What is the big difference in the implementation of kde in suse vs kubuntu?

wrender wrote:What is the big difference in the implementation of kde in suse vs kubuntu?

I don't use either, but from what I've heard, OpenSUSE tends to backport many more features than any other GNU/Linux distro (which can be good or bad depending on your needs). Kubuntu 8.10 has disabled plasma activities because the devs thought it wasn't polished enough to release, but has lost some functionally because of it. (They may backport features as well, but OpenSUSE is notorious for it.)

EarthMind wrote:OpenSUSE here, Kubuntu is nothing compared to it.

As a long time (actually, couple years - but that's how long I've been using Linux) user of Ubuntu, I have to say I agree with this. OpenSUSE 11.2 KDE has been the best OS experience I have ever enjoyed on my Thinkpad T61p. This is my all-time favorite OS so far.

But I must say I still prefer debian package management. So I am looking for a KDE distro as good as openSUSE in every way, but without rpm. I know about zypper and YaST and all that, but I still prefer the Ubuntu/Debian system.

Given my limited experience, I think Arch might be too difficult. Plus Wikipedia says, Pacman "requires usage by more expert and dedicated users who are willing to police the dependencies of the programs they wish to install, rather than leaving it up to the package manager itself."

I also like the fact that Ubuntu's popularity is making it increasingly easy to find debs everywhere. But I doubt I'll go with Kubuntu. OpenSUSE 11.2 milestone 8 is so much better than Kubuntu Karmic that I am spoiled. Why go back to all those issues now that I know a Linux distro can be this good?

So, is there a KDE distro based on debian that is as good as OpenSUSE 11.2?

I don't know...I've heard a lot of good about OpenSUSE...but to be frank I really want a deb system...just because the damn package management is so much more sane and understandable.

Still, there appears to be no sane KDE deb based distros. It's a pity, I know.

The only thing that's really come close was Linux Mint 7 KDE Edition...but even that was hacked to hell and back.

so what exactly is the difference between kubuntu kde and opensuse kde? (its hardly to imagine that kde could be even better ^^)

Well, Kubuntu comes out each release with...well, a half-baked feel. It just dosent get as much love as Ubuntu. 9.04, for instance, BROKE KNetworkManager. Came with the still-rather-experimental KPackageKit and had a tendancy for crashing on MANY systems.


They've started Project Timelord, however, so hopefully it's continuing issues should be sorted by 11.10 (I know, it's a while...)


OpenSUSE however, is a KDE-Centric distro. They've got a load of devs and they don't titther about with patches and bug-fixes and releases. Every release is feature packed...I'm downloading it again, just for my netbook. Hopefully I'll have luck with it!

Some things like Plasma-intergration with Google Gadgets, Plasma activies...all the stuff we've been denied in Kubuntu should be there.

I don't think openSuse is kde centric though the community voted to have it as the default - I think that unlike other distro's it provides both Gnome and KDE desktops that are polished and feature rich.

google01103 wrote:I don't think openSuse is kde centric though the community voted to have it as the default - I think that unlike other distro's it provides both Gnome and KDE desktops that are polished and feature rich.

It definitely was, when SUSE was still SuSE (before Novell bought it) - and I guess there are still a few of those KDE guys around

patrick wrote:

google01103 wrote:I don't think openSuse is kde centric though the community voted to have it as the default - I think that unlike other distro's it provides both Gnome and KDE desktops that are polished and feature rich.

It definitely was, when SUSE was still SuSE (before Novell bought it) - and I guess there are still a few of those KDE guys around

It was back then with German engineering, but then Novell bought it and bought Ximian (and the original Gnome developers, or at least some of them came with the purchase) and it was no longer the KDE centric distro of old but they still contribute heavily to KDE (and Gnome).

It's definitely one of the better kde implementations available, maybe the best

patrick wrote:It definitely was, when SUSE was still SuSE (before Novell bought it) - and I guess there are still a few of those KDE guys around

Sure, and they still make one of the (if not the) best KDE-implementations around - but today I'd say Suse is more DE-agnostic. Yes, KDE is the default with 11.2 but Gnome is, as far as I can tell (I use some Gnome apps but haven't installed the whole she-bang so can't tell for sure but that's the impression I got from when I briefly used the Gnome desktop on a friend's computer), in an equally good shape.

And as far as the patches mentioned above...well, Suse is certainly not "innocent" regarding that. They backport and patches things when they see the need for it.

Which begs the question...I don't mind (much) backporting and patches when it gets the job done but I have to wonder which distro would be best if one wants the most upstream-pure version of KDE? Arch? LFS...

Kryten2X4B wrote: I have to wonder which distro would be best if one wants the most upstream-pure version of KDE? Arch? LFS...

