PDA

View Full Version : Kde



Draciron
September 29th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Obviously since there is an entire sub distro specifically to add KDE support this is not a new topic. I would like to bring it up again.

Here is my take on things. Linux to me stands for freedom. To use Linux is to have a computer that YOU control. Nothing is beyond your ability to change if you have the technical know how and motivation to change it. There is nobody out there telling you how you should set your computer up. Linux supports by default many different styles of computing. Not just the old command line vrs GUI conflict. Linux allows you to blend even that to just the amount you want. Linux gives you a at least 3 commonly used choices for your desktop and apps will run on all 3 plus several less commonly used options. In short Linux is a can do, and a do it your way operating system.

While I am a techie. I have made my living in IT for much of the last 20 years. I am also no noob when it comes to Linux. I first tried Linux in the mid 90s and by 2000 had weened myself completely off windoze. Finally getting work in a Linux shop allowed me to make the final transition. Still I want to work ON my projects not at fixing my machine. One of the draws of Linux is that I spend a few days setting my machine up the way I like it and thats it. I spend very little time on anything but what I am doing after I get things set up. I can automate many software updates. I keep up with security threats and patch as needed. For the most part I expend maybe an hour a week dealing with upkeep on my machine. I used to spend more than that a day back in the ancient windoze days.

What does this have to do with KDE? A great deal. When I install a Linux distro I make SURE that all 3 major window managers are installed. Even on my own machines. Partially because there are many essential apps that are either KDE or Gnome specific. So whichever desktop you choose your only getting half a desktop if you don't have the other installed. The other is that I might not be the only one who logs into that machine. Just maybe somebody else might want soemthing different. To attempt to enforce personal preference is a very Microsoft like philosophy. The very opposite of what Linux is about.

I have not tried Ubuntu, probably the only major distro I havn't because I really don't like Gnome. Even if I did the lack of KDE support is too much like Microsoft for my liking. If they will not even support KDE, then what other choices are forced upon you because of personal preference by the developers?

You see once you narrow choices on a major thing like that you break the trust. People shouldn't have to create a sub-distro. I have zero interest in a sub distro as it is not "supported". In my experience subdistro's disapeer. They contain serious lacks because people lack the time needed and the main distro considers them as lessor entities. This elitism that is instantly created by forcing a sub distro is again very unLinux like. Post installation install of something so important as a major desktop that you plan to use is always fraught with peril and frustration. The whole concept of using a distro is that such pain is undertaken by the volenteers who created the distro. Thus you are able to expend your time dealing with productive issues.

I wind up introducing probably a dozen people a month to Linux. Of those at least 1 or 2 actually give Linux a serious try. Many have joined the ranks of Linux users. One distro I steer people away from is Ubuntu because of the lack of KDE support. Why send somebody to half a desktop? Especially somebody new to Linux.

Yes I am a heritic in some ways. I think VI is a perfect example of the same concepts which killed Word Perfect. Without undergoing a huge learning curve or keyboard templates VI and Emacs to me are really unusable. I would never inflict that on a new Linux user. It is horror tales such as this that keep many people away from Linux. It's been many years since I tried Gnotepad but it was so buggy as to be completely unusable when I did try it. The version I used should have NEVER been released. Kedit at the same time was a very good application. Far better than the windoze equiv. Kate and at least 2 other common KDE text editors are also very good, full featured but light applications. I can and have literally had 100 or more Kedit windows open at the same time. Without touching performance either.

The ability for a windoze user to quickly find functional equivs to the software they used under windoze is crucial to the success of that user's journey into Linux. Gnome takes the old school Nix approach. Which is fine for many folks. Like I said Linux is about choice and many people love Gnome and I would not begrudge them or even want to force them to use KDE or a lighter window manager. Most Gnome users I've known eventually switched to a lighter less featured window manager to gain performance and drop many features they rarely or never used. Again Linux is about freedom and more power too them. If fvw were the only window manager around I'd have very little luck in converting many windoze users to Linux. Once they've used Linux for a few years or more, that is a different story. Remember we are our own worst enemy when it comes to converting windoze users to Linux. We preach the advantages. Then expect far too much technical literacy from a group who had heard the lie that it is ok to be technically illiterate repeated to them over and over again. To me to know nothing about computers today is like not knowing how to change a tire.

So having things that work and have the features without the learning curve is essential. Eye of Gnome is a great example. It's my primary image viewer. Took all of 2 seconds to learn the interface. I have a wish list for it but it is easily as good as any windoze image viewer. Firefox is more than a capable replacement for IE. Why anybody uses IE mystifies me. When it comes to light duty text editing Kedit or Kate depending on your style is clearly superior to anything offered in windoze short of a full word processor. Gateredit was a great windoze text editor. The only decent one I ever used to be honest. For many users this is crucial. Word processors are memory hogs from hell. Unless you use quite a bit of paper notes or have a mean memory writing a book using a word processor is excruciating. You cannot have multiple copies open. Even Abiword which is FAR better on resources than Star office and Open office will wipe out your memory with less than a dozen copies open for several hours. However having 20 kedit windows open each with a specific chapter plus a kedit window open for each main charactor with a history of that charactor and one each for major places plus a window for timelines. That works well. Having spell checking, text formating and other tools is important in this instance. No more paper notes strewn everywhere. It's all there on the screen and confined to a single desktop. Something nearly impossible to do in windoze as so many windows open would crater that fragile OS. THIS is an example of how I sell Linux to a windoze user. When I write I keep these windows open for months at a time sometimes. This can mean a good 70 windows devoted to just that novel/short story. I can do that because it's Linux. I can do that because Kedit is a great program for doing that with. I also use Kate for some edits as well as some programming IDEs for mass search and replace. When I'm ready for finer edits I concatonate the chapters and pull it into Abiword and start working the edits there. One day I'll get unlazy and write these features into a single writers text editor.

I have other examples I use for programmers, DBAs, and other trades. Most of which depend on both KDE and Gnome software as well as many desktop independent peices of software. I am able to show them in a practical way how life is easier under Linux. I can't do that with half the desktop missing. Yes you can install KDE apps without installing all of KDE. However that goes back to spending time on your system. A scary process for somebody new to Linux. I can tell people I help convert to use Fedora or Mandriva. I tell them to do a custom install and make sure certain packages like KDE, Gnome, Abiword, etc are installed. Then thier done. I give them a copy of my Yum repositories. Tell them to install Gnome or KDE yum and grab a few other packages. Rather painless setup. Still more awkward than many will accept. Having to walk them thru gathering up all the dependancies or do a post installation install of KDE. Forget it. They are not going to go thru that kind of effort. They will run screaming into the night away from Linux.

