If Ubuntu used KDE, it would be Kubuntu. But since there already is a Kubuntu, there's no need for another one.

Be happy for choice, it's the Linux way. Let it go, people.

Why not try Mandriva 2010?
Read:
http://www.itnewstoday.com/?p=1233

kubicle wrote:

samhain wrote:At the time of writing you can run Gnome without these but not KDE.

Actually KDE runs just fine without any of them.

I run Gentoo Linux and while I have been able to remove nepomuk and akonadi-server, I have not been able to remove strigi from my system. How do you remove strigi from KDE?

Kryten2X4B wrote:For now, yes. But unless the Gnome-devs have a change of heart that won't be the case for much longer. Again, with the caveat that I may have misunderstood something regarding the future of Gnome.

Besides, you can run KDE without them. Nepomuk must be installed, but it mustn't be enabled. Akonadi is only a requirement if you want to use Kontact.

I am running KDE right now on Gentoo Linux and Nepomuk is not installed.

jglen490 wrote:If Ubuntu used KDE, it would be Kubuntu. But since there already is a Kubuntu, there's no need for another one.

Be happy for choice, it's the Linux way. Let it go, people.

They should call the current Ubuntu "Gubuntu". It makes no sense to have all of these other <insert letter here to designate desktop environment>ubuntu forks of Ubuntu and give the GNOME desktop environment special treatment.

Strigi itself will not index your files outside of Nepomuk.

It is used quite heavily by applications such as Dolphin to read the meta data of files and display it, and as far as I am aware is a hard dependency.

Shining Arcanine wrote:...

They should call the current Ubuntu "Gubuntu". It makes no sense to have all of these other <insert letter here to designate desktop environment>ubuntu forks of Ubuntu and give the GNOME desktop environment special treatment.

You're talking to the wrong crew, friend. Send an email to the multi-billionaire who literally gives us Ubuntu. Someone in his chain of command made the decision to come up with the components of Ubuntu and to originally use Gnome.

The amazing thing is you can start with Ubuntu and add KDE, or start with Kubuntu and add Gnome. In both cases you end up with pretty much the same mix of desktops. And if you want to you could just mix up all the apps and desktops that want -- or not. You could make your own KGnXFC(etc)buntu

Like I said, be happy for choice. No one, and I repeat no one, wants a dictated solution. Let it go.

I don't wish that KDE was the default for Ubuntu. All I wish is that, when Ubuntu comes out with new features (read: Ubuntu One and Ubuntu One Music Store), that they came out with a proper KDE implementation rather than a 2-release-late community-implemented version.

Madman, please inform yourself about distribution packaging and release cycles, then you would know that the KDE releases do not match the Ubuntu releases, and there are feature freezes roughly one month before distribution release that do not allow to ship anything that comes out later.
Current Kubuntu 10.04 ships KDE SC 4.4.2, the 4.4.3 version is already in the backports PPA and will certainly be pushed to the regular backports So it is in no way 2 releases back as you state. Kubuntu is also probably the most vanilla KDE you ca get from all distributions.

Mamarok wrote:Madman, please inform yourself about distribution packaging and release cycles, then you would know that the KDE releases do not match the Ubuntu releases, and there are feature freezes roughly one month before distribution release that do not allow to ship anything that comes out later.

True, but the way I read his post that was not what he meant either. Whether it's KDE 4.4.2 or 4.4.3 that's provided out of the box is not the issue (since you can easily upgrade it yourself anyway) - the issue is that the add-ons Canonical provides (i.e. Ubuntu One) are provided for Gnome first in say 10.04. KDE get the equivalent in 10.10 or later.

Sure, it's Canonical's choice to make but that sure annoyed me back when I used Kubuntu.

If I understand correctly, the release cycles for Gnome and KDE are different. Since the content for Ubuntu and Kubuntu are tied to the cycles of their respective DEs, their respective feature freeze points actually dictate most of the content including "options". Ubuntu 10.04 and Kubuntu 10.04 were both released in April 2010 and while they share common kernel packages and certain libraries, the app content and other libraries will be based on what is available for each DE.

Mamarok, you are correct about KDE 4.4.3 and Kubuntu. When I intially installed Kubuntu Lucid, it came with 4.4.2; a short while later I caught the update to 4.4.3.

And again I say, choice is a good thing.

Mamarok wrote:Madman, please inform yourself about distribution packaging and release cycles, then you would know that the KDE releases do not match the Ubuntu releases, and there are feature freezes roughly one month before distribution release that do not allow to ship anything that comes out later.
Current Kubuntu 10.04 ships KDE SC 4.4.2, the 4.4.3 version is already in the backports PPA and will certainly be pushed to the regular backports So it is in no way 2 releases back as you state. Kubuntu is also probably the most vanilla KDE you ca get from all distributions.

You've completely misinterpreted my point. My point isn't whether Kubuntu includes KDE 4.4.2 or 4.4.4. My point was that Canonical introduces several of its own features into Ubuntu but doesn't include them in KDE, for example, Ubuntu One support in Dolphin and Plasma vs. Nautilus and gnome-panel, and Ubuntu One Music Store support in Amarok vs. [their default media player]. Most of this isn't undoable, and probably isn't even that difficult to do, but they just don't focus on KDE at all. These two will probably only be completely implemented (to the same standard as in Ubuntu's gnome) in Kubuntu 11.04. It's irritating.

Ubuntu and Kubuntu have have two teams. No, they are not forks, they two developments of the same base product. Ubuntu focuses on the Gnome-based products, Kubuntu focuses on the KDE based products. With the transition from QT3 to QT4, it was not feasible mesh up all activities on both teams. You can, however, install whatever Ubuntu/Gnome-oriented apps that you want into Kubuntu -- and -- viceversa.

Put on your inventiveness hat, it'll feel good!

jglen490 wrote:Ubuntu and Kubuntu have have two teams. No, they are not forks, they two developments of the same base product. Ubuntu focuses on the Gnome-based products, Kubuntu focuses on the KDE based products.

Not really true. There's only one Canonical guy working full-time on Kubuntu. There is much more effort on the GNOME version.
I agree 100% with Madman

Although I don't like Canonical's treatment of Kubuntu, credit where it's due: there is not only Riddell working for Canonical, but also Aurelien Gateau (of Gwenview fame).

jglen490 wrote:You can, however, install whatever Ubuntu/Gnome-oriented apps that you want into Kubuntu -- and -- viceversa.

This isn't an option for me on my netbook with 8GB of hard-drive space. That's plenty for the things I use the netbook for, and I don't need more - but I don't want to be pulling in GTK libraries, the Gnome desktop and a completely separate media player to get what I could have gotten in KDE in the first place.

Sorry about your limited options -- been there until I bought a used hard drive and went from 12GB total to 60GB total. The point is that the fact that Ubuntu and Kubuntu have now and will always have different content, out of the box, is just that - a fact. The fact that the KDE and Gnome DE development cycles are different is just that - a fact. The fact that Kubuntu and Ubuntu end up being different in so many respects, is just that - a fact. It comes down to choices; that of billionaires, developers, yours, and mine.

Live with it, move on, or -- whatever. Have a good day!