Will Kubuntu ever be default?

[bluefightingcat]

Hi,

I was just wondering......I recently installed Kubuntu Gutsy. Whilst going through the upgrade process and reading about Ubuntu and Kubuntu Gutsy I got the impression that since Ubuntu is the default distro of *ubuntu it gets much more attention than kubuntu and the others.

I was curious to know whether this would ever change. Would Canonical ever make Kubuntu the default? Or at least invest equal resources in developing Kubuntu?

For example from what I've read about KDE 4.0, it is going to be quite innovative. Lets say hypotethically that lots of users switch to KDE 4.0, with the result that the majority of users use and prefer KDE. Do you think that Kubuntu could ever become the default?

.....just curious!

BFC

[undine]

I sincerely hope not.

[bluefightingcat]

Why not? :) I have to admit I do lean more towards KDE and am very excited about KDE 4.0. I hope it lives up to all the hype.

Do you have any valid reasons (besides looks and available packages) for not wanting KDE?

BFC

[southernman]

Hi,

I was just wondering......I recently installed Kubuntu Gutsy. Whilst going through the upgrade process and reading about Ubuntu and Kubuntu Gutsy I got the impression that since Ubuntu is the default distro of *ubuntu it gets much more attention than kubuntu and the others.

I was curious to know whether this would ever change. Would Canonical ever make Kubuntu the default? Or at least invest equal resources in developing Kubuntu?

For example from what I've read about KDE 4.0, it is going to be quite innovative. Lets say hypotethically that lots of users switch to KDE 4.0, with the result that the majority of users use and prefer KDE. Do you think that Kubuntu could ever become the default?

.....just curious!

BFCDo whaaaat?

Will Kubuntu ever be the default of Ubuntu? Oh boy, that's rich.

I think what you mean is... Will KDE ever be the default Desktop of Ubuntu, which uses Gnome.

The answer lies somewhere between N and O. Hence the reasoning of the K in Kubuntu... It will always have a default Desktop of KDE. Ubuntu will always have Gnome as it's default. The beauty of it is, you can install as many Desktop environments as you like on top of the base OS you install.... You can also install none of them and operate solely from a command line if you so choose.

[hessiess]

I sincerely hope not.
+1
kde is a mess, ugly, with a stuped naming scheme

[Nunu]

This is a sensitive subject as personal preference takes high priority here, But from my experiance KDE is more unstable and more system intensive then GNOME. Please correct me if i am wrong.

[swoll1980]

kubuntu is very buggy on my computers. Ubuntu runs way smoother. I like the look and feel of Kubuntu much better. I wish it would perform as well, So I could make the switch

[southernman]

Why not? :) I have to admit I do lean more towards KDE and am very excited about KDE 4.0. I hope it lives up to all the hype.

Do you have any valid reasons (besides looks and available packages) for not wanting KDE?

BFC
What exactly would it take for an individual full of free will, in order to have... as you call it, a valid reason for not wanting to use KDE?

It's all about choice, right. What's good for one, doesn't make it the norm. Just means you have total say over what you choose to use.

IF you like KDE... good on you. :) I happen to not like it... does that make us Gnome users the bogey man? :p

[bluefightingcat]

Southernman: Ok let me re-phrase my question. Will Kubuntu ever get as much resources and development put into it as Ubuntu? I could be wrong but I get the impression that Canonical spend alot more time and resources on Ubuntu. I mean just compare the websites!

Hessiess: Ugly is not a valid reason. You can make Kubuntu look identical to Gnome, VISTA XP or any other desktop environment. Naming scheme may be stupid but it doesn't make any difference in practice. And well you are going to have to qualify what you mean by "mess".

Nunu: Fair enough. I agree that it is personal preference. Have you had a look at the reviews of KDE 4.0. It's still in development but promises to take a huge leap forward.

BFC

[tubasoldier]

KDE and ubuntu just dont mix. Kubuntu is a buggy buggy implementation. Too bad really. But if you want a good version of KDE that is useable then mepis or pclinuxOS are probably more up your alley.

[swoll1980]

Are looks and available packages not valid enough?

[undine]

Why not? :) I have to admit I do lean more towards KDE and am very excited about KDE 4.0. I hope it lives up to all the hype.

Do you have any valid reasons (besides looks and available packages) for not wanting KDE?

BFC

No, that's about it. I don't like the look and feel, the naming conventions, or the native applications (with a couple of exceptions: Digikam is currently much better than F-Spot, for example).