So in short. I am offended that you attempt to enforce your idea of a desktop on me. I feel this agaisnt the very spirit that Linux has come to represent. I feel that lack of KDE support is a great way to drive people away from Linux. Even if they don't use the hassles of getting essential packages installed makes Linux look bad. K3b is the default and by far best burner app for Linux. Would you really have windoze converts attempting to operate Xcdroast instead of K3b? Lets get serious here man. Ubuntu has become a major distro. It should have default KDE support. It should embody the freedom of choice that Linux has come to represent. It should have those features that will make a new Linux convert at home with Linux and demonstrate those the configurabilty that represents a freedom of choice. Part of that is giving them choices on the desktop.

Anyway that's my 2 cents on the topic.

darkhatter
September 29th, 2006, 07:08 PM
finally someone who understands me :D, but I think ubuntu is already opening there eyes, and working on support for kde.

skymt
September 29th, 2006, 07:17 PM
What's the point of that diatribe? You can just install Kubuntu if you want KDE. It's not really a "sub-distro", they use the same repositories. If you install Ubuntu instead, just install kubuntu-desktop (one step), and you'll have both.

The reason Ubuntu uses Gnome by default is because they consider it the superior desktop environment, and it's cheaper and easier to focus development on one desktop. You can still install KDE, and it's fully supported if you choose to.

dca
September 29th, 2006, 07:20 PM
But then aren't we back to the argument about why people prefer live/install CD(s) versus DVD(s)?? The desktop environments take up a lot of space (even w/ compression) and not many people have a live network connection when intalling an OS to install add'l necessary packages, etc. I'm probably off-base and have completely mis-interpreted your post which I apologize...

skymt
September 29th, 2006, 07:24 PM
Yep! ^^^ That's another reason Ubuntu defaults to GNOME. Including both would make it grow past one CD.

fuscia
September 29th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Even if I did the lack of KDE support is too much like Microsoft for my liking.

i don't see how. ubuntu isn't preventing a user from using kde. as an end user and one who has only used ubuntu, i don't know what you mean by 'lack of support', but i don't think the idea of 'freedom' entitles you to getting things as you would like them.

GeneralZod
September 29th, 2006, 07:35 PM
I really don't know what to make of this. Canonical has only limited resources, and so have chosen to choose a single, consistent desktop to support - in this case, GNOME. There is absolutely nothing - except for bandwidth - preventing you from installing KDE. Your comparison with Microsoft is very odd and misplaced, to my mind.

Perhaps you could condense your thesis into a couple of paragraphs so that your central point stands out more clearly ... ?

Super King
September 29th, 2006, 07:46 PM
If you want to use KDE, you can use Kubuntu. I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you call it a sub-distro; it's supported in Kubuntu, what else do you want?

No offense, but your post is quite ridiculous.

mips
September 29th, 2006, 07:48 PM
http://www.kubuntu.org/faq.php


Is this a fork of Ubuntu?
No, it is an official part of Ubuntu. All our packages are in the same archives.

I don't get your rant. You have a choice, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, no one is forcing you to use Gnome. All of these are OFFICIAL versions. They use the same repositories. geez, you can even install all of the above desktop environments on one system.

They are not "Sub-Distros" or whatever you want to call them.

http://www.kubuntu.org/ if you wan the KDE version. J Riddell, the main Kubuntu guy is on canonicals payroll if it helps.

Yes, Gnome came first, but they had to start somewhere. Kubuntu is getting better with each release. The forums are slanted towards Ubuntu as the majority of people use gnome, so what. I use kde and it does not bother me.

croak77
September 29th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Maybe he just wants the choice to use a 3 CD set like Mandrake or Red Hat does, (don't know if they still do), instead of the all-in-one live-CD approach.

muep
September 29th, 2006, 08:31 PM
You can't really go demanding that if they make a great GNOME-centric product for you, free of charge, that they double their efforts and put as much effort into KDE as in GNOME.

Luckily for you, they have done much for KDE, anyway. It has its own install cd available and they even send you those, for free. Can you really demand more than that?

ComplexNumber
September 29th, 2006, 08:39 PM
if people such as the OP wants kde, he should install a kde-centric distro.
wow! why do some people always make hard work for themselves and everyone else? :confused:

croak77
September 29th, 2006, 10:20 PM
if people such as the OP wants kde, he should install a kde-centric distro.
wow! why do some people always make hard work for themselves and everyone else? :confused:

I don't think that's his point. All he wants is more install options. He's doesn't want just GNOME or KDE, he want GNOME, KDE and XFCE4 from the install. Why not have an install option that would allow the user to install GNOME, KDE, XFCE4 or other some window managers. Yes, they are in the repo's but not every PC is connected to the internet.

ComplexNumber
September 29th, 2006, 10:30 PM
I don't think that's his point. All he wants is more install options.i understand his point alright. thats why i said it. with 500+ distros floating around, doesn't the user have enough choice already? rather than having 500 distros all offering everything except the kitchen sink, its better that distros should be more focused. i think that distros should only have either kde or gnome, but not both. i think it will allow distros to be more focused and to be better able to tailor the distro.
thats where i see linux in the next 5 years or so.

croak77
September 29th, 2006, 10:40 PM
i understand his point alright. thats why i said it. with 500+ distros floating around, doesn't the user have enough choice already? rather than having 500 distros all offering everything except the kitchen sink, its better that distros should be more focused. i think that distros should only have either kde or gnome, but not both. i think it will allow distros to be more focused and to be better able to tailor the distro.
thats where i see linux in the next 5 years or so.

Ubuntu can be GNOME specific. That doesn't prevent them from offering another CD or two which would include programs not included in the default Ubuntu install like KDE. So people can easily install without having to be connected to internt. They don't have to be like Debian and offer everything, but KDE would be nice.

fuscia
September 29th, 2006, 10:43 PM
That doesn't prevent them from offering another CD or two which would include programs not included in the default Ubuntu install like KDE.

hey, yeah! and they could call it something like...um..um...kunbuntu! that's it!

croak77
September 29th, 2006, 10:50 PM
hey, yeah! and they could call it something like...um..um...kunbuntu! that's it!

