Ubuntu, KUbuntu, XUbuntu - Why?

[monoment]

Ubuntu, KUbuntu, XUbuntu, EdUbuntu, Ubuntu CE... where does it end? And why did it start in the first place?

Why not combine all 'pseudo' distributions into one, named "Ubuntu" and have an installer that lets the user choose what GUI to install (a la SuSE)?

This would also overcome any branding confusions, overhead in creating seperate images and would look and feel much more polished (grub, usplash logos, etc.).

[K.Mandla]

I think it started when people wanted one desktop or another.

I imagine it will end when everyone wants the same thing, and no one prefers something different.

Until then, don't forget Fluxbuntu, Ubuntulite, gNewSense ... and all the other flavors of Ubuntu.

[dbbolton]

i kind of like that there are different flavours.

[ciscosurfer]

I like the OPs suggestion to at least combine the main variants of Ubuntu into one installer: Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu (hey, that would give all those DVD ISO proponents something to smile about).

Of course, you could always roll your own compilation distro as well: http://reconstructor.aperantis.com/

[Brunellus]

Ubuntu, KUbuntu, XUbuntu, EdUbuntu, Ubuntu CE... where does it end? And why did it start in the first place?

Why not combine all 'pseudo' distributions into one, named "Ubuntu" and have an installer that lets the user choose what GUI to install (a la SuSE)?

This would also overcome any branding confusions, overhead in creating seperate images and would look and feel much more polished (grub, usplash logos, etc.).
Yeah. like "fedora."

Ubuntu is a single-CD distribution. That means, realistically, ONE desktop environment. For the ubuntu core devs, this meant GNOME.

Naturally people wanted to use the ubuntu core with their choice of DE...so Kubuntu was born a few months after Ubuntu. Then Xubuntu, and so forth.

[CoolHand]

I like that there are different versions. Since I use Xubuntu I like the fact that I can still download just one CD and get applications that make sense with it and not have to download a bunch of KDE bloat (I only call it bloat as it is not used on my install). I assume the KDE people also like that they aren't downloading tons of GTK applications. It keeps things clean and then I can add what I want later with apt-get. I do hope that things don't get too fragmented though. The three or four major versions are plenty to choose from I think. I didn't mind the server type install I did on my Sparc either that was just a base and then using apt-get to choose the desktop but that doesn't work for less experienced users. ;)

[urukrama]

If you want Ubunto to be accesible for general users with little knowledge of Linux or computers in general, I don't think making this an option during install is very recommended. When I first installed Ubuntu, I had no clue what a "Desktop environment" was, or that is was possible to change DE and yet use the same operating system.

Since then, I've played around with Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Fluxbox and IceWM, and currently switch between Gnome and Xfce. Now I like the variety that Linux allows me, but if I were confronted with it in the beginning, I think I would just have been unnecessarily confused.

Also, I don't think it would fit on one CD.

[muep]

I think that the versions should be branded the same. They could keep the one install cd, but the user could then choose the desktop environment he wants. The DVD version could then contain all the DE's.

If not the names, at least the artwork should be consistent.

[monoment]

I think that the versions should be branded the same. They could keep the one install cd, but the user could then choose the desktop environment he wants. The DVD version could then contain all the DE's.

If not the names, at least the artwork should be consistent.

Exactly! I think the KUbuntu artwork is far less polished than Ubuntu. Ubuntu should be universally branded. After all, the beauty of Linux is that you can change things afterwards to suit your needs (and eyes).

The single CD argument is valid, but what about bundling everything on DVD (Ubuntu Universal) - except maybe the server edition? DVDs have become mainstream after all. You can still have 'lite CDs' (Ubuntu (Gnome), Ubuntu (KDE), Ubuntu (XFCE)). But I think the approach to seperate the distributions with different websites and different branding is just an unecessary, confusing and overloaded overhead.

[Brunellus]

Exactly! I think the KUbuntu artwork is far less polished than Ubuntu. Ubuntu should be universally branded. After all, the beauty of Linux is that you can change things afterwards to suit your needs (and eyes).

The single CD argument is valid, but what about bundling everything on DVD (Ubuntu Universal) - except maybe the server edition? DVDs have become mainstream after all. You can still have 'lite CDs' (Ubuntu (Gnome), Ubuntu (KDE), Ubuntu (XFCE)). But I think the approach to seperate the distributions with different websites and different branding is just an unecessary, confusing and overloaded overhead.
You must be new here. Welcome to the forums.

1) Not everybody has a DVD-ROM drive; not everybody's DVD-ROM is bootable. The most reliable way of distributing widely is by CD-ROM.

2) There are moves afoot to have "all of Ubuntu" DVD sets. In fact, some online vendors sell these--at a price. As someone I know always says, "ye pays yer money, or ye takes yer time."

3) Ubuntu is a single-CD GNOME distribution. Multiple-cd, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink distro shoppers are advised to go towards Debian Stable, Fedora or OpenSUSE.

[monoment]

You must be new here. Welcome to the forums.