[Nunu]

Southernman: Ok let me re-phrase my question. Will Kubuntu ever get as much resources and development put into it as Ubuntu? I could be wrong but I get the impression that Canonical spend alot more time and resources on Ubuntu. I mean just compare the websites!

Hessiess: Ugly is not a valid reason. You can make Kubuntu look identical to Gnome, VISTA XP or any other desktop environment. Naming scheme may be stupid but it doesn't make any difference in practice. And well you are going to have to qualify what you mean by "mess".

Nunu: Fair enough. I agree that it is personal preference. Have you had a look at the reviews of KDE 4.0. It's still in development but promises to take a huge leap forward.

BFC

Remember that Kubuntu was a sub project in the beginning and is as far as my knowledge goes getting more attention then what was originally planned for it. Again correct me if i am wrong

[Erunno]

Snowball's chance in hell.

[gmaniac]

It's one of those desktop wars again.. Me likes. :popcorn:
My opinion.
When i was using other distros like suse and fedora i always used kde. Gnome seems/seemed to me like a braindead desktop environment. It has so little options to configure that the first time i installed it back then i thought i must have done something wrong and installed a kids edition or something and looked on how to enable the advanced options. I think the whole idea of a gui is not to impose the correct way to you but to provide defaults and when you fill comfortable enough to experiment to let you customize it to your liking.
When i heard about ubuntu i didn't know of the various flavors of it (I thought i would get a menu asking for what i want to install ! To my surprise it didn't) and so I got gnome. I now use gnome for about 6 months and came to terms with it. It seems light weight and fast.
I sure miss the endless options of kde but the 2 things I really really miss is that it had an option for the windows to remember their last position and the various options of the filemanager.

Ps I'm also waiting for kde 4 to reach rc 1 or 2 at least to give it a spin ;)

[bluefightingcat]

My intention is not to start a flame war but I came across this article that you might find interesting.
It takes a look at the big picture with Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac, and the effects that Gnome and KDE are having on that scenario.

http://hopachai.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/we-need-to-kill-gnome/

BFC

[Spr0k3t]

I don't think KDE will ever be the default of Ubuntu. Will the popularity of Kubuntu increase dramatically over Ubuntu once KDE4 is out? Of course it will. However, they (the developers) still have quite a bit to do with KDE4 before I could consider it a replacement for gnome. I like gnome quite a bit over KDE as the featureset of KDE is a complete mess. Just the other day it took me a couple hours to figure out where the "disable single click to launch" feature was hidden. I eventually gave up and asked on these forums. Why are features as simple as that hidden so deep? The problem is, I don't think KDE4 is going to be much different from what I've seen.

[curuxz]

Oh my god, I love this community but some of the posts this topic gets are embarrassingly childish.

The guy was just asking a question not insulting your mother, grow up KDE is just a DE you don't have to be so rude about it.

[gmaniac]

http://hopachai.wordpress.com/2007/0...to-kill-gnome/

It's a huge article and i confess i didn't read it all. He has a good point about the linux desktop which is divided but we certainly don't wont something killed. Having diversity and choices it's certainly a good thing.
I remember using enlightenment once. It had some out of this world animations back then. I would certainly not want to kill that either although I've tested it lately(e17) and wasn't impressed.

I think should be more about cooperation and agreeing to some standards.


...it took me a couple hours to figure out where the "disable single click to launch" feature was hidden.

;). I know it's frighting at first. Either you love it or hate it.
But you are right, kde shoud have had an option/mentality of dividing the most used options and the advanced/rest.

[Lozz]

I think that were the majority of users to switch to Kubuntu following the release of KDE4 then the community would respond by paying it more attention. The result of this is that more discussions would occur which assumed users to be using Kubuntu, essentially rendering it the community default.

[Nunu]

I Read the article and i can see where your question steam from according to the right up. I do think that if you could some how make the two interfaces more inter-compatible, it would be a giant step forward for Linux and would probably make it easer for the little penguin to be featured on more bigger developers software boxes.

[Tom Mann]

I would like to see Kubuntu be an officially maintained package again, say with KDE 4.1 - but KDE has too many options for the beginner.

That said if someone would want to explore Linux once they're used to it I'd advise them to try Kubuntu any day.

Kubuntu in my opinion is the power user desktop. :)

[Spr0k3t]

My intention is not to start a flame war but I came across this article that you might find interesting.
It takes a look at the big picture with Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac, and the effects that Gnome and KDE are having on that scenario.