Or just Ubuntu is fine.

Draciron
May 10th, 2007, 01:36 AM
My rant is just as valid for any distro that does not support Gnome, KDE and other window managers. The point is freedom of choice. As for a single CD. Isn't that a bit of an artificial limitation? I currently use Fedora, which also defaults to Gnome but makes installing KDE quite easy. Which is simpler? Having 2, 3 or even a dozen CDs that allow you to install a whole OS or install half the OS and limit yourself to a single CD. Some people take internet connectivity for granted. That is not always possible or feasible.

Nor is grabbing a desktop specific distro which is what the Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xbuntuntu XYZbuntuntu idea is. If find that rather anti-Linux in ideals. That is where I get off comparing it to Microsoft. Two concepts brought forward repeatedly in this thread as excuses for the Gnome centric ideals of Ubuntu are right down the line of Microsoft one size fits all philosophy. It also creates compatability issues. If you write specifically for Gnome which appears to be the case as stated by some posters here then you create unnecessary headaches for users of that distro. Not everybody loves Gnome, KDE or any specific desktop manager. There might be one in the works this moment that blows all the current desktop managers out of the water. What then? A complete rewrite because Ubuntu decided to be propriatory? That makes no sense. Why use Gnome specific practices when there are more open standards that are friendly to all major desktop managers.

As for sub distros, they may be called official distros but it's Ubuntu that is the main branch. That is what people see. If you buy a machine with Linux pre-installed you don't see Kbuntu or Xbuntu you see only Ubuntu as an option. By creating separate distros based on the window manager, which should be a minor preference choice rather than a core part of the distro then you have created a propriatory distro.

Some examples. One guy I was trying to help on a Linux list lived in Eastern Europe and had no good internet connectivity. He had to get CDs delivered by mail. I've installed Linux on machines that were air gapped from the net for security reasons. Again a single CD is completely impractical for such situations. When you create a distro install CD you want a distro, not a starter CD that you have to have Internet access to actually install a usable OS from. Having a live CD is great, though I tend to refer people to Knoppix as it does such a great job with a CD based Distro. A live CD is a live CD. A sub-distro meant to fit on a CD for various reasons not a whole distro.

Yes there is a place for specialized distros. Firwall distros, Real Time Kernel distros, robotics distros, etc. Ubuntu is a general distro. I've used many distros and the Ubuntu series of distros is the only one I've known of that required you to download a distro specific to your desktop. What is the point? If you are not writing propriatory software then who cares what desktop the user is using? Why try to predict what desktop they'll be using 5 years from now. Yes there are still people using distros like Redhat 8 out there and happy as a lark doing it. I gently try to prod them to newer distros when I run across them but if they are happy with that distro who am I to try to judge them for liking that distro? So how do you know people won't in 5 years flock to new desktop managers. IF that happens then Ubuntu with it's Gnome specific code is locked to an obsolete desktop manager. I know many people who run neither KDE or Gnome. Who consider them memory hogs and wastes of hardware resources. You are telling them the same thing as you tell KDE users. If you are writing Gnome specific code what about machines that do not even install X at all? What does your single CD contain for somebody trying to create a very specific server?

Governments and other secure facilities around the world are taking serious looks at Linux and many are installing and using Linux. When I worked at NASA we used Red Hat then switched to Fedora around the time of FC2. In fact I was instrumental in evaluating distros for our lab and tested over a dozen plus I gave FreeBSD a look. Fedora was what worked best for what we were doing. It supported multiple desktops, the install CDs had generally all the apps we needed for air gapped systems, it was stable and robust and it was hard to find hardware that it didn't like. Ubuntu wasn't even a consideration because of the lack of multiple CD support and lack of KDE support which the majority of our users used as a desktop manager. Gnome was actually the third most common Desktop manger behind KDE and Windowmaker. We also had a few using more exotic desktop managers. Made no difference to us. When we installed the distro we asked what desktop manager they prefered and made sure that along with KDE and Gnome were installed. After that maintaining the machine was the same for us. Almost all work was done remotely and since KDE,Gnome and Windowmaker were installed we could use X apps of our choice through SSH tunnels and be right at home on any machine we maintained. I dread the day when I go to work at such a facility and have to use Gnome because a desktop specific distro like Ubuntu was chosen. In a large corporate or Government facility they are not going to choose multiple distros. They will choose one. If that one distro is desktop specific then EVERYBODY has that distro's choice of desktop manager forced down their throat. Remember these guys are not going to have root access. They cannot go out and just install something. Nor will many users even know what's out there if it's not installed.

Lets be realistic, on most users hard drives having 3 or 4 desktop managers is a trivial use of disk space. 120 gigs is more the norm for HD size today. The days when you were trying to cram everything into a few gigs of drive space are mostly long over. Except a few dual boot situations on older laptops and some specialized applications that space limitation doesn't exist. Soon DVD will replace CDs as the normal install media in the very near future as pretty much all new machines come today with DVD cdroms.

Limits are for Microsoft not Linux. We left limitations like that behind when we chose Linux. Am I using Ubuntu? Hell no. Not going to try Kbuntu either as it's again desktop specific and I want options including sometimes switching between desktops without logging off so I can help somebody out using another desktop manager. Not why I'm here. I'm plenty happy with Fedora and Mandriva which are the distros I use most often. Though I've frequently used CentOS and SUSE on job sites I've worked on and been quite happy working with those distros as well. Even did one short contract with a company using Debian. A little different but still quite usable. Is Fedora, CentOS, SUSE, Debian the right distro for you? Probably not as your here and likely using Ubuntu or a variant of it. Nothing wrong with that and lots right with that.

Should all distros be exactly alike? Hell no! Thats part of the beauty of Linux and the multiple distros. A little known distro called Yellow Dog innovated and brought yum to many other distros. By being different and creating something new they improved many other distros. Apt get being the favored package manager with other distros again was born because a distro dared to be different. Less is not more in this case though. Being different isn't removing things from Linux, it's expanding Linux's capabilities. Something Ubuntu developers are doing. This innovation though gets lost if the distro becomes propriatory. Many of SUSEs best ideas are lost to the Linux world for example. Instead other ways will be found because SUSE is doing it's little M$ imitation thing with the lack of community releases. So SUSE will eventually fade away, a dead end in the evolution of Linux.

