nope ubuntu needs to be ubuntu. kubuntu need more people that help development.

Used it a few years was happy with it but left it fo chakra

Hi,
I think that Shuttleworth know the potentional of qt, and he like kde (he is also one of the most contributor) but , as a nice manager that he is, he make the decision to set Gnome as the default desktop.
I prefer to QT and I use KDE since old 3 version, but gnome have an usefull GUI.
KDE, especially the current 4 version, looks as a cauldron where everyone put their application.
The menu kick-off is really an unusable thing, and the classic menu can't be comfortable if we have all these qt apps on it.
Sincerly, all unexpert users that use linux prefer gnome for its usability.

With last updates kde is become a nice software environment, but i think he must work harder on usability.
When kdeteam will realase a really usable DE, be sure that Shuttleworth will put it as a default ubuntu desktop, and after you will find a gubuntu distro with gnome

But up to time I agree with Mark decisions. Unfortunately gnome is the best choise for a distro with that target.

nyx wrote: The KDE part of Kubuntu is great, but the OS lacks a lot of Canonical's innovation and effort that Ubuntu benefits from.

What Linux kernel lacks from Canonical's innovations?
Or actually I should ask it this way, what are Canonical's innovations for the Linux kernel? From 2004 to 2008, Canonical had sended only ONE patch for the Linux OS. ONLY ONE. And now after 2 years later, the amount is very awul. Canonical does not develop the Linux OS almost at all. Even the Gentoo community is contributing more to the Linux OS than Canonical.

Canonical is only contributing to GNOME and some basic GNOME application programs. But mostly they are "contributing" by promoting Ubuntu (In the "you must choose do you want Ubuntu or do you take Linux" -way, what just causes Ubuntu vs Linux ideas) by making own GNOME theme (not so hard after all) or customising the GNOME desktop settings (not hard at all). They rip off the Debian source packages and repackage them with own brand, mostly. The Debian is the community what keeps Ubuntu up, not the Canonical itself. Canonical is just driving the freeway what others are building and developing.

But the point is, do not mistake Linux operating system (the kernel) and GNOME or KDE SC as same thing.

Canonical does not care so much about KDE SC. They want one simple software system what can be distributed, maintained and upgraded easily. They feel that they can not start supporting well other desktop environments, because there are the most users problems. There are the usability problems and the bugs what user see when something does not work well. Non-official GNOME/KDE SC application programs are the other big part, and there is lots of them. So you can easily limit the amount of the problems by just sticking in one desktop environment, as in GNOME. And when GNOME does not offer configurations, you limit even the possible problems to being caused by the different configurations.

So Canonical does everything just to stick on GNOME because it is for them much easier and then they can push efforts to get the spotlight to them when they can just market everything as they has invented them.

But the point is that KDE can not affect the plans what Canonical makes. It is up to them (actually up to Mark Shuttleworth) what to do.

Fully agree, Kde should be the default desktop in Ubuntu.
They could still make a Gnome edition and call it "Gubuntu" or somesuch.

With the release of Gnome 3.0, Kde becoming the default isn't even that unlikely.
Just as with Kde 4.0, the release of Gnome 3.0 will cause a major sh*tstorm, and people will be leaving Gnome in droves. Also, a number of distros will change from Gnome to Kde as the default desktop - and this might very well include Ubuntu.

Gnome 3.o is a different beast to KDE 4.o, that is, it is not really a /new/ Gnome - it is more or less the same small development step as Gnome usually does, with addition of Gnome Shell which will be optional. (IIRC, one of the fancy new things that supposed to make large impact - Zeitgeist - will not be in G3.

One "problem" with KDE is that it has such a unique and distinctive identity. When you see a KDE app, you know it is a KDE app. GNOME, being as bland as it is, can be easily masked. Ubuntu looks nothing like MeeGo, even though they both run many of the same GNOME apps. You can build on GNOME and appear to have created your own OS, but if you build on KDE, you will utimately have to give credit to KDE developers.

I personally think this speaks highly of the KDE developers. They have created a truly advanced working environment.

Kmetamorphosis wrote:One "problem" with KDE is that it has such a unique and distinctive identity. When you see a KDE app, you know it is a KDE app. GNOME, being as bland as it is, can be easily masked. Ubuntu looks nothing like MeeGo, even though they both run many of the same GNOME apps.