I remember that article. It's well thought out yes, but he forgot to add one thing in the equation of the desktop battle: Competition. The struggle between KDE and Gnome for the default Linux desktop is the main fuel behind the drive for better development. Killing either will only have a different DE step in... like E17 or XFCE.

[bluefightingcat]

Very valid point!

BFC

[hyper_ch]

Go Xfce ;)

For those who think Kubuntu is a buggy implementation of KDE in *buntu: You can always choose to install the command line version of *buntu and add KDE to your liking to it.

In the end, we Linux users, actually can think and make the system behave the way we want it.

So, go ahead, grab yourself an alternate install disk, install the basic system and then get the KDE stuff on it ;)

[ScottyBoyNow]

KDE is a bad way for a OS, I do not mean anything bad to the developers, but I had to reinstall Ubuntu to use the full HD, so I thought I would doss about and install Kubuntu instead, it was horrendous, the bouncing KDE logo on the pointer left a gray mark which never disappeared. I hate KDE full stop, although it might be to somebody's taste, I don't think that I would ever goto another OS ever again, I am hooked on Ubuntu!

[blueturtl]

I think the reason KDE was not chosen initially has to do with the different approaches of the desktop environments. KDE is more application oriented than Gnome (which is more use(r) oriented). I will elaborate on this later. To summarize my point: seeing as the goal of Ubuntu is to be an operating system for human beings and as easy to use as possible it makes sense for Gnome to get more development time. KDE aims for something else, so the Ubuntu devs would in the end be trying to make KDE into something it's not. Kubuntu is therefore offered as an alternative. Since KDE development is not tied to Ubuntu, KDE and Kubuntu will progress regardless of the input by Canonical.

I will now elaborate on the different approaches taken by KDE and Gnome:

Users have certain needs. To accomplish these needs they use applications on top of their operating systems. As a test case I will name CD burning. What people want to do is write their data to disc (be it music or documents).

The application oriented way is to have a very spesific solution to do this: K3b is a prime example of this. It is a single application that specializes in writing data to disks. This is the KDE way for things throughout. Lot's of apps for spesific tasks. In KDE when you want to do things you are pointed to an app that does the said things, and then trained in the use of that application.

The use(r) oriented way is to focus on instead on integration, continuity and consistency. Therefore Ubuntu by default has no app to burn CDs (it does, but is practically invisible to the user). That is, the Gnome devs thought: "Why should the fact I want to put files on a CD be different from putting files anywhere else on my file systems?" The end-result is quite seamless and easy. If you have an ISO file, all you have to do is right-click it, and there will be an option to burn it to disc. If you wish to burn files to a CD, you simply drag them over the CD-folder and hit the 'write' button. Much fewer steps than with K3b. In user oriented design burning files to disc is just another file management task, and is therefore a job for Nautilus.

Of course we're all entitled to our favorites, but I'm simply trying to explain why I believe KDE was not chosen as the default desktop environment for Ubuntu.

[curuxz]

I think the reason KDE was not chosen initially has to do with the different approaches of the desktop environments. KDE is more application oriented than Gnome (which is more use(r) oriented). I will elaborate on this later. To summarize my point: seeing as the goal of Ubuntu is to be an operating system for human beings and as easy to use as possible it makes sense for Gnome to get more development time. KDE aims for something else, so the Ubuntu devs would in the end be trying to make KDE into something it's not. Kubuntu is therefore offered as an alternative. Since KDE development is not tied to Ubuntu, KDE and Kubuntu will progress regardless of the input by Canonical.

I will now elaborate on the different approaches taken by KDE and Gnome:

Users have certain needs. To accomplish these needs they use applications on top of their operating systems. As a test case I will name CD burning. What people want to do is write their data to disc (be it music or documents).

The application oriented way is to have a very spesific solution to do this: K3b is a prime example of this. It is a single application that specializes in writing data to disks. This is the KDE way for things throughout. Lot's of apps for spesific tasks. In KDE when you want to do things you are pointed to an app that does the said things, and then trained in the use of that application.