There is a movement about in the Linux community to make things more compatible. There is fear of fragmentation in the Linux community. Ubuntu is a great example of that fragmentation. We have enough issues to deal with getting support from hardware vendors though the gulp of fear you hear from most tech support people when you say Linux does have it's perverse satisfaction. What we don't need is holy wars about desktops and other divisive issues. Ubuntu with is desktop specific distros is a potentially divisive factor in the community. The bigger it gets the more acceptable it'll be to cater a general purpose distro to increasingly fragmented group of users which will create divisions amongst users as well as confusion and distrust from vendors and organizations that want to deploy Linux.

Lets give you an example. Corporation A wants to deploy Linux. Sysadmin T loves Gnome and runs Ubuntu at home. Sysadmin Z loves KDE and runs Mandrake at home while sysadmin X love Debian and runs Windowmaker as his desktop. What is the non-technical supervisor going to make of that kind of battle between them? Since Ubuntu doesn't support KDE Sysadmin Z is going to be relentless in disagreement against Ubuntu. There is no way they can tell this non-techie that Ubuntu and Kbuntu are basically the same thing. Hard enough to get non-techies to deploy Linux over Windoze much less get them to adopt a multi-distro standard. So unless the Ubuntu fan relents he will make both the other sysadmins and many of the user base quite unhappy by ramming Gnome only Ubuntu down people's throats. In every poll I've seen about favorite desktop manager KDE was the top vote getter. Gnome was generally very close in popularity and the others combined tended to come out close in numbers to KDE and Gnome. Now think about this. Users actually being able to choose which desktop they want to use. Yeah a few will be a bit confused with such freedom. Lock a person away in a dark cave for half their life and then bring them out into the light and yes the sun will confuse them for a short time. Won't take long for users to develop preferences. Any sysadmin who cannot support both KDE and Gmone doesn't deserve the title. I may not like Gnome but there is nothing difficult about learning to use it and KDE is exceptionally intuitive in most aspects. So your not adding any noticable overhead to support by giving users a choice of desktop. You make them happier and more productive users. You create a machine that fits them and their personality better. Whatever desktop you try to mandate at least a third will dislike it. So why mandate a desktop at all?

You guys got to get out of the 90s here. Think about Linux as more than the OS of techies. I am answering questions from people ages 12-80 who do not even know what an IP addy is much less anything about the internals of how an OS works. Large companies and government installations are deploying Linux in large numbers on desktops and in facilities. If we as Linux users want to win over Microserfs we have to first come to agreement to disagree about potential holy war topics. To make all distros reasonably functional for all types of Linux users. If Ubuntu supported KDE and other window managers and left room for even newer better window managers as they are developed, then Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, who cares, it's Linux right? Ubuntu doesn't. For many purposes Ubuntu becomes a Microsoft like prison. Locked into the Gnome world which many of us detest. Better than Windoze but far from what we would want. Why do that? Single CD makes no sense. Who cares about a single CD? DVDs are the future anyway. Why live in the past?

Writing Gnome specific parts to a distro is a great way to take a dead end fork. Forcing a desktop manager is reverting back to the kinds of things that first incited us to try Linux in the first place. So far I have not seen one reason that makes any sense to me as to why the forks in Ubuntu development. I have I feel laid out many reasons not to fork the development. Pbbbt :)

beefcurry
May 10th, 2007, 03:11 AM
your post was rarther amusing. you do know with the exsistance of reconstructor http://reconstructor.aperantis.com/ , you can easily create your ideal "ubuntu+KDE" dvd like that :), simplely


sudo apt-get install kde-desktop

AND not to mention you can run KDE apps natively on gnome, I've been using ktorrent and krusader on my gnome for quite a while.

good luck trying to create your own Mixbuntu or something disk.

maniacmusician
May 10th, 2007, 03:21 AM
there are no "forks"...I don't think you're really grasping the way that Ubuntu works. There is an ubuntu base that is consistent across all of the versions of it. They all stay up to date in this regard. Then, there are different teams devoted to making certain aspects of it better. There is a gnome team that works on Ubuntu, a KDE team that works on Kubuntu, an XFCE team that works on Xubuntu, etc. This may seem like fragmentation for you, but it's actually quite beneficial since it allows more focused development on those aspects. It would be much more difficult to have one large team that addressed all those desktops. They would all end up getting less attention.

You talk about how CD's are a thing of the past, etc, but that just lets me know that you're not very aware of the current situation. As absurd as it may seem, a lot of people don't have DVD drives, and even less have DVD burners. Ubuntu is trying to support as many people as possible. As time goes on, they'll slowly give more attention to the official DVD (yeah there is one), and in time, it will become the default. But it's not going to happen immediately.

But on the same token, you may notice some hypocrisy; the large dependence that Ubuntu has on internet connectivity. This is probably one of its biggest shortcomings, but it'll always be there. Most debian-based distros are very internet-centric. To make this load easier, there is talk about alpha updates, that only download the diff of the binary when updating. This could end up helping people out a lot. But yes, Ubuntu is very internet dependent, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone with limited or no internet connectivity.

I do understand that the gnome-based Ubuntu gets more media attention than the other versions, but that's simply because it's called "Ubuntu" and Ubuntu carries the brand-name value. It's the word that everyone knows. However, that's pretty much it...People just need to be made more aware of the other versions of Ubuntu.

But most of your other arguments aren't really valid. It's easy to have all three desktop environments installed in Ubuntu. I usually have at least 2. You mentioned that you haven't even tried Ubuntu. To most people, that immediately discredits your arguments because it makes it seem that you don't know what you're talking about. I implore you to at least try it before you start passing judgements.

maniacmusician
May 10th, 2007, 03:22 AM
your post was rarther amusing. you do know with the exsistance of reconstructor http://reconstructor.aperantis.com/ , you can easily create your ideal "ubuntu+KDE" dvd like that :), simplely


sudo apt-get install kde-desktop

AND not to mention you can run KDE apps natively on gnome, I've been using ktorrent and krusader on my gnome for quite a while.

good luck trying to create your own Mixbuntu or something disk.

I think you mean "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop"

Adamant1988
May 10th, 2007, 03:40 AM
I actually read through that (I normally don't on these long rants, but you caught my interest) and I'm completely seeing where you're coming from.

