Kubuntu unfairly treated?

[guyjohnston]

Does anybody else think that Kubuntu gets a bit of a hard time in the Ubuntu community? I think KDE is a lot better than GNOME, mostly because of the better native applications (Amarok and Konqueror are the best music player and file manager I've ever used), and because there are much more options for customisation. I find it difficult to explain what Kubuntu is to people who are completely new to GNU/Linux. When explaining the Free Software philosophy, saying Kubuntu means "'humanity towards others', but with a K", doesn't make a whole lot of sense to someone who's never heard of GNU/Linux, let alone KDE.

I think it would be better if future editions were called something like "Ubuntu - GNOME edition" and "Ubuntu - KDE edition", (or maybe something like "Brown Edition" and "Blue Edition") to make this more fair, and to make it easier for beginners to start using Ubuntu with KDE without all having to try the GNOME version first. Does anyone else think that would be a good idea?

[smoker]

doesn't really matter, it's easy to change to suit, and this versatility of ubuntu/kubuntu is a major plus point:-)

[AndyCooll]

To answer the question in your thread title - no.

:cool:

[dbbolton]

some staunchly support one or the other. though a majority are using gnome, i can't say that i feel kubuntu is getting a bad rap.

[ComplexNumber]

kubuntu will only ever be an afterthought. the main focus of ubuntu is.......ubuntu(and gnome). it'll never be a kde distro, so kde will always take a back seat.

kubuntu unfaily treated? no. kde in ubuntu always an afterthought? yes.

[Peyton]

Kubuntu works, and that's all that really matters.

[zenwhen]

To answer the question in your thread title - no.

:cool:

Agreed.

[Frak]

To answer the question in your thread title - no.

:cool:

I disagree with this statement, I use Kubuntu on my computers, and nobody will look at it as they thing the K takes is a step down, as a generic knockoff, I agree with your idea to have it named, "Ubuntu - "Blue" or "KDE" edition":KS

[user1397]

It's just that Mark does not wholly agree with Linus. :rolleyes:

[LLRNR]

I don't think that Kubuntu is unfairly treated.

Most of the time I used KDE, until I recently stumbled upon Fluxbox...

To tell you the truth, I feel quite good knowing that the vast majority of the people on this forum are a lot more acquainted with Gnome than I am - if I ever have a problem, there will surely be someone to help me out :D

On the other hand, I try to be of help as much as I can to the Kubuntu users as well.

I think it's a really "good deal", LOL.

Cheers,

LLRNR

[ComplexNumber]

I disagree with this statement, I use Kubuntu on my computers, and nobody will look at it as they thing the K takes is a step down, as a generic knockoff, I agree with your idea to have it named, "Ubuntu - "Blue" or "KDE" edition":KS
well, it is a step down and it is a generic knock off, isn't it?

i'm beginning to wonder, due to the original poster's intention, if the question to the title of this thread should be "Why isn't ubuntu a kde distro?".
answer: because ubuntu is a gnome distro, so kde will always ever take a back seat. thats the way it works. they can't both be default. one has to take presidence over the other, and because ubuntu is a gnome distro, gnome will always take presidence over kde.

if people want a distro where kde is default, then choose a kde distro instead.

[Frak]

well, it is a step down and it is a generic knock off, isn't it?

i'm beginning to wonder, due to the original poster's intention, if the question to the title of this thread should be "Why isn't ubuntu a kde distro?".
answer: because ubuntu is a gnome distro, so kde will always ever take a back seat. thats the way it works. they can't both be default. one has to take presidence over the other, and because ubuntu is a gnome distro, gnome will always take presidence over kde.

OK, and because of that it will become a major distro one day, in fact MEPIS is one of them. :mrgreen:

And a photo for proof that there is at least one person that believes in KDE!

http://fridge.ubuntu.com/files/mark-loves-kde.jpg

The GREAT SABDFL!


But in fact, some people want a quality distro where it has the same manifesto as this one, so why not but choose THIS ONE!

[ComplexNumber]

OK, yeah, then why does the SABDFL prefer KDE OVER GNOME!!!:mrgreen:

http://fridge.ubuntu.com/files/mark-loves-kde.jpg
he doesn't, and never has. he wants to get as many users to use ubuntu(and derivitives) as possible, so he has to be seen to endorse kde. its good PR.

[Frak]

he doesn't, and never has. he wants to get as many users to use ubuntu(and derivitives) as possible, so he has to be seen to endorse kde. its good PR.

OK then explain this article from the Fridge...


During this years LinuxTag in Germany Mark stripped off, and it wasn’t just his secret love of KDE that got revealed.

Link here. (http://fridge.ubuntu.com/node/560)

[ComplexNumber]

OK then explain this article from the Fridge...
its a clip from a piece that says nothing at all.

[Terracotta]

he doesn't, and never has. he wants to get as many users to use ubuntu(and derivitives) as possible, so he has to be seen to endorse kde. its good PR.