The use(r) oriented way is to focus on instead on integration, continuity and consistency. Therefore Ubuntu by default has no app to burn CDs (it does, but is practically invisible to the user). That is, the Gnome devs thought: "Why should the fact I want to put files on a CD be different from putting files anywhere else on my file systems?" The end-result is quite seamless and easy. If you have an ISO file, all you have to do is right-click it, and there will be an option to burn it to disc. If you wish to burn files to a CD, you simply drag them over the CD-folder and hit the 'write' button. Much fewer steps than with K3b. In user oriented design burning files to disc is just another file management task, and is therefore a job for Nautilus.

Of course we're all entitled to our favorites, but I'm simply trying to explain why I believe KDE was not chosen as the default desktop environment for Ubuntu.


Have you ever even used kde???

KDE is far far more intergrated than gnome, it has data sharing between all the systems. Look at gnome we have natuilus...which does not even have tabs, then we have firefox which has NOTHING to do with gnome its just a cross platform browser, then evolution or thunderbird for email both with NO integration whatso ever with the default system, then a host of small apps to administer the system.

KDE has a nice integration between konqueror>kontact>koffice AND kolab (kde has a server for basing your network off of). Kde has a control centre.

Ubuntu was chosen because it looks diffrent from windows, and kubuntu suffers from lack of user support.

Kde is going to wipe the floor and all these silly comments about KDE being slow and ugly have nothing to do with real world kde users OR why ubuntu chose gnome.

How is this thread not in the frequently discussed topics or backyard by now its just a slagging match against KDE....as normal.

[hyper_ch]

Maybe people don't want an all-in-one integrated service à la Microsoft (Windows + IE + Office)

[blueturtl]

Have you ever even used kde???

I have, although admiteddly it's been some time...


KDE is far far more intergrated than gnome, it has data sharing between all the systems.

Integration can mean a lot of things. I may not have implied it correctly, but in this case what I mean by integration is the integration of tasks. Gnome pursues a kind of integration that will make things like "a cd burning application" or "control center" stand out as unnecessary.


Look at gnome we have natuilus...which does not even have tabs, then we have firefox which has NOTHING to do with gnome its just a cross platform browser, then evolution or thunderbird for email both with NO integration whatso ever with the default system, then a host of small apps to administer the system.

KDE has more features, I know this, but it's not what I was talking about. Obviously I'm not saying Gnome is complete and integration between different applications is lacking in some cases (even in the context that I'm referring to). To open up a calendar or control volume I need not launch a separate application in Gnome. That is another example of the way the system uses smart task integration. Also the system settings scattered in their own menu entries is a part of this integration. No application, just dialogs for certain settings. From the user's perspective this makes Ubuntu's desktop appear the heart of the system, rather than just a shell running on top of something else.


KDE has a nice integration between konqueror>kontact>koffice AND kolab (kde has a server for basing your network off of). Kde has a control centre.

I'm not denying the existence of any of KDE's features.


Ubuntu was chosen because it looks diffrent from windows, and kubuntu suffers from lack of user support.


Kde is going to wipe the floor and all these silly comments about KDE being slow and ugly have nothing to do with real world kde users OR why ubuntu chose gnome.

Uhh.. I wasn't attacking KDE in any way. I think it's a nice system. Both approaches have their fans and that is why it's great that we have both. I did mention in my previous post that all that I write is based on a hunch of mine.


How is this thread not in the frequently discussed topics or backyard by now its just a slagging match against KDE....as normal.

You sound angry. Take a pill and remember it doesn't matter what others think of your favorite desktop environment. ;)

[adamklempner]

Didn't Mark Shuttleworth do a lot with gnome in the past? As long as it is his favorite it will probably be default.

As far as my preference, I choose Kubuntu a few iterations back because I found it easy, stable, and aesthetically pleasing. I started with a live cd of both Ubuntu and Kubuntu, played around with them both for a while, then made my decision. Obviously both DE's worked well. I preferred the control and customizability of KDE over gnome. I also thought Kubuntu looked a lot nicer by default (I find brown ugly, blue is my favorite color, and I like the Kubuntu icon set). Also, I didn't like gnome open/save dialogs. But that is just my preference.

About the stability comment someone made before, I have never had any issues with KDE's stability personally. I don't recall any crashes or locks of the DE that were not hardware caused (I had a heat issue in one PC). Some applications are buggy, but that is not a DE problem. Maybe I have been lucky these few years and it just likes my computers.

And about this comment:

...it took me a couple hours to figure out where the "disable single click to launch" feature was hidden.

The setting is in System Settings -> Mouse and Keyboard -> Mouse. That seems like the most logical place for that setting to me. Where is it in gnome?