1) Not everybody has a DVD-ROM drive; not everybody's DVD-ROM is bootable. The most reliable way of distributing widely is by CD-ROM.

2) There are moves afoot to have "all of Ubuntu" DVD sets. In fact, some online vendors sell these--at a price. As someone I know always says, "ye pays yer money, or ye takes yer time."

3) Ubuntu is a single-CD GNOME distribution. Multiple-cd, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink distro shoppers are advised to go towards Debian Stable, Fedora or OpenSUSE.

Thank you for the welcome. I am usually a silent lurker and have been using Linux since 95 (Slack 3). I ran recently a comparison for myself to find the best distribution which is easy to maintain and also transparent. Gentoo striked out - the concept is nice, but totally unusable for a production system. SuSE was too proprietary and I refused to touch Fedora since the RedHat faux-pas.

1) I slightly disagree. Technology is progressing and so should a distribution or we would be still using 5.25" floppy discs. I am just talking about an option to have one DVD master, where the user can choose which GUI, amongst other packages to install, instead of micro-managing and maintaining different distributions. That 'master DVD' image could then be broken up into CD distributions, called Ubuntu (Whatever).

2) Great. I was just curious why that branch into the different distributions happened in the first place? I am all for multiple choices, but the number of different Ubuntu flavors seem to be confusing and to some extent unnecessary.

3) I am more talking about usability and branding. I don't expect a 'do-it-all' DVD release, because a lot of packages are outdated before the DVD is mastered anyway and I assume that most users just use the media to install a base system and use apt to stay up-to-date. In my point of view, it would be much more accessible brand the distribution "Ubuntu", regardless of the GUI.

Just one example: I installed Ubuntu and later KUbuntu on three machines. While both installations worked right 'out-of-the-box', KUbuntu showed a very bizarre low-res USplash on all of my machines. I didn't have that problem with Ubuntu. Sure, it is a minor detail, but it could have been prevented by a universal branding.

[lyceum]

Linux is about options. I think it is great that there are different flavors of Ubuntu to chose from. Anyone can change the way their PC looks, so by having a main Gnome with brown, then KDE with blue, which is the KDE color (?) etc... there are more options. I can't wait for Fluxbuntu and Elbuntu to come out. As many DEs as there are, I say give them a 'buntu.

Here is why:
Ubuntu: source (Gnome, it is easier than KDE)
Kubuntu: KDE (without extra work)
Xubutnu: for older PCs
Fluxbuntu: the lightest desktop
Elbuntu: Enlightenment (without extra work)

Life is easier for those new to Linux, and you have in one disk just what you want or need.

[urukrama]

I can't wait for Fluxbuntu and Elbuntu to come out.

Fluxbuntu (http://fluxbuntu.org/) exists already, though it is not an official Canonical product.

[lyceum]

Fluxbuntu (http://fluxbuntu.org/) exists already, though it is not an official Canonical product.

I guess it is out of beta now! I have used it, when it was beta, and it worked great. I am hopeing it will be officially added to the family. Thanks for the info.

[Lord Illidan]

Ubuntu: source (Gnome, it is easier than KDE)
Kubuntu: KDE (without extra work)
Xubutnu: for older PCs
Fluxbuntu: the lightest desktop
Elbuntu: Enlightenment (without extra work)

It may be easier than KDE for you. For some people it is the opposite, given KDE's similarity to Windows.

I like the current system. If I want KDE, I download Kubuntu. If I want Xubuntu I download Xubuntu. I only need to download 1 cd. not a dvd like suse.

[lyceum]

It may be easier than KDE for you. For some people it is the opposite, given KDE's similarity to Windows.

I like the current system. If I want KDE, I download Kubuntu. If I want Xubuntu I download Xubuntu. I only need to download 1 cd. not a dvd like suse.

When I first started selling Linux boxes I put Kubuntu on them for the Windows likeness. I found that people seemed to expect it to act like Windows becasue it looked like Windows. I agree on the "easier for me." There are people who would do better with KDE, and I am glad it is there. For people who know nothing about Linux it seems, in my experiance, that giving them a DE that they don't know, or that doesn't look too familiar reminds them that they aren't using Windows anymore.

I agree, the current system is great. If I have to have 5 disks, I'd rather each one work all by itself. :) (U, Ed, K, X, F)

[Henry Rayker]

<3 Elbuntu (I've got E17 installed and right now I'm toying around with E16 as well. I like both of them. E16 may be my laptop default and E17 my main system's default...we'll have to see.)

That being said, I'd say the problem doesn't really lie with Canonical or anyone else except for the community. They didn't want to have to install their DE of choice over the Gnome that was, by default offered. As far as I understand, weren't all of the variants originally supplied third-party (similar to the stage fluxbuntu is in now)? Canonical just accepted them as being official, right?

They can't support every single DE and WM option, so I'd prefer KDE-oriented development kept to Kubuntu, Gnome-oriented kept to Ubuntu, etc.

[max.diems]

This has been asked over and over again. The devs (and most users) like it how it is.

aysiu, where is your essay?