Then why has he become one of the main sponsors of KDE?
Personally I believe a lot of the kept-as-afterthought-stuff could be solved by using yast instead of two different settings managers. That way only one solution for a problem has to be created and it's there for the two distros, because that's the main difference between the two OS-es, KDE and GNOME provide their own programs, but Ubuntu creates some settings program for this in GTK, some program for that also in gtk, so the qt guys have to catch up, with yast: create it once, and the frontend will be there (yast is more than just a program installer). Compiz does help in closing the gap as well. Since they can both use mostly the same technology, only the window decorator is different. Using gstreamer (not my favorite though), as backend for GNOME and phonon/KDE can help as well. To me the only real things Kubuntu lacked was the programs that Canonical created for ubuntu, not the programs GNOME provided (like creating a new user (sucks in kde, works perfectly in xubuntu), upgrading is something the KDE-folks catch up with two versions of ubuntu later, compiz settings manager for feisty only exists for gnome yet, etc...)

[LLRNR]

Oh, come on, people, wasn't it all supposed to be about the choice...? Then why argue on what DE one prefers ? And so what if Mark just wants to make good publicity ?

Just remember, Gnome and KDE are not the only DEs in this world, you know... so there's no point in struggling on which is the most well or bad treaten.

For myself, I prefer Fluxbox, what am I supposed to say then ?!

LLRNR

[Rhapsody]

(or maybe something like "Brown Edition" and "Blue Edition")

That would be pretty neat.

Ubuntu = Brown Edition
Kubuntu = Blue Edition
Edubuntu = Orangish Edition
Xubuntu = Sort of Blue-Grey Edition
Ebuntu = The one without a colour Edition
Fluxbuntu = Dark Blue Edition
nUbuntu = Black with Red stuff Edition
zUbuntu = The other one without a colour Edition
Ubuntu Christian Edition: The other Brown Edition.

This could probably form a good part of some Linux stand-up comedy act.

[LLRNR]

That would be pretty neat.

Ubuntu = Brown Edition
Kubuntu = Blue Edition
Edubuntu = Orangish Edition
Xubuntu = Sort of Blue-Grey Edition
Ebuntu = The one without a colour Edition
Fluxbuntu = Dark Blue Edition
nUbuntu = Black with Red stuff Edition
zUbuntu = The other one without a colour Edition
Ubuntu Christian Edition: The other Brown Edition.

This could probably form a good part of some Linux stand-up comedy act.

Hahahaha !!! Now that's a really good point, I like it :D

[Nonno Bassotto]

I find it difficult to explain what Kubuntu is to people who are completely new to GNU/Linux. When explaining the Free Software philosophy, saying Kubuntu means "'humanity towards others', but with a K", doesn't make a whole lot of sense to someone who's never heard of GNU/Linux, let alone KDE.


You can say that it means "towards humanity" (believe it or not, with an added K it still makes sense in Bemba). :)

[tommy1987]

I love the colors idea of having different releases!

My personal preference having had KDE installed for some time is that it is clunky and not as polished as GNOME. I installed kubuntu and ran KDE for a while before installing GNOME and using that.

[ixus_123]

If you come from Windows I can understand why you might like KDE - it's similar - less bad habits to unlearn.

I came over from Mac which is similar to gnome I liked the way it worked.


At the time Ubuntu came out every single distro out there was KDE based. It sucked for people like me who wanted a gnome desktop. To make matters worse Gnome was a right bastard to install - a major pain.

The only good Gnome desktop (in my opinion) was the Dropline Gnome for slackware but this meant downloading even more CD iso files.

Ubuntu came along with a 1 CD gnome distro - no KDE to delete - it filled a niche that people were screaming out for.

[maniacmusician]

I don't want "color" editions, as it sounds rather stupid, but I would definitely prefer Ubuntu - KDE edition. It's just the window manager that's really different...

plus, we should think more towards the future. CDs as a medium are going to start fading soon. same with dial-up; companies are simply going to stop offering it when it starts to become less profitable. (of course, some poorer parts of the world will still have it...but not for long. We're getting to the point where cable/dsl is just as easy to implement, so places that have no internet period will likely adopt cable/dsl when the time comes). And at that point in the future, if Ubuntu plans on staying around that long, it'll be more ideal to have a single installer with choices for DE, etc.

Or more optimistically, sometime in the near future; a web application that will let users be a little more selective in choosing the ISO they download. Something like Reconstructor, but simpler, and completely server-side. So basically, in the long run, Ubuntu ___ edition would probably be a better alternative.

[maniacmusician]

If you come from Windows I can understand why you might like KDE - it's similar - less bad habits to unlearn.

I came over from Mac which is similar to gnome I liked the way it worked.