[yorkie]

Best solution be like other Distro`s have the option to choose GNOME or KDE when you install.

[justin whitaker]

I don't get why people need to be divisive on this issue. Why do you have to choose? Are we really so caught up in these petty issues which are merely personal preference that we are losing site of our objective goals?

If you are running Ubuntu on anything more than 20gb hard drive, why not install both? There are some great KDE apps, there are some great Gnome apps...and guess what? You can install them side by side and get the best of both worlds!

[DigitalDuality]

d

[wnmnkh]

Just give a option to choose KDE or Gnome during the install.

[Wiebelhaus]

I sincerely hope not.

I totally agree dude.

[screaminj3sus]

I like KDE but I simply don't like any distros that use it. I loved suse's implementation, but unfortunately suse loves to **** over my grub no matter what. I found Kubuntu's KDE visually appealing but very unstable and the slowest I've used. PCLOS's KDE is the fastest I've used so far, but The fonts are SO horrible in PCLOS on my LCD that I don't use it. I LOVE ubuntu for including the LCD hinting patches. Fonts are so beautiful now. What I like about kubuntu is inclduing dolphin instead of the horrible mess konq. I also don't like the way things seem all over the place in KDE. Gnome is much simpler (But WTF have to ******* edit gconf for desktop icons, ridiculous). KDE is looking great though. My problem with Kubuntu is that I have tried 6.06-7.10 and its been wicked unstable compared to ubuntu, and also very sluggish. (3.0 Ghz p4, 2 gb ram, 7600gs)

[bonzodog]

The definitive answer to this is NO.

Ubuntu is much more than a distro that uses the gnome desktop. It IS the Gnome Desktop.

Ubuntu/Canonical and the Gnome Devs are very closely intertwined, and Ubuntu is Gnome's poster child.

Mark Shuttleworth used to contribute for Debian to the Gnome development teams. He is very close to the Gnome people.

[southernman]

Southernman: Ok let me re-phrase my question. Will Kubuntu ever get as much resources and development put into it as Ubuntu? I could be wrong but I get the impression that Canonical spend alot more time and resources on Ubuntu. I mean just compare the websites!

BFC
I have not made myself privy to the numbers devoted to development of each branch (if you will) of Ubuntu. To the best of my knowledge, each branch (e.g. Kubuntu, Xubuntu and Edubuntu and now Gobuntu) are all separate in their own rights. These projects (K, X, Ed and now Go) were started by an individual developer (or small group at first), and were later adopted by Canonical. Where they get front page exposure on Ubuntu.com, their repos and other server needs are supplied by Canonical... because their initial development met certain criteria of Canonical and continues to do so. Partners if you will.

In answer to your question, least from my perspective...

Will Kubuntu ever get as much resources and development put into it as Ubuntu?Since Ubuntu was the original concept of Mark Shuttleworth, I could only assume that the answer is still no. I think, but for the fact Gnome appears to be Mark's DE of choice, then Kubuntu will not/would not get the same resources poured into it as Ubuntu. I am sure Canonical provides some financial backing to these projects (aside from servers, bandwidth, and the exposure on Ubuntu.com), but they aren't his dream... rather someone else's.

If Linus himself had founded/funded Ubuntu, then we all know what the default DE would be. Gnome users would be in your position, asking the very same question about Gnome.

[Erunno]

Ubuntu is much more than a distro that uses the gnome desktop. It IS the Gnome Desktop.

Ubuntu/Canonical and the Gnome Devs are very closely intertwined, and Ubuntu is Gnome's poster child.

Mark Shuttleworth used to contribute for Debian to the Gnome development teams. He is very close to the Gnome people.

Did I miss some major development and Canonical started paying upstream developers like Novell and RedHat do? If the answer is negative I would be more careful with such claims. Good marketing doesn't make code appear out of thin air. Plus, Ubuntu doesn't use all parts of the GNOME desktop (Epiphany, Abiword, etc) so I would hardly call it a GNOME's poster child.

[daynah]

I thought I read somewhere that Shuttleworth uses KDE.

Also, Dolphin pretty much rocks, IMHO.

But, really, I doubt KDE will be default. Leaving out my personal opinion, switching would cause so much drama... I mean, changing from Konqueror to Dolphin is causing whining but changing, basically, "allegiances" would cause the whole community to -flip-out-. That's both ways. KDE-ites would be roaring "ZOMG we are de best kekeke!" and Gnome-mongrels would be screaching, "Daddy Shuttleworth is being TOTALLY unfair! LAWSUIT!"