[CoolHand]

Fluxbuntu (http://fluxbuntu.org/) exists already, though it is not an official Canonical product.

Just curious...Why do they call it Fluxbuntu? To follow the pattern of the other naming schemes shouldn't it be Fubuntu? It's easier to pronounce my way too... :rolleyes:

[aysiu]

aysiu, where is your essay? Sorry. This is the closest I've got:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome

[que_redknight]

Well, I liked the idea of a free cd. I was looking for a distro to replace my Windows. And that's exactly what I have done. Now I am not saying I am a complete novice but I am not asking for much when I am getting something for free. And I have used a couple other distros in the past but couldn't replace windows. this one has allowed me to that. After words I decided I wanted the other desktops but had to download them. I am on dialup so that takes time. The idea of a dvd with all those desktops and the packages available on the repositories would make things much easier to setup. And I like the fact that ubuntu is organized unlike having a complete kde or gnome desktop.

[Somenoob]

These variants of Ubuntu just(mostly) have diffrent DEs. They don't differ that much from the defaut edition.

[lyceum]

Well, I liked the idea of a free cd. I was looking for a distro to replace my Windows. And that's exactly what I have done. Now I am not saying I am a complete novice but I am not asking for much when I am getting something for free. And I have used a couple other distros in the past but couldn't replace windows. this one has allowed me to that. After words I decided I wanted the other desktops but had to download them. I am on dialup so that takes time. The idea of a dvd with all those desktops and the packages available on the repositories would make things much easier to setup. And I like the fact that ubuntu is organized unlike having a complete kde or gnome desktop.

You don't have to down load the different 'buntus to get different DE's. Just got to

System/Administration/synaptic Package Manager

Install KDE, XFCE, Flux Box, Enlightenment or whatever DE you want.

Log off, change the desk top and log back in. Same PC, different 'buntu.

:-D

The other 'buntus are jsut easier if you want only that CE, or Fluxbuntu or Xubuntu for a lighter desktop.

[mips]

You don't have to down load the different 'buntus to get different DE's. Just got to

System/Administration/synaptic Package Manager

Install KDE, XFCE, Flux Box, Enlightenment or whatever DE you want.

Log off, change the desk top and log back in. Same PC, different 'buntu.

:-D

The other 'buntus are jsut easier if you want only that CE, or Fluxbuntu or Xubuntu for a lighter desktop.


I think you missed the part where he said:

I am on dialup so that takes time.

In cases like these it might be better to get the Debian DVDs/CDs

[lyceum]

I think you missed the part where he said:


In cases like these it might be better to get the Debian DVDs/CDs

I didn't miss it, I thought that grabing the others that way would be faster than downloading the different flavors. As for ordering CDs or DVDs, if he wants to stick to Ubuntu the free ones take forever, and they only come one 3 flavors. Even if it takes time to download, it can be done on his way out the door or to bed. I was just trying to give helpful options.

-edit-
I do have to admit that when I posted, I did forget that what takes me 5 seconds can be forever with dialup. It has been years, I remember it is slow, but I really don't know how slow any more.

[mips]

Even if it takes time to download, it can be done on his way out the door or to bed. I was just trying to give helpful options.

-edit-
I do have to admit that when I posted, I did forget that what takes me 5 seconds can be forever with dialup. It has been years, I remember it is slow, but I really don't know how slow any more.

Understood.

If I was on dial-up I would not even consider Ubuntu but go for debian instead as you get a nice set of dvd's. Dial-up would be murder for me. If I really have to have ubuntu I would rather spend a few bucks and buy the ubuntu/xubuntu/kubuntu cds

Do yourself a favour and connect a 56kbs modem and just try and browse web pages, you will go mental ](*,)

[lyceum]

Understood.

If I was on dial-up I would not even consider Ubuntu but go for debian instead as you get a nice set of dvd's. Dial-up would be murder for me. If I really have to have ubuntu I would rather spend a few bucks and buy the ubuntu/xubuntu/kubuntu cds

Do yourself a favour and connect a 56kbs modem and just try and browse web pages, you will go mental ](*,)

lol! I don't know if that would be a favor! But I will try to remember the hell that is dialup in the future. :)

I wonder how much longer dialup will even be around....

[Jimmypainter]

Can anyone just help me get a good AMD64 Edubunto iso to download. The one on the site now is missing files needed to boot from cd.:(

[mips]

Can anyone just help me get a good AMD64 Edubunto iso to download. The one on the site now is missing files needed to boot from cd.:(

What do you mean it is missing files to boot ? Do you know how to burn an iso image to a disk, it is not the same as simply copying it to a disk ?

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto
http://www.edubuntu.org/Download

[Enigmus]

To burn an ISO image onto a disk, you need a program capable of burning ISO images. Just dragging the file over and burning it, that won't work. When using Nero on Windows, I use the "Burn Image to Disc" option. You just select the image you want to burn, put the disk in and Ta-Da! A Bootable Linux disk.

Of course there are a couple of programs out there for free that can burn ISO images, and Ubuntu has one built in.