The reason that Ubuntu is the way it is (no KDE apps by default right off the disk) is a space issue, I'm sure. Look at it this way, if they choose to put k3b on the disk instead of something else they have to add all those KDE libs etc, and space on the disk is already at a premium. This is the reason Kubuntu has come into existence.

There are MANY cases where KDE apps are the superior application to their GTK counterparts (although as per the example of k3b, brasero is better) but you're right. The default install should be about getting you the right applications for you, right off the bat. I would rather see a 2-3 disk installation with Anaconda or something like that where I was given far more control over the packages that went into my system by default.

However, while KDE is nice and all I'm really perfering the direction that GNOME is headed. Perhaps you should be directing these people to openSuSE (If they're able to handle that) or maybe even Mandriva or Fedora. There aren't too many 'noobie friendly' distributions that don't limit your choices in the default install.

skwishybug
May 10th, 2007, 04:19 AM
Which is simpler? Having 2, 3 or even a dozen CDs that allow you to install a whole OS or install half the OS and limit yourself to a single CD.

Simpler is having one CD and allowing an easy install of the other available desktop managers. As has been pointed out, a simple command and you can install KDE to your heart's content


When you create a distro install CD you want a distro, not a starter CD that you have to have Internet access to actually install a usable OS from.

This statement implies that Gnome (or KDE or XFCE or which ever manager you choose) is not a usable OS. A usable OS is one that can be installed, all the computer to boot, and the user to be "productive" in some fashion. Be it Ubuntu, another Linux distribution, Windows, OS X, or any other OS you choose. For that matter, the OS that runs the local store's cash register is a "usable OS" granted it is limited in its scope.


Lets be realistic, on most users hard drives having 3 or 4 desktop managers is a trivial use of disk space. 120 gigs is more the norm for HD size today. The days when you were trying to cram everything into a few gigs of drive space are mostly long over.

Let's be realistic, most people could care less about having 3 or 4 desktop managers. I use Gnome. I am quite happy with it, and personally do not like KDE (others have their own preference). I have a lot better things to do with my HDD space than install 3 or 4 desktop managers. Personally I find that all the apps you could want being installed along with the OS a little annoying. I go through and remove all the extra chaff that I don't want or need. And then add what I do want.

The last thing I am going to add is another desktop manager to the list of stuff I don't use. The space for extra desktop managers may be trivial to you, but for some people (who do have sizable HDD) its a waste of space.


Soon DVD will replace CDs as the normal install media in the very near future as pretty much all new machines come today with DVD cdroms.

Soon everyone will be connected to the internet at high speeds and the need to add every possible program and desktop manager onto one (or two) install DVDs will be moot. See the error of mass generalizations?

It is an ecological fallacy to state that because every new computer that you see comes with a DVD drive that every computer everywhere does. Or that because I everyone I know is on DSL that everyone everywhere is.


Limits are for Microsoft not Linux. We left limitations like that behind when we chose Linux.

Limitation is not a defect. Everything has limitations, computers, cars, buildings, everything. A car is limited by its construction. You can tinker with it, but there is only so much that it can do. Likewise an OS is limited--some by laws, others by designs. You can tinker and change Linux all you want and make it your own, but there are rules you need to follow when you do it, or the whole thing craps out. That is a limitation.

To say that Linux (or any other OS) is not limited is simply wrong.


Should all distros be exactly alike? Hell no! Thats part of the beauty of Linux and the multiple distros.

Then why come on the forum more or less demanding that Ubuntu be like all the others and offer every desktop manager on its install CD? And in order to fulfill your expectations of a fully installed OS, every desktop manager would have to be installed--if you limit to KDE, Gnome and XFCE, what about the people who like windowmaker? or Enlightenment? or another desktop manager?


Something Ubuntu developers are doing. This innovation though gets lost if the distro becomes propriatory.

Not sure exactly how selecting one desktop manager to put onto the install CD makes a distribution propriatory. Propriatory implies only one. A propriatory cable for an MP3 player means that only one type of cable fits, and all others do not, regardless of modification. A propriatory OS means that there is only one option for it and modification will not work.


What we don't need is holy wars about desktops and other divisive issues.

You're right. We should get rid of all but one desktop manager and everyone sticks with that. Really, if you include more than one desktop manager with a distribution, then you will need more than one CD to install (most likely). Say an Ubuntu CD and a Kbuntu CD.


Lets give you an example. Corporation A wants to deploy Linux. Sysadmin T loves Gnome and runs Ubuntu at home. Sysadmin Z loves KDE and runs Mandrake at home while sysadmin X love Debian and runs Windowmaker as his desktop. What is the non-technical supervisor going to make of that kind of battle between them?

The same battle would come up if you were deploying Fedora and trying to decide what the standard desktop would be. Most corporations will opt for the approach that requires the simplest method for supporting it. Ergo, a corporation will provide a standard desktop for all terminals to ease any IT requirements to support those desktops. It all comes down to money.


Since Ubuntu doesn't support KDE

False, but anyway...


Sysadmin Z is going to be relentless in disagreement against Ubuntu. There is no way they can tell this non-techie that Ubuntu and Kbuntu are basically the same thing.

Equally hard to convince this non-techie that this distribution (Mandrake) will allow users to pick any desktop manager they want, Gnome, KDE, XFCE. The non-techie manager is going to know Windows (or in rare cases, Mac) and for them there is the way it looks. The system admins are going to be selling the whole package and ultimately it will come down to:

Option A is KDE that looks like this and has these features available; or
Option B is Gnome that looks like this, and has these features available.

As stated before, corporations are looking at the bottom line. They want a standard deployment that is easy to maintain, easy to upgrade/update, and requires the least amount of effort by IT so that money is not wasted. And ultimately it all comes down to what they will see, regardless of what is in the back end. So the Ubuntu sysadmin can provide both option A and B and which ever one is chosen, it can be deployed.


In every poll I've seen about favorite desktop manager KDE was the top vote getter.

In every poll I've seen about favourite desktop manager Gnome was the top vote getter.

Data and stats can be manipulated and interpreted many different ways. As can the survey method be manipulated to obtain the results you expect to see.


Single CD makes no sense. Who cares about a single CD? DVDs are the future anyway. Why live in the past?

And eventually what happens when Linux distributions become too big for one DVD? One of the biggest complaints I have heard about Vista is: "It comes on a DVD? How much space is it going to take up?"