We don't need that. It'd give me a migraine.

Besides... Gnome is ZOMG the best KEKEKEEee!1!

:KS

[Incense]

I love KDE and the fantastic apps, but Ubuntu does gnome very well. It would be a shame to let that go the way of Kubuntu.

[thx11381974]

98% of PC users have windows if they ever start switching to Linux in large numbers most of them will likely use KDE. It's more windows like, but I don't think KDE will become the default unless and until KDE users out number Gnome users. Don't bet on that happening anytime soon.

[bluefightingcat]

Well actually I don't mind having Gnome as default. What I would ulimately like to see is Kubuntu getting as much resources for development as Ubuntu.

For example the website is a silly example but that is the most obvious example of how Kubuntu gets less support than Ubuntu. Another example is the fact that Gutsy unbuntu comes with compiz fusion pre-installed. In Kubuntu thats not the case and one would have to install it themselves and hope that it works well.

BFC

[usp8riot]

I've always been a KDE user for years. I've tried Gnome on and off but the default ugliness and how I can't have the powerful configuration options like in KDE made me keep switching back. I think KDE feels more like what is intended in Linux, which is choice to change whatever I want about my OS, including aesthetics, workspace, and configuration. I've got KDE looking like OSX, like Vista, and my own looks, and either way, I've gotten it to look pretty sweet and run pretty sweet.

[.aku]

Mark Shuttleworth used to contribute for Debian to the Gnome development teams. He is very close to the Gnome people.

Mark also diggs KDE..
Quote from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org)


On 15 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_15) 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) it was announced that Mark Shuttleworth became the first patron of KDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE), the highest level of sponsorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship) available.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth#_note-kdepatron)

And I remember reading somewhere that Mark uses KDE /Kubuntu himself..

[curuxz]

Did I miss some major development and Canonical started paying upstream developers like Novell and RedHat do? If the answer is negative I would be more careful with such claims. Good marketing doesn't make code appear out of thin air. Plus, Ubuntu doesn't use all parts of the GNOME desktop (Epiphany, Abiword, etc) so I would hardly call it a GNOME's poster child.



Its interesting you should mention this, because Ubuntu has no plans to become 'fully gnome' yet Kubuntu developers have said that they want to be fully KDE, starting with konqueror as the default browser and I believe in either heron or h+1 they are ditching open office now that koffice has come of age, which would make them 100% KDE.

Shows that kde is more mature (makes sense it is older) and can be relied upon for all functions.

[curuxz]

Mark also diggs KDE..
Quote from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org)



And I remember reading somewhere that Mark uses KDE /Kubuntu himself..


on his laptop I believe :)

[Frak]

I'll tell all quite clear that KDE will never be default, thanks to it's half-a**ed building methods, it's buggy releases (made it to RC1, does not work upon fresh install on 4 computers, and is very, VERY buggy on the other 4), it's over-complications, and it's history of being proprietary.

Gnome to me is not the best DE, but so I've found that the K devs act like they don't give a rats a** either.

[GeneralZod]

I'll tell all quite clear that KDE will never be default, thanks to it's half-a**ed building methods,


I build from SVN every day, and have not run into any major issues. I also spend a lot of time on IRC helping people get there copies built, and they don't run into any severe issues, either. What were your issues exactly? And personally, I've found cmake to be a top-notch replacement for autotools.



it's buggy releases (made it to RC1, does not work upon fresh install on 4 computers, and is very, VERY buggy on the other 4),


Yes, RC1 is buggy. What do you mean by "does not work"? Did you ask on IRC? I'm usually there as SSJ_GZ. I've also sunk a considerable amount of my spare time into lowering the barrier of entry (http://dot.kde.org/1195829316/) for people who want to test KDE4 out and submit bug reports.



it's over-complications,


Debatable, but fair enough.



and it's history of being proprietary.


KDE has always been Free since its inception. If you're referring to Qt, then that has been Free software for the last 7 years. What possible relevance could this have nowadays? Doesn't Ubuntu include drivers in the default install that are proprietary today?



Gnome to me is not the best DE, but so I've found that the K devs act like they don't give a rats a** either.

