OSNews

Seems to work fine here now

Nice and brief description of the new features to come with Gutsy. IMHO, the "Desktop Effects" window still sucks big time, I think they can do better than "None/Basic/Extra", without the need of installing one of the dozen Compiz/Beryl config tools (some of them look very odd and over complicated).

Anyway, I'll upgrade my system as soon as it's available (and the servers get some relax )

Edited 2007-08-27 16:25 UTC

"This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"

Too bad...

"Using static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage."

I liked this one. Let's all go back to static pages. Who needs dynamic content anyway.

You can still use PHP but you generate parts or everything ahead of time and read static HTML from cache.

You can use a PHP CMS to spit out cached static versions of the home page. There is often no need for a page to be running PHP every call just because other parts of the site use PHP, it's bad design for high loads.

Also, you can use templating and then cache the dynamic sub-templates so that your page is only being changed when actual data changes rather than having to hit the database every single refresh, when the actual text only ever changes once a month.

Yeah, I would like to see KDE4 as the default DE in a future Ubuntu release and Gnome getting the same status as KDE3 has now (i.e. it'd have its own overlooked (esp. by devs) distro called "Gubuntu").

Until this happens I cannot truly advocate Ubuntu, as IMHO KDE is superior to Gnome. I also don't like how Gnome developers embrace MONO.

It is too bad as Ubuntu would be the most obvious distro to recommend to newbies as

1) it has very active development to make it easier to use/install
2) it has the most available information on the net in my (and their) native language (website/docs/forums).
3) it is the most hyped (i.e. advertised) distro which has a big influence to many people's opinions.

Currently it's quite a twisted situation when people who have seen the all the Ubuntu hype come to ask my opinion about Ubuntu and all I can say "Yes, Ubuntu is quite good but I'd rather recommend err.. Kubuntu which is much better."... Obviously the explanation to the question "Why?" will only confuse newbies even more. They'll also wonder what they should believe; me or the hype...

not to mention how ubuntu/kubuntu's kde packages are utterly useless compared to other distributions kde..

in ubuntu/kubuntu kde is unstable and acts totally weird..

in short, if you want a real quality DE, you have to avoid *ubuntu, as their kde packages are simply broken.

"Oooh, Look at the shiny. It must be better."

I don't find this at all. I used Gentoo for years and so compiled KDE from source and I have found it at least the same now I have switched to Kubuntu. It might be that Kubuntu just ship vanilla KDE, whilst other distros tidy things up a bit (I have little experience with any others) but I certainly wouldn't call it unstable, and nor does it act weird..

Kubuntu's KDE is about as "vanilla" as Rocky Road. That said, I've been pretty pleased with Feisty.

I use Kubuntu and KDE is actually completely stable here. You could say that KDE is the least of my worries. Remember, your mileage will always vary from other users. Diff'rent strokes, sometimes you feel like a nut, etc. Actually, Kubuntu Feisty has pretty much the most stable KDE desktop I've ever used.

In short, you're wrong.

Unless the Kubuntu guys stopped borking KDE as they used to do in previous releases, I simply cannot believe that statement at all. Kubuntu is probably the worst implementation of KDE that I have ever seen in my life and I have been using Linux for over 10 years already.

Take a look at this post of mine - http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?206065 - and then read the follow-ups to have a better picture of what I endured during my brief time with Kubuntu. Now, that was Dapper and I realize that most of those problems have been addressed already but I haven't seen anything recently that suggests that Kubuntu is not receiving Ubuntu-specific patches anymore therefore it is a little hard to believe that these sorts of things are gone for good now.

I'm using Debian Testing in my desktop now ever since and I couldn't be happier!

Quit trolling. You might *love* KDE. Personally, I find the KDE interface a bit too "fisher price" and the Crystal icon theme horrendous. Tango is a breath of fresh air compared to Crystal.

Some people like KDE and some people like Gnome. That does not mean one is any better than the other. It might be your opinion that KDE is better than Gnome, but it is your opinion and not mine. Take a look at language bindings. Because gnome is C, it is pretty easy to make bindings for any other language. Granted, it isn't "hard" to make bindings to C++ (KDE), but it is easier to make bindings for gtk because it is C.

Don't get me wrong now, if you were to say QT vs Gtk, QT is technically superior in most ways. Just back your arguments up with some facts before you go all Linus on us.

Don't try to push your opinion on others.

Quit trolling.

How was I trolling? I was just expressing my opinion (that's what forums are for) and my post was on topic.