Well that is the problem with GNOME what it is facing. KDE did smart move by rebranding KDE to KDE SC (KDE platform+KDE workspace+KDE applications) while keeping KDE only for the community. That way we can actually discuss about technology and help others to really understand the technology. GNOME can not do it because there actually is not way to say what GNOME really is and what it is not. GTK applications can be used anywhere where just GTK and all needed libraries are installed. GNOME is not needed there at all unless wanted to use some key GNOME applications (what those all really are?) like Nautilus.

But it really is easy to hide the GNOME and call it other than it is. Like what Canonical did with the Ubuntu netbook remix release. People believe that they have simpler, faster desktop environment and not the GNOME. But they do not know that they have GNOME! The Netbook remix is just a hack where Nautilus is replaced with other application. Nautilus by default draws the GNOME desktop and the wallpaper is being placed someway behind the icons. And when Canonical wanted to make "new desktop environment". They just replaced Nautilus and tweaked littlebit the panel. So users have the full GNOME but with different configuration. Not faster, by that. But what is the default set of the installed system services and application programs. The UI is just a UI.

You can build on GNOME and appear to have created your own OS, but if you build on KDE, you will utimately have to give credit to KDE developers.

Actually with KDE SC you can do very big changes as well. You do not need to use KDE workspace. Or if you want to use KDE workspace, you do not need to use KDE applications. That is something what is easy to do now after the rebranding to explain what to do. With GNOME, that is possible as well to do but to actually explain it, is much harder. And you can not make own OS by customising the desktop environment or using window manager. The graphical user interface does not belong to the operating system at all. The marketing of some distributors (and companies) has build such illusion that the UI is the OS. That way even teens have believe that they have made own OS when they toke a existing distribution, made new preinstalled applications set and new theme. Then they believe they are as great hackers like Linus Torvalds who made his OS when he was 21. Fact just is that Linus really made own OS. Not even RMS could get their OS work and is very jelous about it. Fact is, what most do not know, is that the Linux kernel is the operating system. It is not microkernel how it is being talked and how it is wanted to be presented. Monolithic kernel is the original OS architecture how the whole operating system is in single binary in single address space. (It can be modular but it is only in binary level, not in architecture level).

So it is just so afwul to hear how people say "it is a new OS" while the UI has been changed or tweaked someway so it looks new. Just marketing what big Companies like MS, Nokia, Canonical etc like to use to get users and build a illusion around their "wonderfull own OS"

I personally think this speaks highly of the KDE developers. They have created a truly advanced working environment.

Yes, they have got something done what can be actually dropped almost anywhere just as. It almost have no matter what OS you have in use (Linux, XNU, NT, *BSD, SunOS, HP-UIX, PARAS, HURD etc) because if you just get KDE Platform installed, you get KDE Workspace and so on KDE Applications and then you have KDE Software Compilation. And then you can use one GUI in every computer but use software what only specific OS can run.

Like KDE SC is ported totally to NT operating system (NT 6.1 is the OS in Windows 7). You can swap the Windows Shell to KDE Plasma Desktop. You get KDE SC running top of NT. You actually get KDE SC in front of you what you can even show your friends. Then they say "Oh, you are linux nerd! It looks nice but you can not play games on it!".

Then you can just swap the virtual desktop and you have desktop full of game icons. You can play all the games what you want and they believe that Linux can run those games. What they do not know, is that you just have swapped Windows shell with KDE Workspace and you use KDE SC as your desktop environment.

Because the UI is never part of the OS, you can use wanted UI and run specific applications.
That is very nice thing because think that you have company and you want to make the workers learning curve very small. But the applications what you need to run, needs 2-3 different OS. So instead you would pay extra that your workers learn different desktop environments, you could just swap one and same desktop environment top of all 2-3 OS's and just teach them to use the applications.

KDE SC is just so awesome in this sense. Rebranding really helped lots of people to really understand the flexibility and power of the KDE SC and how to use it for their purposes. Something what could not be done easily with old branding because KE SC 4.x is not same as KDE 3 by the technology.

And the technology what KDE has done, it is just so great and it would help so many companies and other parties with different situations. Who cares what OS you have? You can have one and similar UI being used. Not even GNOME is so powerfull and free as KDE SC is!

Fri13 wrote:Well that is the problem with GNOME what it is facing. KDE did smart move by rebranding KDE to KDE SC (KDE platform+KDE workspace+KDE applications) while keeping KDE only for the community. That way we can actually discuss about technology and help others to really understand the technology. GNOME can not do it because there actually is not way to say what GNOME really is and what it is not. GTK applications can be used anywhere where just GTK and all needed libraries are installed. GNOME is not needed there at all unless wanted to use some key GNOME applications (what those all really are?) like Nautilus.