At the time Ubuntu came out every single distro out there was KDE based. It sucked for people like me who wanted a gnome desktop. To make matters worse Gnome was a right bastard to install - a major pain.

The only good Gnome desktop (in my opinion) was the Dropline Gnome for slackware but this meant downloading even more CD iso files.

Ubuntu came along with a 1 CD gnome distro - no KDE to delete - it filled a niche that people were screaming out for.
that's cool, but what does it have to do with this thread? Though the title is a bit misleading, I believe the OPs concern was the naming scheme, and his desire for a change regardig that.

[ixus_123]

I totally forgot to make my point. falling asleep at my keyboard...

[addicted68098]

I really like GNOME, I don't want to even try Ubuntu.

[tommy1987]

I really like GNOME, I don't want to even try Ubuntu.

surely you mean kubuntu?

[Horgrathi]

Session in my opinion is a lovely tool. Have Ubuntu installed first, but tried giving KDE a chance. Now I get make up my mind if I should start Gnome or KDE.

[Polygon]

half of the updates that go to ubuntu are for underlying programs, not the actual work manager. So, both versions do get the same updates a lot of the time.

but for new features, i cant really comment on that as i dont know much about it.

[user1397]

I used Gnome only from the beginning of my Linux quest, march 06' to about October. i had tried kubuntu and xubuntu various times, but just as sessions within my ubuntu install, i.e. I never installed kubuntu itself. Then, around a month ago, I installed kubuntu, and I liked it a lot al of a sudden, and so I'm sticking with it, at least for a while.

Going back to the point of this thread, I think that the Ubuntu - Gnome and Ubuntu - KDE and Ubuntu -XFCE would be the best choice for naming the different distros. The color idea, IMHO, is a horrible idea, because once you bring anything blue into the spectrum, everyone flies to it for some reason (maybe too used to Windows blue-ness?)

So basically, I agree with maniacmusician on everything, except for one thing: The names ubuntu, kubuntu, and xubuntu are all so well established, that it would be a pain in the *** to switch names. Imagine - all package names, wiki pages, and help forums would have to make the switch, and why? just because it makes a little more sense? so I don't think it's worth discussing, because the names are probably never going to change.

[Rodneyck]

I have flipped back and forth a few times starting from Ubuntu and I remain with Ubuntu (gnome.) The KDE OS just does not feel right, plus the menus and layout looks like it was made for a kid, very Windows XP-ish and I so want to get away from MS.

Someone said it previously, gnome is more mac-like and it works. Besides, there are to many KDE distros out already and people need a choice. I am glad ubuntu is supporting gnome in the forefront and it is obviously working. If you look under Distrowatch Ubuntu is the #1 downloaded distro and Kubuntu is ranked at #11.

[kuja]

I personally think it would be lovely if Kubuntu got more attention from the devs. Then again, sitting here and thinking isn't the way to get things done. Perhaps I should go find something I could do that's actually useful.

[vayu]

What part is unfairly treated? I think there are a few things that work a little more quickly out of the box in Gnome than KDE on Ubuntu. It obviously has more attention applied to it. I like to think I use Ubuntu first and a DM second, I wish the naming would reflect that. I wish the attitudes in the community would also. Part of the glory to me is that I can switch between both back and forth. I really would like to see even more interoperability between the two.

[chaosgeisterchen]

It's not necessarily unfairly treated but it seems as if it was a fact that Kubuntu has not yet achieved the title of the distribution that does the fastest and most stable KDE. Wouldn't that be a good target? As we already have a great GNOME desktop which runs fast and stable, why not putting a bit more effort towards achieving the same concerning KDE?

Concerning the names: I think it's a bad idea to include colors into the distribution's name. We can surely stick to Kubuntu without dealing further harm to the distribution itself.

But, to mention the color blue again:

Isn't the Mac OS X default desktop supposed to be featured by a blue wallpaper? So it has a higher percentage of blue parts than Windows has concerning default desktop on first boot...

[rlozano]

i believe ubuntu/kubuntu/xubuntu are all getting a fair treatment even in the development.

the K and X before the Ubuntu is not really a big deal. it's all about distinction and giving meaning to the desktop you are in. whether you use Ubuntu/K/X, really depends upon the appreciation of the user. in fact, i'm using all those 3 and appreciate each one has to offer, base on the mood and attitude of the user sitting infront of the desktop.

besides, in this forum, if you shout help for Kubuntu, the whole community is out there to help, aside from the separate forum the kubuntu has.

it's all fair in a level playing field. the users decide.

my perspective, all is fair...

[Christmas]

I do think Ubuntu GNOME or Ubuntu KDE would be better, I even asked this at the Q&A session with Mark Shuttleworth but being offtopic my question remained unanswered. But I'd like for all the *buntu distributions to be renamed in this manner.