Some people like KDE and some people like Gnome.

The *point* of my post was not about which DE is better. It was about Ubuntu and how *I* would like to see it developed in the future. I also explained why.

Don't try to push your opinion on others.

IMO, I wasn't *pushing* anything but.. if you really want to go there, read your own post and notice how you're "trying to do the same thing".

Remember that we're all biased in some way...

Edited 2007-08-27 18:23

Yes, you were trolling.

You were saying that Canonical should relegate the Gnome DE to second-tier status, and make KDE the primary desktop.

That sounds like not just being a fan of KDE, but wanting to push KDE on everyone else.

You also implied that Gnome is unfit for newbies.

I'm not advocating either desktop, just reflecting back to you how your statements read.

I don't think it was trolling. What is wrong with someone expressing their opinion for good healthy competition? Some people are all too quick to stamp somebody as a troll, when it goes against their ideals.

I find KDE easier to use and much quicker than gnome, but that is just my personal experience of things, so the idea of KDE as a default for Ubuntu is a nice one for me at least

Thats why you have Kubuntu, They picked GNOME for Ubuntu default, get over it.

You people are truly forcing your opinions on this, KDE is not the superior DE you lead use to believe. If anyone has a problem it be you who keep telling us how good KDE is.

Yes, you were trolling.

No, I wasn't. I was just stating my personal preferences over the development of Ubuntu (which in this case included the DE).

You were saying that Canonical should relegate the Gnome DE to second-tier status, and make KDE the primary desktop.

So? And you want KDE having the second-tier status as it has now... so our stance is not that different here.

That sounds like not just being a fan of KDE, but wanting to push KDE on everyone else.

Yes and you sound like you're a big fan of Gnome and... oh dear, here we go again.

Well yes, I prefer KDE over Gnome, and so of course it would be easier to advocate Ubuntu if KDE were its default DE.

I'm not advocating either desktop, just reflecting back to you how your statements read.

So why do *you* get so heated up on this then?

Edited 2007-08-27 20:02

Following your logic, having Gnome as the default Ubuntu desktop is wanting to push Gnome on everyone else.

I don't particularly mind that Gnome is the default Ubuntu, as long as Kubuntu gets the same development effort for distro-specific software. Right now it's a bit of a toss-up.

I do think that KDE is superior to Gnome, but that's my personal preference. In reality, there is not much difference between them, especially if you use Beryl. I do prefer how the various KDE apps work together.

"...how Gnome developers embrace MONO..."

Ok, so maybe "embrace" was a bit too strong word, but the fact is that Mono is now used to make official Gnome applications.

Also, I wouldn't call it trolling in an Ubuntu thread but maybe, just maybe in a Gnome thread.

And? So?
I have no problems with Mono - why do you?

KDE suffers too much from featuritis for me to enjoy using it - it gets in my way with its obnoxious configuration options and needlessly bulky menus, but that is just me. Gnome has much nicer defaults, but I have issues with all Linux DEs. The problem is that applications are written using toolkits for a specific DE, when the correct way to do it is to have a standard API that allows applications to behave consistently regardless of DE.

For Linux to succeed on the desktop it needs to break away from the server paradigm of having the X server, OS and DE separated into layers - they should all be integrated into a cohesive whole. Kinda like the way OSX, Windows, SkyOS, Syllable, Haiku etc do it...

KDE and Gnome et al are both barking up the wrong tree. Don't get me wrong, they are great for what they are, but a Gnome distro and a KDE distro behave like completely different OSs when they shouldn't - they should be more like a skin or theme on top of the OS, and seamlessly handle applications without any inconsistencies.

Umm, NO! That would be the worst thing ever to happen to linux. X is as powerful as it is for a reason. It's not X's fault that there was a divergence in toolkits, blame that on trolltech and their licensing back in the early days. The only reason we have gnome is because people didn't agree with the license. Besides that the "layering " as you say is what makes Linux powerful. Have an errant x server, kill the process and restart x without affecting the whole system. You can't do that in Windows, I'm not sure about OSX but I think the same holds true. If it was such a bad thing why is MS trying to copy the model in their next release of windows server allowing the OS to run without the UI, though without the UI what is windows, DOS? The other thing I want to point out is that this "skinning" thing is exactly what is happening at the moment. The X server allows for a program to look like anything it wants without being tied to a specific format or look. The only thing is that it's far less abstracted as you have to actually tell X how to draw and handle said application. Most developers make it easier on themselves by writing a toolkit that would do all the drawing for them and abstract the underlying X layer to make it easier to develop.

