell scripts, amarok like music database/player (I know rhythmbox and muine and both suck IMO), KDE's address manager, the general configurability of KDE because it allows me to configure the desktop like *I* want.

The desktop is just a tool I use to get work done. And with KDE *I am* faster and more productive then with Gnome.

[jayclark]

I guess when you look at that way yea. But I don't need any of that for me. I guess you could consider gnome for people who want just a basic gui with features good enough for users and maybe some tweaking. KDE is better for "power users". Only thing I couldn't beleive KDE didn't have, was the abiltiy to map my multimedia buttons on my keyboard. Being able to use those is a great help. Gnome dosen't reconize all of them either. But KDE wouldn't do it all. I think both of the gui's are great. I guess it comes down to what you like. I'm bias to gnome though.. :mrgreen:

[asimon]

KDE is better for "power users".

I don't like that categorisation. I know some great programmers who I see as power users and who use Gnome. I my eyes it's just personal preference. Some like Gnome more, others like KDE more.



Only thing I couldn't beleive KDE didn't have, was the abiltiy to map my multimedia buttons on my keyboard. Being able to use those is a great help.
Actually if XFree is configured correctly, i.e. that it generates keysyms for those extra buttons you can use them under KDE. Just open the Keyboard Shortcuts dialog and there you should be able to use those extra media keys.
I have a Microsoft Natural Multimedia Keyboard and most of the extra keys (Play, Forward, My Musik, etc.) work fine under KDE and Gnome. (some keys don't work under Ubuntu's XFree but they do under Gentoo's newer Xorg server, that is because XFree doesn't have support for 'microsoftmult' which maps all my extra keys correctly, but Xorg has. Thus under Ubuntu I use 'microsoftpro' as my keyboard model but it's missing some extra keys).

[jayclark]

Speaking of Xfree/Xorg do you know of any website that will explain the differences between the two?

[renato]

I prefer Gnome to KDE, but still I cannot understand how come they made it so complicated to modify Menus in Gnome and to add programs that are not included in menu after install!. I read somewhere that Gnome 2.8 was much more advanced than Windows Explorer. Not true, and I really would like to be able to modify menus in Gnome by simple drag and drop like in WinsdowsXP.

[im_ka]

gnome vs. kde: a matter of taste

kde has some featutes gnome doesn't have. that's a fact. k3b is a big + for kde (although gnome baker will support burning audio cd's directly from mo3/ogg, see http://gnome-files.org).

i personally prefer gnome, it just feels better. i can live without the easier menu updating. choose a desktop environment that fits your needs, linux is about choices. for example, i don't need k3b cause i have an mp3 player in my car.

[renato]

I also have an Mp3 player in my car, but it works with CD-Roms so I have a rewritable CD-Rom which I use as a sort of Cd Loader and I keep on erasing it and reloading it many times. And K3b is great for this task. I had no problem adding K3b (and other programs) to Gnome menu, and I also think Linux is a mater of choices. But if they want Gnome to be the Default desktop for the average Windows user, they should make some things easier, especially menu editing.

[nuopus]

LOL This KDE vs GNOME debate always starts a big thread! Anyway ... ya it is a matter of taste and I guess also depends on previous experience.

I think many people with LOTS of experience with MS Windows will want KDE. Me, I have never really went the Windows route ... I continued to run my BBS through Desqview 386 when others were moving to WFWG 3.11 ;-). and it just continued to the BSDs from there ... then to every linux known to man and finally Gentoo and now Ubuntu. So, since I have never had the Windows experience really .... I hate its looks are prefer the simplicity of CDE, XFCE or any of the NeXTish window managers. The way Ubuntu did GNOME is tasteful with the no desktop icons thing. I absolutely HATE things on the desktop.

[adbak]

I agree, Ubuntu should be the Linux Distro of 2004. It shot to the Top 5 according to DistroWatch's page hits for 1 month, soon to surpass SuSE into the third spot. Any distro that can do that in the first few months of being released is certainly in the running.