[Circus-Killer]

i dont think kubuntu needs a name change. kubuntu is fine, and as another poster said, kubuntu is an african word, just like ubuntu. with africa languages, just adding a letter or two can change a meaning or use of a word.

the only thing i can say is that kubuntu does need more developers. well, at least it looks that way. i do find kubuntu to be a bit more buggier (not by that much though), but i think if there were more hands working on it, along with more testers, then kubuntu would be on par with ubuntu.

but like always, the choice is there and i'm happy with how things are being handled regarding this issue.

[maniacmusician]

So basically, I agree with maniacmusician on everything, except for one thing: The names ubuntu, kubuntu, and xubuntu are all so well established, that it would be a pain in the *** to switch names. Imagine - all package names, wiki pages, and help forums would have to make the switch, and why? just because it makes a little more sense? so I don't think it's worth discussing, because the names are probably never going to change.

ah good point, this last part. It would definitely be a total pain to change the names on all existing documentation, etc. But only if this were actively attempted.

If you think about it, it probably won't be too big of a deal. If Canonical decides to go with "Ubuntu - KDE edition", and this started getting used more and more, it would gradually replace "Kubuntu" totally. Granted, in the meantime, there could be a couple of confused users who read "kubuntu" documentation, but if they ever asked someone to clear up the confusion, they would immediately be enlightened. Good documentation often gets reviewed over time as well, so with a community like this, I'm sure any person who caught a mistake like this would correct it.

However, this may indeed be too big a thing to attempt...but then again, it might not. It could really go both ways depending on how you look at it. "Your actions can only be as big as your dreams"

[kuja]

Replacing Kubuntu or Xubuntu in documentation would be easy. (open all files ..... find and replacing in files? Sure, why not) Replacing Ubuntu ... that would be quite the monumental undertaking.

[Lster]

I see it as Ubuntu with different prefixes as flavours...

Kubuntu is just Ubuntu with KDE...?

[Zeroangel]

I see it as Ubuntu with different prefixes as flavours...

Kubuntu is just Ubuntu with KDE...?
No, Kubuntu is Ubuntu with Generic KDE and some color changes. If you look at most KDE-Centric distros, you will find that the interface has been heavily customized in most cases and the art has been set into a unified theme.

I do not believe Kubuntu should be the generic little brother of Ubuntu with a few color changes, but rather it should feel as if it was a KDE-centric distro. If we were to imagine that Ubuntu did not exist, and Kubuntu were alone in competing with KDE distros like Archlinux, then Kubuntu would definitely lose because it doesnt feel as tightly unified and polished as any of these other distros.

[Brunellus]

No, Kubuntu is Ubuntu with Generic KDE and some color changes. If you look at most KDE-Centric distros, you will find that the interface has been heavily customized in most cases and the art has been set into a unified theme.

I do not believe Kubuntu should be the generic little brother of Ubuntu with a few color changes, but rather it should feel as if it was a KDE-centric distro. If we were to imagine that Ubuntu did not exist, and Kubuntu were alone in competing with KDE distros like Archlinux, then Kubuntu would definitely lose because it doesnt feel as tightly unified and polished as any of these other distros.
Many distros decide on their "favored" DE early on. SuSE was traditionally a KDE distro. Fedora is GNOME. Other DEs are of course possible, but the core developers chose to focus their talents on one stack of software that makes up their distribution.

Frankly, none of this bothers me, but I'm a GNOME user-- at least when I'm not on fluxbox, XFCE or openbox.

[Kindred]

Kubuntu were alone in competing with KDE distros like Archlinux

Just for reference.. Arch is not an anything distro, you install your own. :)

(the best way on any distro imo, it'll likely be faster and not be filled with junk..)

[prizrak]

Personally I see no point in creating different default DE distros. I was always of the opinion that a distro should choose their default DE and stick with it. Those who care can install an alternative.

IMO it would have been better if instead of having K/X/Ubuntu there would be Ubuntu Tablet and Ubuntu HTPC as it would actually provide different functionality and default software on those. With KDE and XFCE sitting in repos for those who want to install it. Or it could be Ubuntu with KDE and GNOME and XFCE sitting in repos, doesn't matter at all actually those who don't like defaults will always change them.

[Master Shake]

Heck, in Tux magazine, while it's supposed to be for Linux Newbies, it's almost an explicit Kubuntu love-fest. Heck, they RARELY mention straight Ubuntu. I think the editors carnally pleasure the KDE developers.

[Radiera]

Does anybody else think that Kubuntu gets a bit of a hard time in the Ubuntu community? I think KDE is a lot better than GNOME

You thnink wrong. As far as I can see, Kde is a piece of crap. Too many crashes, ffs!

[darkhatter]

You thnink wrong. As far as I can see, Kde is a piece of crap. Too many crashes, ffs!

this is why it needs more testing. Open Suse, slackware, red hat, arch, mandriva and just about every other distro kde isn't messed up ](*,) , think before you open your mouth

[Rodneyck]

this is why it needs more testing. One Suse, slackware, red hat, arch, mandriva and just about every other distro kde isn't messed up ](*,) , think before you open your mouth

I believe he was thinking, infact, thinking the same thing I was.