DVDs may be the future, but the present is CD. Most people do not have a DVD reader, let alone a writer. The majority of Linux distributions are intended to be downloaded from the web meaning the user has to burn their ISO to be able to install.

The future beyond that is preinstalled distributions. Preinstalled would allow any number of desktop managers to be installed and your argument becomes even more moot.


I have I feel laid out many reasons not to fork the development.

Unfortunately most of the reasons are built on false logic, manipulated information, and misunderstanding. But you did lay out many reasons


Pbbbt :)

A very good way to wrap up your argument indeed.

Now I must remember to stop feeding the trolls.

ComplexNumber
May 10th, 2007, 04:37 AM
Draciron
choose a different distro then if you want kde that much. as you agree, linux is about freedom. no distro can offer everything in equal amounts and to the fullest extent.

karellen
May 10th, 2007, 06:55 AM
My rant is just as valid for any distro that does not support Gnome, KDE and other window managers. The point is freedom of choice. As for a single CD. Isn't that a bit of an artificial limitation? I currently use Fedora, which also defaults to Gnome but makes installing KDE quite easy. Which is simpler? Having 2, 3 or even a dozen CDs that allow you to install a whole OS or install half the OS and limit yourself to a single CD. Some people take internet connectivity for granted. That is not always possible or feasible.

Nor is grabbing a desktop specific distro which is what the Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xbuntuntu XYZbuntuntu idea is. If find that rather anti-Linux in ideals. That is where I get off comparing it to Microsoft. Two concepts brought forward repeatedly in this thread as excuses for the Gnome centric ideals of Ubuntu are right down the line of Microsoft one size fits all philosophy. It also creates compatability issues. If you write specifically for Gnome which appears to be the case as stated by some posters here then you create unnecessary headaches for users of that distro. Not everybody loves Gnome, KDE or any specific desktop manager. There might be one in the works this moment that blows all the current desktop managers out of the water. What then? A complete rewrite because Ubuntu decided to be propriatory? That makes no sense. Why use Gnome specific practices when there are more open standards that are friendly to all major desktop managers.

As for sub distros, they may be called official distros but it's Ubuntu that is the main branch. That is what people see. If you buy a machine with Linux pre-installed you don't see Kbuntu or Xbuntu you see only Ubuntu as an option. By creating separate distros based on the window manager, which should be a minor preference choice rather than a core part of the distro then you have created a propriatory distro.

Some examples. One guy I was trying to help on a Linux list lived in Eastern Europe and had no good internet connectivity. He had to get CDs delivered by mail. I've installed Linux on machines that were air gapped from the net for security reasons. Again a single CD is completely impractical for such situations. When you create a distro install CD you want a distro, not a starter CD that you have to have Internet access to actually install a usable OS from. Having a live CD is great, though I tend to refer people to Knoppix as it does such a great job with a CD based Distro. A live CD is a live CD. A sub-distro meant to fit on a CD for various reasons not a whole distro.

Yes there is a place for specialized distros. Firwall distros, Real Time Kernel distros, robotics distros, etc. Ubuntu is a general distro. I've used many distros and the Ubuntu series of distros is the only one I've known of that required you to download a distro specific to your desktop. What is the point? If you are not writing propriatory software then who cares what desktop the user is using? Why try to predict what desktop they'll be using 5 years from now. Yes there are still people using distros like Redhat 8 out there and happy as a lark doing it. I gently try to prod them to newer distros when I run across them but if they are happy with that distro who am I to try to judge them for liking that distro? So how do you know people won't in 5 years flock to new desktop managers. IF that happens then Ubuntu with it's Gnome specific code is locked to an obsolete desktop manager. I know many people who run neither KDE or Gnome. Who consider them memory hogs and wastes of hardware resources. You are telling them the same thing as you tell KDE users. If you are writing Gnome specific code what about machines that do not even install X at all? What does your single CD contain for somebody trying to create a very specific server?

Governments and other secure facilities around the world are taking serious looks at Linux and many are installing and using Linux. When I worked at NASA we used Red Hat then switched to Fedora around the time of FC2. In fact I was instrumental in evaluating distros for our lab and tested over a dozen plus I gave FreeBSD a look. Fedora was what worked best for what we were doing. It supported multiple desktops, the install CDs had generally all the apps we needed for air gapped systems, it was stable and robust and it was hard to find hardware that it didn't like. Ubuntu wasn't even a consideration because of the lack of multiple CD support and lack of KDE support which the majority of our users used as a desktop manager. Gnome was actually the third most common Desktop manger behind KDE and Windowmaker. We also had a few using more exotic desktop managers. Made no difference to us. When we installed the distro we asked what desktop manager they prefered and made sure that along with KDE and Gnome were installed. After that maintaining the machine was the same for us. Almost all work was done remotely and since KDE,Gnome and Windowmaker were installed we could use X apps of our choice through SSH tunnels and be right at home on any machine we maintained. I dread the day when I go to work at such a facility and have to use Gnome because a desktop specific distro like Ubuntu was chosen. In a large corporate or Government facility they are not going to choose multiple distros. They will choose one. If that one distro is desktop specific then EVERYBODY has that distro's choice of desktop manager forced down their throat. Remember these guys are not going to have root access. They cannot go out and just install something. Nor will many users even know what's out there if it's not installed.

Lets be realistic, on most users hard drives having 3 or 4 desktop managers is a trivial use of disk space. 120 gigs is more the norm for HD size today. The days when you were trying to cram everything into a few gigs of drive space are mostly long over. Except a few dual boot situations on older laptops and some specialized applications that space limitation doesn't exist. Soon DVD will replace CDs as the normal install media in the very near future as pretty much all new machines come today with DVD cdroms.

Limits are for Microsoft not Linux. We left limitations like that behind when we chose Linux. Am I using Ubuntu? Hell no. Not going to try Kbuntu either as it's again desktop specific and I want options including sometimes switching between desktops without logging off so I can help somebody out using another desktop manager. Not why I'm here. I'm plenty happy with Fedora and Mandriva which are the distros I use most often. Though I've frequently used CentOS and SUSE on job sites I've worked on and been quite happy working with those distros as well. Even did one short contract with a company using Debian. A little different but still quite usable. Is Fedora, CentOS, SUSE, Debian the right distro for you? Probably not as your here and likely using Ubuntu or a variant of it. Nothing wrong with that and lots right with that.