You're right. I hadn't thought of it that way. KDE's new branding does lend itself to being better understood in this regard, but I've still seen more projects based on GNOME that, for the most part, try to hide that their work is built on top of someone else's.

I assumed that this was partly the case because GTK looks bland by default, whereas KDE apps and Plasma have their own distinct style that, regardless of the theme, is still noticeably KDE. This may be just my opinion, but I came to it by noticing that the default gray look of the GNOME Panel is basically the same as Windows Classic and Mac OS 9 and prior, whereas the KDE SC 4 panel looks uniquely its own. GNOME offers a bland slate for designers to start with, whereas KDE looks pretty by default and would have to be dulled down before a designer could then try to turn it into something all their own. Note: I am aware that this is strictly about KDE, not QT, which blends in with any environment.

And you can not make own OS by customising the desktop environment or using window manager. The graphical user interface does not belong to the operating system at all.

You're entirely right there. I am aware of this distinction, but didn't give the post enough thought to think of a better term. OS is inaccurate, but distribution is not the proper term either when you compare projects to software outside the Linux spectrum. Ubuntu and MeeGo are both Linux distributions when compared to each other, but when compared to Windows, Mac, the iPhone OS, and other competitors, they are something different. Products, perhaps? Only the educated will look at them and see them as different UIs on different OSs and different architectures.

Kmetamorphosis wrote:GNOME offers a bland slate for designers to start with, whereas KDE looks pretty by default and would have to be dulled down before a designer could then try to turn it into something all their own. Note: I am aware that this is strictly about KDE, not QT, which blends in with any environment.

So in the end the GNOME's strenght is that it is ugly and people need to customize it heavily and then it usually gets themed with personal touch? ;-P

Ubuntu and MeeGo are both Linux distributions when compared to each other, but when compared to Windows, Mac, the iPhone OS, and other competitors, they are something different. Products, perhaps? Only the educated will look at them and see them as different UIs on different OSs and different architectures.

Software system is the term if wanted to speak only about the technology. The product is just much more (software system + marketing + brand + support + price etc).
We really should carefull how accurated we use definitions. Because otherwise we give too great power to marketing people (and so on companies and third parties) to start ruining ones brand/fame and steal the credit from what they did not do in the first place. After all, Open Source is all about copyright and crediting those who have done something. Altough that GNU does feel sometimes stealing others credit when it comes to question their achivements.

I believe that those who are wiser, should explain things more easier but very accurate way to those who do not know the subject. They should never, ever do that they start using already used definition in new way or everywhere so they make the discussion between new and old users more difficult.

One of the hardest terms is the "distribution". Because many (most?) believe it is a synonym for the operating system (or the software system). While they do not understand that distribution joins technology (software) with ideas of freedom, services and their delivery how to get users/customers meet the demand.

It is like here. Some users seems to have problems to understand that Ubuntu is just one distribution what delivers Linux OS, GNU development tools, GNOME and few other application programs in very specifi way configured and preinstalled with customized theme and wallpaper. And when compared the Kubuntu and Ubuntu, even it is just about preinstalled desktop environment and set of application programs and style. The situation is very difficult to explain.

But it is not helping at all by trying to make difficult things simple when they just need to be learned.

And when users are Ex-Windows users, they have somekind "feeling" to closed source world what works more how Microsoft wanted. And when they step to the Open Source world, they would need to throw all the knowledge away how about software is developed, distributed and installed. What is open source idealogy and ethics of Hackers and how they are different than Crackers etc etc. You get the point.

In the end we just come to situation that Canonical can do what ever they want with the Ubuntu. If they do want to keep KDE SC (actually Kubuntu) as step child, then they can do it. If Ubuntu fans do not like it, they should change the distribution. Open Source is more about democracy and capitalism than anything else. You actually vote with your wallet, just by choosing what distribution you use, what software you use and every user can vote the software future (and so on their future) by contributing or developing the software someway. User does not need to be a codemonkey to develope software. Artists, Documentarist etc can help a lot. And most important thing what every user can do is to report bugs and report wishes what should get improveded.

Just like here, the original poster had good thing going when chosed to start discussion. But the forum just was wrong. But after all, it can be even better place than in Ubuntu forums where Ubuntu fans can shoot everything down right away. But Canonical has Kubuntu and if Canonical does not feel KDE SC meets better way their vision of the desktop, then it does not.