The main reason I decided KDE was not for me was the number of crashes. In fact, I had such a terrible time with one in particular that I went searching for it on google and found a whole blog devoted to it. It was the deciding factor.

[qalimas]

I find it very odd some people say how horrible KDE is. I love KDE, but I can still use GNOME if I need to. I'm much more comfortable in KDE. I find it faster, more stable (GNOME crashes sometimes, KDE doesn't), and just all around a comfortable environment. GNOME is just too simple and unstable for me, and it doesn't look like I want it to -- I can make my KDE look and behave exactly like I want.

I suppose it's all about personal taste, some prefer KDE, some GNOME, and some other.

The power we have is the ability to choose what we want.. to each his own :D

[ComplexNumber]

You thnink wrong. As far as I can see, Kde is a piece of crap. Too many crashes, ffs!this is why it needs more testing. One Suse, slackware, red hat, arch, mandriva and just about every other distro kde isn't messed up ](*,) , think before you open your mouth
add PCLinuxOS to the list of crashy kde distros too (mandriva and fedora kde are DEFINITELY unstable). i think we can safely conclude that the reason for the crashes is not the actual distro, but kde that is to blame.
by far the worst culprit is konqueror(ie the crash monster). oh, and ark and koffice(almost on a par with konqueror as far as number of crashes per day are concerned), and amarok, and.....

[Lster]

When I tried KDE (in Suse the distro) text that should have been size 12 was about size 48... On another computer the text was OK, but it was very slow and I noticed alot of bugs (although no crashes).

With GNOME, however, my computer was fast, bug-free and uncluttered.

I think some KDE things are better, but they seem pretty trivial to me.

Just my opion though :neutral:,
Lster

[darkhatter]

](*,) I get the same amount of crashes in gnome and kde (next to nothing). I don't think its KDE thats crashing

[Zeroangel]

add PCLinuxOS to the list of crashy kde distros too (mandriva and fedora kde are DEFINITELY unstable). i think we can safely conclude that the reason for the crashes is not the actual distro, but kde that is to blame.
by far the worst culprit is konqueror(ie the crash monster). oh, and ark and koffice(almost on a par with konqueror as far as number of crashes per day are concerned), and amarok, and.....
Well, Kubuntu seems to be reasonably stable. One thing I noticed about Mandriva is that it cooperates with some HW configurations (one computer ran Mandriva without flaws) but crashes a lot with others. I have no idea why it does so, but the crashes seem to often be KDE Related (ie: arts crashes, QT apps crash, etc). The crashes in Kubuntu do happen, but not enough to be annoying.

[Frak]

I don't see what you are talking about, I use Kubuntu all the time and hasn't crashed once?

[Henry Rayker]

I just don't see how it is treated unfairly at all. It was an afterthought. If Kubuntu is treated unfairly, then what about all the other desktop environments in use? e17 isn't even in the repositories...

[Frak]

I just don't see how it is treated unfairly at all. It was an afterthought. If Kubuntu is treated unfairly, then what about all the other desktop environments in use? e17 isn't even in the repositories...

I think you have a point, we should really look at the ones unsupported, I mean, Kubuntu is treated like gold compared to e17;)

[tbroderick]

e17 isn't even in the repositories...

e17 isn't even alpha software.

[awakatanka]

add PCLinuxOS to the list of crashy kde distros too (mandriva and fedora kde are DEFINITELY unstable). i think we can safely conclude that the reason for the crashes is not the actual distro, but kde that is to blame.
by far the worst culprit is konqueror(ie the crash monster). oh, and ark and koffice(almost on a par with konqueror as far as number of crashes per day are concerned), and amarok, and.....

You one sick persone that only can spread fud and troll kde. If you hate it so much avoid it and don't use it. It looks like you use it every second of the day our else you can't know of those problems that excist only in youre head.

ontopic.

Ask this kind of questions in a gnome centric forum and you get stupid answers, ask this same question about ubuntu in a kde centric forum and you get the same stupid answers.

Is kubuntu unfairly treaded? if you feel so move on and use mepis it is kde centric and rock stable and based on dapper repo's. kubuntu dapper is also atm rock stable for me. And edgy is just to buggy and that is in gnome and kde for me.

And for people that listen our argue with complexDumber its better to ignore him thats what i going to do also. He is just one big waste of time if he is talking about kde.

[hotbrainz]

I do not use KDE..... just as a matter of preference. It is quite clean but reminds me a lot of windows and hence leaves negative feelings i guess. But i think some of its applications are really good. I cannot live without Amarok for one. I run it in Gnome.

KDE i think is not treated unfairly at all. It will just have to take more time to gain ground in Ubuntu. After all its simply a matter of choice. No point being a Fanboy or having heated discussions over this.