As someone who puts a hell of a lot of work in his spare time into helping out with KDE (along with most of the proper devs - KDE is largely a volunteer effort, after all), I can't adequately respond to this without breaking the Code of Conduct, so I'll have to restrict myself to saying "Rubbish" for the time being :). Initiatives such as Krush Days (http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Contribute/Bugsquad/KrushDays) that make filing bug reports even easier, the 300 bugs fixed this week alone (ignoring all of those on the Krush page that have been crossed off), the incredibly detailed instructions for building plus all of the various build services that have been set up, the commit digests that take ages to prepare simply to give KDE users a feel for what's going on and a chance to comment on the direction and the fact that KDE is often referred to as "The Homer Simpson Car" precisely because it implements so many of its user's suggestions just make this statement, quite frankly, flat-out, factually wrong.

[Frak]

I build from SVN every day, and have not run into any major issues. I also spend a lot of time on IRC helping people get there copies built, and they don't run into any severe issues, either. What were your issues exactly? And personally, I've found cmake to be a top-notch replacement for autotools.

Works just fine. I just don't like the entire make. I'd rather just install a core and customize it to my needs. Such as using a bare make instead of cmakekde.
Other than that, just fine.
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o3/frak10/snapshot3.png


Yes, RC1 is buggy. What do you mean by "does not work"? Did you ask on IRC? I'm usually there as SSJ_GZ. I've also sunk a considerable amount of my spare time into lowering the barrier of entry (http://dot.kde.org/1195829316/) for people who want to test KDE4 out and submit bug reports.

I'm ignorant, I'd rather figure it out on my own.


KDE has always been Free since its inception.

I should have been more clear. It was built upon non-open standards, so it was not included in systems such as Debian, because to run KDE (Free and Open Source) would require installing QT (At the time, Free, as in beer, but closed). That flies in the face of Debian's Open Source requirements. (Much the reason why there is Iceweasel, because images in Firefox are non-free)

Microsoft did the same thing. OOXML anyone?


As someone who puts a hell of a lot of work in his spare time into helping out with KDE (along with most of the proper devs - KDE is largely a volunteer effort, after all), I can't adequately respond to this without breaking the Code of Conduct, so I'll have to restrict myself to saying ... (some other stuff)

Good for you :D

[bruce89]

Will Kubuntu ever be default?

Ubuntu 4.10's documentation on the issue was interesting. It said something along the lines of "KDE was not properly free". Funny how they change their mind, as Firefox is arguably non-free.

[hyper_ch]

Funny how they change their mind, as Firefox is arguably non-free.

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/


Core Mozilla project source code is licensed under a disjunctive tri-license giving you the choice of one of the three following sets of free software/open source licensing terms:

* Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later
* GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later
* GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later

Seems to me pretty clear that it is FOSS.

[bruce89]

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

Seems to me pretty clear that it is FOSS.

Not so:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox2-en.html
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html

[smartboyathome]

That is only the LOGO and NAME. What is wrong with the logo and name not being free if the rest of it is? Seems to me that some people have been trying to use a LITTLE too much FOSS ;)

[Xbehave]

That is only the LOGO and NAME. What is wrong with the logo and name not being free if the rest of it is? Seems to me that some people have been trying to use a LITTLE too much FOSS ;)
nothings wrong with it but if debian want a completly free distro they have to chage the image
AND the story goes a little further back, (look it up on wikipedia) but basically
Mozilla "you cant change our code without asking and call it firefox"
Debian"what thats not very fair"
Debian"what if we call it Iceweasel"
Mozilla "erm..ok well let you modify firefox"
Debian "Too late"

on topic:
kubuntu will never be default by definition, but would be nice to see abit more work on kubuntu tho

p.s wernt not as harsh about your horribly restrictive gnome enviroment as you guys are about kde
(in #kubuntu i normally invite users to try both, but in #ubuntu whenever theres a kubuntu question theres normally atleast 1 kde bash. not saying your all idiots just some of you)
why not invite users to try both or are you scared well steal them?:p

*by we i dont include linus as he called your devs nazis lol

[Frak]

nothings wrong with it but if debian want a completly free distro they have to chage the image
AND the story goes a little further back, (look it up on wikipedia) but basically
Mozilla "you cant change our code without asking and call it firefox"
Debian"what thats not very fair"
Debian"what if we call it Iceweasel"
Mozilla "erm..ok well let you modify firefox"
Debian "Too late"

on topic:
kubuntu will never be default by definition, but would be nice to see abit more work on kubuntu tho

p.s wernt not as harsh about your horribly restrictive gnome enviroment as you guys are about kde
(in #kubuntu i normally invite users to try both, but in #ubuntu whenever theres a kubuntu question theres normally at least 1 kde bash. not saying your all idiots just some of you)
why not invite users to try both or are you scared well steal them?:p

*by we i don't include linus as he called your devs nazis lol
Correct. By definition, or more name, Kubuntu will never be default. Gnome is preferred for its "ease of use".