Should all distros be exactly alike? Hell no! Thats part of the beauty of Linux and the multiple distros. A little known distro called Yellow Dog innovated and brought yum to many other distros. By being different and creating something new they improved many other distros. Apt get being the favored package manager with other distros again was born because a distro dared to be different. Less is not more in this case though. Being different isn't removing things from Linux, it's expanding Linux's capabilities. Something Ubuntu developers are doing. This innovation though gets lost if the distro becomes propriatory. Many of SUSEs best ideas are lost to the Linux world for example. Instead other ways will be found because SUSE is doing it's little M$ imitation thing with the lack of community releases. So SUSE will eventually fade away, a dead end in the evolution of Linux.

There is a movement about in the Linux community to make things more compatible. There is fear of fragmentation in the Linux community. Ubuntu is a great example of that fragmentation. We have enough issues to deal with getting support from hardware vendors though the gulp of fear you hear from most tech support people when you say Linux does have it's perverse satisfaction. What we don't need is holy wars about desktops and other divisive issues. Ubuntu with is desktop specific distros is a potentially divisive factor in the community. The bigger it gets the more acceptable it'll be to cater a general purpose distro to increasingly fragmented group of users which will create divisions amongst users as well as confusion and distrust from vendors and organizations that want to deploy Linux.

Lets give you an example. Corporation A wants to deploy Linux. Sysadmin T loves Gnome and runs Ubuntu at home. Sysadmin Z loves KDE and runs Mandrake at home while sysadmin X love Debian and runs Windowmaker as his desktop. What is the non-technical supervisor going to make of that kind of battle between them? Since Ubuntu doesn't support KDE Sysadmin Z is going to be relentless in disagreement against Ubuntu. There is no way they can tell this non-techie that Ubuntu and Kbuntu are basically the same thing. Hard enough to get non-techies to deploy Linux over Windoze much less get them to adopt a multi-distro standard. So unless the Ubuntu fan relents he will make both the other sysadmins and many of the user base quite unhappy by ramming Gnome only Ubuntu down people's throats. In every poll I've seen about favorite desktop manager KDE was the top vote getter. Gnome was generally very close in popularity and the others combined tended to come out close in numbers to KDE and Gnome. Now think about this. Users actually being able to choose which desktop they want to use. Yeah a few will be a bit confused with such freedom. Lock a person away in a dark cave for half their life and then bring them out into the light and yes the sun will confuse them for a short time. Won't take long for users to develop preferences. Any sysadmin who cannot support both KDE and Gmone doesn't deserve the title. I may not like Gnome but there is nothing difficult about learning to use it and KDE is exceptionally intuitive in most aspects. So your not adding any noticable overhead to support by giving users a choice of desktop. You make them happier and more productive users. You create a machine that fits them and their personality better. Whatever desktop you try to mandate at least a third will dislike it. So why mandate a desktop at all?

You guys got to get out of the 90s here. Think about Linux as more than the OS of techies. I am answering questions from people ages 12-80 who do not even know what an IP addy is much less anything about the internals of how an OS works. Large companies and government installations are deploying Linux in large numbers on desktops and in facilities. If we as Linux users want to win over Microserfs we have to first come to agreement to disagree about potential holy war topics. To make all distros reasonably functional for all types of Linux users. If Ubuntu supported KDE and other window managers and left room for even newer better window managers as they are developed, then Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, who cares, it's Linux right? Ubuntu doesn't. For many purposes Ubuntu becomes a Microsoft like prison. Locked into the Gnome world which many of us detest. Better than Windoze but far from what we would want. Why do that? Single CD makes no sense. Who cares about a single CD? DVDs are the future anyway. Why live in the past?

Writing Gnome specific parts to a distro is a great way to take a dead end fork. Forcing a desktop manager is reverting back to the kinds of things that first incited us to try Linux in the first place. So far I have not seen one reason that makes any sense to me as to why the forks in Ubuntu development. I have I feel laid out many reasons not to fork the development. Pbbbt :)

can't you understand that ubuntu does support kde? it it really so hard to do
"sudo apt-get/aptitude install kubuntu-desktop?"?
you're missing one essential point. shipit. canonical (in fact mark shuttleworth) ships ubuntu cd's free of charge in any part of the world. I've received my 3 cd's with feisty fawn yesterday. would you finance the inclusion of kde/xfce/openbox/fluxbox etc on additional cd? and instead of shipping 1 cd/distro to ship 2? I guess not, for a good reason. tell me other distro that gives away free cd's (I mean literally free, not only free to download) to everybody in the whole world. ubuntu has done more for linux spreading with this move than any other distro. thank you mark, thank you again!
as long as you can post on these forums you have an internet connection and as long you have an internet connection you can install any desktop manager you want. it's just a matter of choice. pretending that kde "is not supported" just because it's not included by default on the ONE single cd is just plain ridiculous. you know, Kubuntu is out there for a good reason...and the same for apt-get

tbroderick
May 10th, 2007, 07:16 AM
"sudo apt-get/aptitude install kubuntu-desktop?"

Just to point out the obvious, not every computer is connected to the net or someone maybe installing on multiple computers where doing many 'apt-get install' isn't really optimal. Why not have an extra optional CD available. The CD could have KDE and applications that couldn't fit on the Ubuntu CD and could be added to sources.list with 'apt-cdrom add'. Maybe you can already do that with Kubuntu (I'm not sure).

karellen
May 10th, 2007, 07:20 AM
Just to point out the obvious, not every computer is connected to the net or someone maybe installing on multiple computers where doing many 'apt-get install' isn't really optimal. Why not have an extra optional CD available. The CD could have KDE and applications that couldn't fit on the Ubuntu CD and could be added to sources.list with 'apt-cdrom add'. Maybe you can already do that with Kubuntu (I'm not sure).

the extra cd it's called Kubuntu
I find ubuntu approach 1 cd/installation very useful and convenient. for the rest - there are the repos. we can't pretend the old "all but the kitchen sink" way of doing things

karellen
May 10th, 2007, 07:27 AM
and Draciron, you are complaining that is just one cd and you want a dvd. maybe you just want this shipit to you anywhere in the world? and better, not just one, but 2,3,4. what do you say?...it would be so nice of canonical...:lolflag:
for your convenience, there's fedora, there's suse that come on a dvd. and the kde in opensuse I'm sure it will succeed in pleasing you and your needs

tbroderick
May 10th, 2007, 07:38 AM
the extra cd it's called Kubuntu

But downloading Kubuntu and Ubuntu isn't really as efficient as having one separate extra CD. There is some overlap with the two CDs.