[Ben Sprinkle]

add PCLinuxOS to the list of crashy kde distros too (mandriva and fedora kde are DEFINITELY unstable). i think we can safely conclude that the reason for the crashes is not the actual distro, but kde that is to blame.
by far the worst culprit is konqueror(ie the crash monster). oh, and ark and koffice(almost on a par with konqueror as far as number of crashes per day are concerned), and amarok, and.....

Konqueror is usually the culprit, but one thing about konqueror that surpasses Thunar and Nautilus is the file management. It's very good.

I use Xfce because it's as simple as I can find with alot of working being done to it and the stability + simplicity.

[ComplexNumber]

You one sick persone that only can spread fud and troll kde. If you hate it so much avoid it and don't use it. It looks like you use it every second of the day our else you can't know of those problems that excist only in youre head.


i'm just pointing out the many problems, thats all. your problem is(and has always been) that you are blind to the faults of kde. i may be a critical person, but at least i'm honest .
the only thing i use in kde for 95% of the time is firefox, KsCD, konsole, and kolourpaint. 4% of the time i have to use konqueror, and thats when my blood really starts to boil. 1% is taken up by the other apps.

[maniacmusician]

i'm just pointing out the many problems, thats all. your problem is(and has always been) that you are blind to the faults of kde. i may be a critical person, but at least i'm honest .
the only thing i use in kde for 95% of the time is firefox, KsCD, konsole, and kolourpaint. 4% of the time i have to use konqueror, and thats when my blood really starts to boil. 1% is taken up by the other apps.
if you don't want to create such an image for yourself then perhaps you should stop bashing kde every chance that you get. You think KDE is really buggy, I get it. We all get it. Anybody who's ever read a couple of your posts gets it. Unless you have something useful to say; don't. This thread wasn't created for asking people why KDE sucks...the main issue the OP brought up was naming scheme so you could have kindly stuck to that instead of going on a troll-tangent.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not blind to KDE's faults at all. It's a child compared to some of the other projects out there, it's very young. But it's growing, and I have confidence in it so I choose to use it. IT rarely ever crashes for me (I have problems with flash and video sometimes, but it's not KDE related). I can see that kde is immature as of yet but I think it's going to grow.

[ComplexNumber]

if you don't want to create such an image for yourself then perhaps you should stop bashing kde every chance that you get. You think KDE is really buggy, I get it. We all get it. Anybody who's ever read a couple of your posts gets it. Unless you have something useful to say; don't. This thread wasn't created for asking people why KDE sucks...the main issue the OP brought up was naming scheme so you could have kindly stuck to that instead of going on a troll-tangent.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not blind to KDE's faults at all. It's a child compared to some of the other projects out there, it's very young. But it's growing, and I have confidence in it so I choose to use it. IT rarely ever crashes for me (I have problems with flash and video sometimes, but it's not KDE related). I can see that kde is immature as of yet but I think it's going to grow.
if you read through the thread, you will find that it wasn't me who was going off on a tangent. i was merely responding to a post.

[maniacmusician]

if you read through the thread, you will find that it wasn't me who was going off on a tangent. i was merely responding to a post.
Right, this is the only instance in which this has happened :rolleyes: Anyways, let's not hijack this thread.

as per the OP, I've already stated my opinion, but I'll reiterate for the sake of getting the thread back on track. I think it would be better to add "KDE version" or "Gnome version" or something like that after ubuntu instead of changing the word by adding things to it. I think it would provide a more unified representation. We shouldn't do "color" versions, that just seems like a dumb thing to do. I don't have a huge problem with "Kubuntu" either, but I think Ubuntu - KDE version would be better, in an official capacity. Kubuntu still sounds better, though, and it gives this derivative distro more of a unique personality.

[EdThaSlayer]

Personally I prefer GNOME when it comes to productivity. But if KDE became the default GUI for Ubuntu I wouldn't really mind since I would get used to KDE and actually become productive with that. It all depends on how much you have used it. For me, that is.

[prizrak]

I believe a distro should stick to one default DE while making others installable. Before people call me a Gnome lover, I don't really care what the default is, I think it's silly to have more than one though.

[Hendrixski]

My experience is that KDE scares most new users. It's got so many applications by default that it seems cluttered, and daunting to users who are willing to learn one or two new programs, but now 500 new programs.

If we are going to spread the gospel of open-source we need to reach these people, and if GNOME is easier, more productive, then the customer is always right. Ubuntu can be a great introduction to LINUX for many people because "it just works", it looks pretty, and uses GNOME for default.

So to answer your question: no, Kubuntu is not unfairly treated, it's just not what most people want. Besides, it's still more known than Enlightenment, or Fluxbox, or Blackbox, or xfce.

[mips]

So to answer your question: no, Kubuntu is not unfairly treated, it's just not what most people want.