From what I hear, the best two distros would be:
sidux
Chakra (or Arch + KDEmod)

Both of these seem to require a higher skill level to stay on top of compared to Kubuntu or openSUSE.

I think openSUSE is by far the best KDE distro for people who want something that just works.

Well, my statement in posting number six of this thread still stands Gentoo's KDE packages are excellent.

patrick wrote:Well, my statement in posting number six of this thread still stands Gentoo's KDE packages are excellent.

Gentoo is not for the average Linux user.

http://www.linux.com

Gentoo was once the darling of the Linux distribution world, thanks in large part to its Portage package management system. ... Results were practically guaranteed and always to my liking. I had stability and a slight but noticeable increase in performance. But the greatest thrill of running Gentoo was the sense of ownership. No other system in the world was exactly like mine, and mine was exactly as I wanted. That's hard to achieve with binary distributions.

As time passed, however, the project's founder moved on and the quality of Gentoo began to decline. Packages no longer compiled cleanly, and some of the workarounds caused instability.

On top of that, there is no longer enough performance advantage to offset the massive time it takes to install stuff (because it has to be compiled).

MountainX wrote:Gentoo is not for the average Linux user.

Gentoo is not for the Linux beginner - that's true. I said that in my original posting. But what is an average Linux user, anyway?

Gentoo is for people who want to be in control... call them control freaks

MountainX wrote:

Gentoo was once the darling of the Linux distribution world, thanks in large part to its Portage package management system. ... Results were practically guaranteed and always to my liking. I had stability and a slight but noticeable increase in performance. But the greatest thrill of running Gentoo was the sense of ownership. No other system in the world was exactly like mine, and mine was exactly as I wanted. That's hard to achieve with binary distributions.

As time passed, however, the project's founder moved on and the quality of Gentoo began to decline. Packages no longer compiled cleanly, and some of the workarounds caused instability.

There are hiccups once in a while, where a packager causes some trouble for a few users - but there is usually an easy fix. The departure of Daniel Robbins (Gentoo's founder) has probably nothing to do with it though. It's just gotten a hugely complex system, because every user can configure many aspects of each package(*) - which comes at a price: there is a huge number of possible permutations of packages in difference configurations - which doesn't make QA an easy job. Still, most of the time there are no problems at all, and you get exactly what you want.

(*) Did you ever install a tiny new application on your non-Gentoo system and the package manager pulled in 30+ dependencies, worth 200 MB - for a feature of the package you don't even use? For example printing support, although you don't even have a printer? With Gentoo's USE flags you can just disable the application's printing capability, and suddenly the package manager sees no need in pulling in those printing-related dependencies.

MountainX wrote:On top of that, there is no longer enough performance advantage to offset the massive time it takes to install stuff (because it has to be compiled).

Yes, people who choose Gentoo because they think suddenly everything will run faster (because the compiler can optimise its output for your CPU) will probably be disappointed - the difference is marginal. The compile times are sometimes annoying indeed - but it's well worth it, if you ask me (because of above mentioned configurability, not because of the marginal performance gain!).

There is one important point to add: Gentoo is a 'rolling' distribution (Arch is one, too, but SUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora etc. are not) - that means there are no releases, no huge system-wide upgrades where everything suddenly changes, a lot of configuration has to be changed, and small or bigger problems suddenly appear all over the place.
With a rolling release system you update single packages (and their dependencies) whenever you want (for example once a week). Small incremental changes, a few packages will get updated each time. You never suddenly get an all-new system which forgot half of your settings, is broken in strange ways, or even requires a "re-install". Those things just don't happen.

... I probably should go into marketing! Just use whatever distribution you want - I'll use Gentoo

Dante Ashton wrote:...The only thing that's really come close was Linux Mint 7 KDE Edition...but even that was hacked to hell and back.

I think Mint KDE 10.04 should (hopefully) be a great KDE distro that gives the others a serious run for it's money. Mint keeps getting more and more polished. For me, Mint 7 KDE comes very close. And makes the DE experience feel much less "sterile" than Kubuntu.

However there are still some shortcomings that hopefully, with us benefiting from Project Timelord on Kubuntu, and the Mint tools continuing to be re-defined and improved, along with KDE 4.4 - should finally get KDE where it can really shine like a beacon on the blue hill. And have the benefit of being a .deb based system as well, which many people seem to prefer. Me included.

Right now, Mint KDE upgraded to 4.3.2 is pretty good. It's my main DE on all computers. The maintainer of Mint is now working full time on the distro, and has a good team around him as well.

The team is taking suggestions for Mint 8 KDE, so feel free to make some suggestions if you feel inclined.