I first started out with Linux with Knoppix. I couldn't stand KDE. It just looked repulsive. I'm so glad that I found Gnome and in such a great distribution.

[im_ka]

I also have an Mp3 player in my car, but it works with CD-Roms so I have a rewritable CD-Rom which I use as a sort of Cd Loader and I keep on erasing it and reloading it many times.

yea, same here :)

[Sorin Paliga]

Hi to all,

1. Correction: Ubuntu is, I think, the only ppc linux distro which installs smoothly and easily, that's what I meant. Besides, it runs OK, that's what I meant too. The other Linux ppc distros have always put a problem, major or minor. Hat off to Gentoo, if it were simpler, or at least with a clearer read-me file. As a constant mac os user, I think that simple and clear read-me files are the best way to success.
2. Gnome or/and KDE? I do not know... Rumours say that some guys are considering Aqua as a possible Linux UI. Well, I do not think this is possible immediately. Perhaps Looking Glass will give an impulse. Basically, I would be inclined for Gnome, if last version of KDE were not indeed better, at least in easily configuring additional keyboard layouts (we use a lot of languages here, and that's important).

Generally, I do understand the basic philosophy of both KDE and Gnome: do it as close to Windows as possible, with the naive credo that this would make users hasten to adopt Linux. In my mind, a COMPLETELY NEW UI in Linux would be (would have been) a more attractive alternative than a Windows-like UI. Maybe I'm wrong...

[asimon]

I do understand the basic philosophy of both KDE and Gnome: do it as close to Windows as possible, with the naive credo that this would make users hasten to adopt Linux.

Sorry but I think you neither have a deep understanding of the philosophy of KDE nor of Gnome because they both don't have the philiosophy you say.

EDIT: If you by philosophy mean the basic Windows/Icons/Menus/Pointers-interface then you're right. But that is because there isn't yet a better working interface. But the aim of the KDE developers is not to immitate an other system. The aim is just to develop an usable and effective interface. That means if something has already proven to be usable and effective it makes sense to just take that. Also note that although you can configure KDE to look very similar to Windows you can also configure it in a way that it looks very different.

[FLeiXiuS]

Sorry but I think you neither have a deep understanding of the philosophy of KDE nor of Gnome because they both don't have the philiosophy you say.


No philosophy is needed, gnome is just better then kde :-)! In my perspective! :-P

[jdodson]

No philosophy is needed, gnome is just better then kde :-)! In my perspective! :-P

i wouldnt say kde is "better," though personally i prefer gnome to kde. i think originally it was because gnome looked more UNwindows that kde, though that is completley debatable :grin:

anyways in the long run, its whatever you like, you can use. which is why i love linux, you can choose. kde and gnome people should join hands and say "we have choice." we shouldnt toss up our hands in the air and scream, "YOU SUCK!" (i am not saying you said that btw).

i think it is cool so many hackers use gnu/linux.

rock on.

[jayclark]

"we shouldnt toss up our hands in the air and scream, "YOU SUCK!" (i am not saying you said that btw)"

Thats only valid in a Windows forum. :p I can't count how many times I said that when using Windows. But I do know of people who run it flawlessly but I'm not sure how. The good thing between Gnome and KDE is you can make it look totally different and have the features. Most default kde that come in distros are really put together poorly. Ubuntu is my first gnome distro some I'm not sure about other distros that use it as default. But I'm sure if Ubuntu went with KDE instead it would be just as good as Gnome.

[daniels]

We are totally committed to GNOME, and even if we wanted to move to Aqua, we couldn't. It's not free, nor is the code open, it only runs on PowerPC, and is deeply tied to the Darwin kernel.

[markw]

Speaking of Xfree/Xorg do you know of any website that will explain the differences between the two?
here you go:
http://www.unixville.com/?q=node/view/34
You can also check there sites:
http://www.xfree86.org/
http://x.org/

[jayclark]

Thanks