"Take a look at language bindings. Because gnome is C, it is pretty easy to make bindings for any other language. Granted, it isn't "hard" to make bindings to C++ (KDE), but it is easier to make bindings for gtk because it is C. "

This has been said over and over again ever since Miguel d'Icaza's first mail announcing his Gnome initiative. But it simply isn't true at all. Because C++ encodes so much more information about an api and because C++ fits -- because it's object oriented -- so much better in with "modern" languages like Python, Ruby, C# or Java, it's really easy to automatically generate bindings for these languages. Which is the reason we've got complete and functional bindings for all these languages. The bindings argument has simply been demonstrated to be invalid.

Well, I'd like to see KDE4 mature first before throwing it a the front scene anyway. I'm a KDE lover but I find gnome realy sexy too. I've been using KDE since 1.1 and I'm just use to it. I've tried to Gnome some time and I never got to adapt myself i.e can't find where the config utils are, can't get it to look as I'd like.

KDE4 is *supposed* to become more useable, a little more gnomish as some people are saying. And I think that Plasma, Phonon and the integration of the compositing management to kwin, will make KDE4 a big winner. KDE4 will be sexier and if it can get as simple as Gnome while staying as customizable as it is currently, it will be THE DE to use. But still, this is fully supposition.

I don't mind most of your argument, but I'm quite perplexed that anyone advocates one interface over another based on an icon set or the look of widgets when reconfiguring those are just a few mouse clicks away.

Yes, Gnome is quite nice. However, I use multiple desktop environments, and I greatly value the ability to configure each one so as to make switching as interruption-free as possible. KDE with Konqueror is much more consistent than Gnome with its usual bevy of applications that have their own keystroke assignments, some of which cannot be reconfigured.

KDE is almost the best at this of any environment. There are a few more common cross-application bindings that it could implement, so that for example, you can imitate OSX's Command-, keystroke which consistently opens the application's preferences.

While KDE and Gnome leapfrog each other in many ways, Gnome's philosophy seems to prevent it from suiting this strong preference of mine - and perhaps other people.

To each his / her own dude. That is the beauty of open source. You have a choice.

"Until this happens I cannot truly advocate Ubuntu, as IMHO KDE is superior to Gnome. "

Not that superior. If it as, Ubuntu would obviously be using it. Gnome and KDE are just a bit different. People have their preferences, often only because of getting used to certain things and ways of doing things.

Also, often active users have tweaked their own desktop environments (KDE or Gnome) very much to suit their needs, and may sometimes forget that when comparing desktop environments. It is also possible to customize Gnome in countless different ways to better suit personal needs. As an example and hint, here is an article that describes a few such Gnome tweaks that some people might find useful:
http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-gnome-deskt...

By the way, have you considered that part of the Ubuntu popularity may have something to do with Gnome too? (Other main reasons are, for example, their excellent documentation and community.) There have been lots of KDE-based easy-to-use free desktop distributions before like Suse and Mandrake/Mandriva, yet the Gnome-based Ubuntu has passed them in popularity.

As to KDE4, it does look quite promising also to me, but still only beta, and lets try to keep the discussion on Ubuntu here.

"I also don't like how Gnome developers embrace MONO."

Mono has nothing to do with Gnome (except that some Mono developers are, or have been, also Gnome developers). Mono can be used in many sorts environments. I don't see Gnome embracing Mono in any particular way. Gnome seems to be rather "agnostic" in that matter, there are both supporters and critics, majority probably being rather neutral about it. Mono is not a necessary thing in Gnome, and for every available Mono-based app there are usually lots of good non-Mono alternatives too. As an example, Gnome in Ubuntu Gutsy will use the non-Mono search engine, Tracker instead of Mono-based Beagle.

Not that superior. If it as, Ubuntu would obviously be using it. Gnome and KDE are just a bit different.

I believe Gnome was chosen because...

People have their preferences, often only because of getting used to certain things and ways of doing things.

Meaning the developers preferred Gnome over KDE. I don't believe there was much of a research or testing over this in the beginning.

By the way, have you considered that part of the Ubuntu popularity may have something to do with Gnome too?

I believe the main reasons were the concept (one live cd, with carefully chosen apps), ease of install, good docs and forums and of course successful marketing.