Yet in the same sense, Linus has hit the nail on the head when he criticized Gnome for being "Too Simple". Where for casual use it is fine, but for changing something a config file usually has to be edited. Much to hard for the average user.

Also, he had a point with KDE also. Where it has too many options for the casual user, there are too many customization options, etc.

[Incense]

Anyone who wants to read that famous conversation where Linus Torvalds told the gnome devs that people should use KDE, you can read all about it by clicking on the following link. He starts in about mid page, Just search for linus and read away. It's entertaining.

https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/desktop_architects/2005-December/date.html#390

[bluefightingcat]

When I started this thread I definitely named it wrong.

My intention was to raise the point that Kubunut does not get as much love and care as ubuntu.

I don't really care whether Kubuntu replaces Ubuntu or not. I have nothing against Ubuntu or people who like GNOME. Thats their choice. I really do think it is great that *ubuntu comes in different flavours. Isn't that what Open Source is about?? The freedom to choose??

My frustration is that much more effort and resources are put into developing and polishing Ubuntu than Kubuntu or any of the other versions.

What I would like to see is Kubuntu (and the others) raised from a "sub-project" level to a real "sister-project" level.

BFC

[hyper_ch]

My frustration is that much more effort and resources are put into developing and polishing Ubuntu than Kubuntu or any of the other versions.
What keeps you from putting your efforts and resources into Kubuntu?

[Saint Angeles]

When I started this thread I definitely named it wrong.

My intention was to raise the point that Kubunut does not get as much love and care as ubuntu.

I don't really care whether Kubuntu replaces Ubuntu or not. I have nothing against Ubuntu or people who like GNOME. Thats their choice. I really do think it is great that *ubuntu comes in different flavours. Isn't that what Open Source is about?? The freedom to choose??

My frustration is that much more effort and resources are put into developing and polishing Ubuntu than Kubuntu or any of the other versions.

What I would like to see is Kubuntu (and the others) raised from a "sub-project" level to a real "sister-project" level.

BFC
if you have "ubuntu" you could go to synaptic and install kubuntu-desktop and you could login to KDE at startup instead of gnome. all of a sudden you have "kubuntu".
you are placing way too much emphasis on the name of the projects when you can make you own version of ubuntu called "poobuntu" just by adding and removing packages on synaptic.

any work that goes into ubuntu is essentially going into kubuntu.

you are the only one calling it a sub-project.

[nocturn]

Have you ever even used kde???

KDE has a nice integration between konqueror>kontact>koffice AND kolab (kde has a server for basing your network off of). Kde has a control centre.

Ubuntu was chosen because it looks diffrent from windows, and kubuntu suffers from lack of user support.


WOW, take it easy. There's no need for either side to attack the other.

Ubuntu is a Gnome based distro, if you prefer another desktop, there are KDE distros out there too and I agree that Kubuntu is not a good one at that.

I actually use KDE from version 1 to 3.3 only switching to Gnome because of Ubuntu. And guess what, I actually prefer Gnome now because KDE was more and more becoming cluttered. Gnome for me strikes a balance between features and a clean interface.

But again, desktops are about choice and if you prefer a different one, please use it as I will do with my choice.

[nocturn]

Best solution be like other Distro`s have the option to choose GNOME or KDE when you install.

That would not work for Ubuntu. Ubuntu offers a functional desktop out of the box (CD) which means they make default choices for the user that can later alter those.

If you want KDE though, Kubuntu offers the same experience for that desktop, though I do admit it is not the best KDE based distro out there.

[Xbehave]

What keeps you from putting your efforts and resources into Kubuntu?
because they dont pay me, volunteer efforts can go along way, but at the end of the day canonical pay people to develop ubuntu and a large amount of that work is gnome specific. I doubt id have the time to produce the same quality of work for KDE

A second more important difference is i cant program

[hyper_ch]

because they dont pay me
Then don't rant ;)


A second more important difference is i cant program
Being able to program is not the only way to help... and even if it was, not knowing how to program now isn't an obstacle to learn how to do it at all ;)