I find ubuntu approach 1 cd/installation very useful and convenient. for the rest - there are the repos.

What about someone who isn't connected to the net? How does the repos help them? What about someone in a place without good internet access?


we can't pretend the old "all but the kitchen sink" way of doing things

Not 'kitchen sink', one extra optional CD which includes extra packages not on the Ubuntu CD. I don't see the harm.

mrgnash
May 10th, 2007, 07:40 AM
What a load of rubbish. There's nothing barring anyone from installing KDE, or just grabbing Kubuntu instead. The reason I don't is because Gnome is prettier :P

Here's your refund of two cents. Next time do your research.

karellen
May 10th, 2007, 07:52 AM
But downloading Kubuntu and Ubuntu isn't really as efficient as having one separate extra CD. There is some overlap with the two CDs.



What about someone who isn't connected to the net? How does the repos help them? What about someone in a place without good internet access?



Not 'kitchen sink', one extra optional CD which includes extra packages not on the Ubuntu CD. I don't see the harm.

someone who is not connected to the net should lend/buy/download from somewhere else opensuse or fedora or debian and that's it. please understand that ubuntu comes on a single cd because of free shipping. if there were 2 cd's it would be more expensive. ask someone who has an old computer with no internet acces in a poor developed country to digg for a full dvd distro with 2 or 3 desktop environments. he would surely want the get "poor" gnome standard ubuntu cd than to receive nothing because of "two disk's" approach (which would make thinks harder). as long as you don't pay the bills you are not in the position to request additional cd's

tbroderick
May 10th, 2007, 08:14 AM
someone who is not connected to the net should lend/buy/download from somewhere else opensuse or fedora or debian and that's it.

Wow.


please understand that ubuntu comes on a single cd because of free shipping.

No that is not the reason. You can have 3 CDs shipped to you, anymore and you have to make a special request.


he would surely want the get "poor" gnome standard ubuntu cd than to receive nothing because of "two disk's" approach (which would make thinks harder). as long as you don't pay the bills you are not in the position to request additional cd's

My reasons have nothing to do with 'gnome vs. kde'. Again, you can already have more then one CD shipped free to you.. You could also have the extra CD available to download, making it easier for someone to go to an internet Cafe and download the Ubuntu CD and extra packages CD.

karellen
May 10th, 2007, 08:36 AM
I fail to see where is the problem. there are so many distros out there, for everybody's tastes...
for me ubuntu (gnome) is just what I want and need
:)

tbroderick
May 10th, 2007, 08:44 AM
I fail to see where is the problem.

It's not a problem, it is a suggestion for improving Ubuntu for people without the internet or poor internet access.

awakatanka
May 10th, 2007, 10:06 AM
People talking about do a apt-get to get it, but in the same sentse say the one disk is for people that have bad internet connection ](*,) . People talk about shipit and to much cost for a extra cd, but tell you to ship the other buntu's to get all ](*,).

Little change in install option in the installer and someone with good internet can download the 2 iso's and someone with bad internet can order the extra cd if needed. Our someone that only want gnome can download/order one iso. Only problem will be for the people that want kde they need to get both cd's.

Make a option to ship the extra cd if needed for people with bad internet and one with good internet can download it. Don't see the harm in it.

The special teams can still exist and less cost on maintaining different websites for every buntu. Everything under the same name and no more zillions of buntu's.

euchrid
November 30th, 2007, 01:16 AM
I just came across this post, and thought I would try to throw some more logic on this bizarre little thread.

The basic argument is that people need KDE, or should have the option to install it, because otherwise it takes away the very freedom that Linux is all about. Right? That's the essence of it as I see it, and what's got everyone's panties in a twist.

Please correct me if I am wrong on these points: People are arguing that you can install KDE through apt-get or Synaptic, so the choice is there. Then others are arguing that the choice should be present even for people without internet access.

But there is a simple logic flaw in this: if people do not have an internet access, then they are also quite unlikely to have the latest computers that Draciron is talking about - so what good would KDE do them? What kind of person would get the very latest machine with 120GB hard drive, and then not use the internet, ever? The sort of person that is unlikely even to need a computer, let alone Linux, let alone KDE.

And then, where do they get the CD from? How do you come across Ubuntu, hear about it, and order the CD without internet access somewhere? How do you use Linux on a fancy new machine (or an old one) without internet access unless you are technically proficient enough to sort out all potential problems yourself? (OK, I know, an internet cafe, if you don't have a friend or workplace you can use, but you can't pop down the internet cafe trying to figure out how to make your soundcard work with ALSA and JACK...)

GNOME is a reasonable environment for the average user to get started with. Many people are happy sticking with it, others (like me) choose to move on to other environments. I use XFCE, GNOME and KDE, because I also like choice, but I don't see why Ubuntu should need to ship DVDs with all desktop environments on it. And then, what about Fluxbox, Ratpoison, ROX, and Enlightenment? Where should the lines of choice be drawn? What if a user without internet access wanted to use a program that only works on ROX? Should this choice be extended to Mac and Windows programs as well?

But we're still at the problem of logic: if you do not have an internet connection (the only barrier to easily using more than one Desktop Environment with Ubuntu), then why would you want to be stuck with a cumbersome DVD that takes ages to install? What if you didn't want KDE as well? Wouldn't having the DVD interfere with your choice to have only one Desktop Environment if you were unable to get Ubuntu another way, forcing you to unselect the KDE options?

And, at the time of writing, you can get at least Ubuntu and Kubuntu shipped free, and you can buy DVDs at Amazon, so the choice is, as ever, expanding anyway.

It seems to me that, as my Grandad would have said, "People don't know they're born"; we are lucky to have computers, we are lucky not to be stuck with Windows and Mac as our only choices, we are lucky to get free operating systems, and we are lucky to have the support of online communities to turn to when we need to rant or get help... And we got to that position because people have suffered, and continue to suffer so that others may profit (and the natural environment dug up for the precious metals that the technology needs) - so that, ultimately, I can spend 20 minutes in front of my shiny glowing screen writing a response to a rant about how our choices are restricted... And now I've started ranting, I'll shut up.