Can you prove that ? Most newcomers to Linux would not know what KDE or Gnome is.

I was always under impression (perhaps wrongly) that there are more kde users out there than gnome users ?

[vayu]

My experience is that KDE scares most new users. It's got so many applications by default that it seems cluttered, and daunting to users who are willing to learn one or two new programs, but now 500 new programs.


I've always installed Gnome for my 6 year old. He saw me using KDE and insisted I install it on his computer. He gets around it fine.

[daller]

IMO, Kubuntu is NOT unfairly treated, but I must agree that the naming is rather confusing to new-comers.

"Why is it named Kubuntu, when the forum says ubuntu?"

A lot of people don't even know what KDE is...

And who states that Ubuntu will be Gnome forever? - AFAIK Mark himself has switched to KDE.

IMO, KDE is superior to Gnome - But not everyone agree I can tell...

[mips]

And who states that Ubuntu will be Gnome forever? - AFAIK Mark himself has switched to KDE.


He uses both, laptop & desktop before the flames start :mrgreen:

[Hendrixski]

Can you prove that ? Most newcomers to Linux would not know what KDE or Gnome is.

I was always under impression (perhaps wrongly) that there are more kde users out there than gnome users ?

I didn't mean to start a controversy, I just pointed out my experience. When I show people LiveCD's of Knoppix (which is KDE) and Ubuntu (which is GNOME) they are much more receptive to the GNOME interface. You are right, they do not know what a desktop environment, or window manager is. I hear the same thing over and over of "There's too much there" or "I get lost".

I like the story of the 6 year old who prefers KDE. KDE probably does have more appeal to a younger crowd who want to be impressed by their operating system. I think that Englightenment will do a much beter job of that when it is developed. I show Linux mostly to people in their 30's who haven't heard of LINUX before, and some of them barely know their way around Windows. They appreciate GNOME for its simplicity. They can get work done on it.

I do not know which is more commonly used, or if there have been studies. In fact, I would be interested to see studies, because I am very much active in showing LINUX to as many people as I can. Somebody please post a link if you find one.

We can all agree on one thing: both GNOME and KDE are better than CDE!

[Lster]

Which is more popular, I thought it was GNOME?

[prizrak]

I didn't mean to start a controversy, I just pointed out my experience. When I show people LiveCD's of Knoppix (which is KDE) and Ubuntu (which is GNOME) they are much more receptive to the GNOME interface. You are right, they do not know what a desktop environment, or window manager is. I hear the same thing over and over of "There's too much there" or "I get lost".
It's all about the defaults really. Ubuntu's Gnome is pretty different from Fedora's and I'm sure Knoppix KDE is not the same as Kubuntu. Canonical does their best to keep the interface nice and clean so it's more accessible to newbie users. Now if Kubuntu doesn't get the same attention as far as defaults go perhaps it is being treated unfairly.

[prizrak]

Which is more popular, I thought it was GNOME?

There is a good chance that is true. RedHat is Gnome by default and so are alot of it's derivatives. SuSE has switched to Gnome as well and Ubuntu is Gnome. Don't remember what Mandriva uses but I think that the three I just mentioned are used by the majority of Linux users. There is also BSD of course and that runs Gnome as well.

[Hendrixski]

Ubuntu's Gnome is pretty different from Fedora's and I'm sure Knoppix KDE is not the same as Kubuntu. Canonical does their best to keep the interface nice and clean so it's more accessible to newbie users.

That's a good point. I'll give a look at Kubuntu. Now if I were to install KDE from the Ubuntu apt repositories would that be the same nice and clean interface from Kubuntu, or would that be the generic KDE?

[rrwo]

No.

If anything, Xubuntu is treated like an orphan.

[mips]

I didn't mean to start a controversy, I just pointed out my experience. When I show people LiveCD's of Knoppix (which is KDE) and Ubuntu (which is GNOME) they are much more receptive to the GNOME interface.

Well Knoppix has a gazillion application by default, i don't blame them for thinking it is cluttered. You are not really offering them a fair comparison. Maybe next time show them Ubuntu, Kubuntu & Xubuntu.

[FyreBrand]

as per the OP, I've already stated my opinion, but I'll reiterate for the sake of getting the thread back on track. I think it would be better to add "KDE version" or "Gnome version" or something like that after ubuntu instead of changing the word by adding things to it. I think it would provide a more unified representation. We shouldn't do "color" versions, that just seems like a dumb thing to do. I don't have a huge problem with "Kubuntu" either, but I think Ubuntu - KDE version would be better, in an official capacity. Kubuntu still sounds better, though, and it gives this derivative distro more of a unique personality.I've always thought this too when this subject comes up. I think a single naming convention without respect to a specific desktop would be unifying and less confusing.

When you install FC6 and you choose to customize your install KDE, Gnome, and XFCE are available as default setups. You can choose to install one or all three. Also Openbox, Fluxbox, IceWM, and a couple others are available for install as well. No one says, "Oh, I'm running Gnomedora, or Kadora." I think they've got it right on with a single branding and the option to configure how you want.

With that said I use Kubuntu mostly (sometimes I install and check out Gnome features) and I don't think it's unfairly treated. It's just not the primary development focus. I also find that Kubuntu Edgy has been pretty stable, moreso for me than Dapper.

[mips]

That's a good point. I'll give a look at Kubuntu. Now if I were to install KDE from the Ubuntu apt repositories would that be the same nice and clean interface from Kubuntu, or would that be the generic KDE?

You can do either.


sudo aptitude kubuntu-desktop will install the entire Kubuntu desktop for you just like kubuntu.

This thread discusses the basics + pros & cons of doing a kde base install,
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=277090

[Hendrixski]

Well Knoppix has a gazillion application by default, i don't blame them for thinking it is cluttered. You are not really offering them a fair comparison. Maybe next time show them Ubuntu, Kubuntu & Xubuntu.

That's a good point, as I conceded to prizrac. I'm installing KDE from Ubuntu's apt repositories right now, and I'd still like to know if this is the same KDE interface that's in Kubuntu, or do I need to install Kubuntu seperately?

[mips]

That's a good point, as I conceded to prizrac. I'm installing KDE from Ubuntu's apt repositories right now, and I'd still like to know if this is the same KDE interface that's in Kubuntu, or do I need to install Kubuntu seperately?

What exactly are you installing ?

I would advise you to use aptitude as it makes it easier to remove later.

[deep.tinker77]

You can do either.


sudo aptitude kubuntu-desktop will install the entire Kubuntu desktop for you just like kubuntu.

This thread discusses the basics + pros & cons of doing a kde base install,
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=277090


Is it the same if you started with KDE and wanted to try Gnome? I just started using linux about a month and a half ago, and I actually like kde. But another user brought up a good point. I think I started with KDE first because it looks like windows. I want to get away from windows, so I would like to try Gnome. I also didn't know that RedHat was Gnome based. Would learning Gnome help me with SuSe?. Alot of posters bring up good points, and I believe we should listen and respect each others opinion, instead of flat out bashing 1 distro over another. I personally like the freedom of choice both give me. :-D

[mips]

Is it the same if you started with KDE and wanted to try Gnome?

No, this is the same if you started with Kubuntu install cd and then wanted to add Gnome. You will basically get Kubuntu now.

If you just want KDE (which does not include all the applications/utils of Kubuntu) then look at the link i posted. it is the more minimalist approach but not the standard Kubuntu one.

[Hendrixski]

lol. Mips, I didn't see your post earlier about the kubuntu-desktop package... I installed the kdedesktop package ... and for some reason it installed a lot of stuff into my GNOME menu's... not nice. The KDE desktop package looks loaded with applications the way knoppix's kde does.

So I'm installing the kubuntu-desktop package into a virtual machine to see if it doesn't do the same thing, and how the look compares to the KDE desktop package.

While I'm waiting for that... http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=247399
there's a poll of who uses which desktop environment.

[kuja]

Hendrixski. The menu entries are shared between window managers. All (non-personal) menu entries are stored in /usr/share/applications.

I typically don't install both KDE and GNOME (in the same partition, anyhow) for this reason ... the menus get overly cluttered.

[ComplexNumber]

I typically don't install both KDE and GNOME (in the same partition, anyhow) for this reason ... the menus get overly cluttered.not if you install kmenu-gnome (click (http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=31025)). that puts all gnome entries in one of the main menu categories.

[Hendrixski]

Hendrixski. The menu entries are shared between window managers. All (non-personal) menu entries are stored in /usr/share/applications.

I typically don't install both KDE and GNOME for this reason ... the menus get overly cluttered.

Now I know not to do that. The Kubuntu desktop package did the same thing. I guess I'll chose which applications to keep, which ones to hide.

But the Kubuntu desktop itself does look much better than the regular KDE desktop, and is half as cluttered as Knoppix. Now I'll show it to some middle-aged people who are new to Linux and see what they think.

Like I said, I'm just happy it's not CDE. I'll stick with Gnome for now, and wait for enlightenment to stabilize, I may even code a few things for it.

I'll try xubuntu next.

[prizrak]

[OFFTOPIC]
Hendrixski, is your name by chance BJ? I went to RIT with a kid who had Hendrixski as his AIM name.

[Hendrixski]

Prizrac, yeah. I went to RIT as well. Though, I don't go by B.J. anymore, obviously, it doesn't bode well for an international systems consultant to go by that name, I go by my real name.

I can't recognize you from your screen-name.

[kuja]

not if you install kmenu-gnome (click (http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=31025)). that puts all gnome entries in one of the main menu categories.

Ooh, thanks. I didn't know about that one.