Mono has nothing to do with Gnome (except that some Mono developers are, or have been, also Gnome developers). Mono can be used in many sorts environments. I don't see Gnome embracing Mono in any particular way. Gnome seems to be rather "agnostic" in that matter,

Ok, maybe they're not "embracing" it but they're certainly using it for Tomboy which is part of Gnome.

I don't like this simply because of MONO's controversial connection to Microsoft.

They're using Python too but I don't have anything against python (in principle) except well.. that I don't like the idea of using high level languages in core OS componets, mainly because their lesser performance when compared to C or C++. I like the fact that KDE is written only in C++ so the codebase stays clean and there is less libraries to depend on.

Tomboy applet is NOT part of GNOME, Kerry is uses beagle to search and if KDE has beagle backends does that mean it's part of KDE and you need mono?, think about it!

Tomboy applet is NOT part of GNOME, Kerry is uses beagle to search

Ok, my mistake.

and if KDE has beagle backends does that mean it's part of KDE and you need mono?, think about it!

Only if it's part of the official KDE packages and not some random app from kde-look.org.

Only if it's part of the official KDE packages and not some random app from kde-look.org

mmm, kde-looks is for themes. Are you really a KDE user or some random troll?

mmm, kde-looks is for themes. Are you really a KDE user or some random troll?

Ooops... my mistake again. Of course I meant kde-apps.org...

EDIT: you're free to check my past comments in my profile and judge yourself whether I'm just a "random troll" or not.

Edited 2007-08-27 20:57

Tomboy applet is NOT part of GNOME

Actually after some googling it seems that you're wrong and it is part of Gnome:

"Tomboy is a simple desktop note-taking application for Linux and other *nix operating systems. It's written in C# and runs on Mono. It has also just been accepted into GNOME 2.16, so Tomboy will be appearing on a lot of Linux users' desktops soon, if it's not there already."
http://www.linux.com/articles/56405

"April 9th 2007
Stable version 0.6.3 released! This will be the version included by GNOME 2.18.1. This release includes updated translations for the following languages:"
http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy/

When you build GNOME, Tomboy is not a dependency on GNOME applets, it's as simple as that.

You sound really bitter that Ubuntu is very popular and GNOME is to with it. You can install KDE in Ubuntu and it's sad that you wouldn't recommend it just because you dont like GNOME, Ubuntu is a distribution not a DE.

Point is that by default it comes with Gnome. Now indeed, after two years of no KDE 3.x release, Gnome imho has almost catched up with KDE, but if KDE 4.x will prove to be what the KDE hackers hope it to be, Mark said Ubuntu would consider delivering KDE with Ubuntu instead of Gnome.

He may say it, but I doubt it very much. I personally think the reason Ubuntu is so popular has to do a lot with gnome as well as the polish they put into it. The ONLY reason i use ubuntu is because of gnome, and the only reaosn I switched was because it had a reasonable likeness to Fedora core when it was released. I stopped using kde when gnome reached version 2.6 and I really doubt I'll ever return to using it, even with version 4 looming. I've used kde 4 beta and frankly all that was wrong with it before is wrong with it now. Will it improve, maybe and I'll keep an eye out for it, but for the moment nothing will make me switch from gnome, unless they do something stupid like start making it into an online desktop, then I'll switch to XFCE.

I think the same, the reason I use Ubuntu is because they offer a pretty good GNOME desktop, there are tons of KDE based distros already most of them unpopular, if Ubuntu swiched to KDE(Im sure that won't happen) I would prolly use Foresight Linux, because have a pretty good GNOME desktop too.

Right, but most beginning users couldn't care less about the desktop, so it wouldn't make a diff for them. Sure, I wouldn't switch to KDE if I liked gnome either. But most new users wouldn't have to, and that's where the growth is anyway. And don't get it wrong, KDE most likely still has the majority of linux users out there. Gnome might have gotten closer, maybe it's even.

Anyway, I don't think Ubuntu is popular because it uses Gnome. I think it's because the way they work, being open and community centered and all. Which is great, esp with some commercial backing.

Anyway, I don't think Ubuntu is popular because it uses Gnome

I don't think so, the same model is used in Kubuntu, and look where is it now.

Definitly GNOME is the key of succes for Ubuntu, even if you don't like it, after all, you are part of the KDE team and GNOME succes makes you a litle bitter.

And btw, I do think GNOME numbers are now superior to KDE numbers, in users I mean, but I won't enter in details.

Rest assured online desktop is optional, not default yet.

Its the yet part that has me worried. We all know that gnome loves choices and options.

"Obviously the explanation to the question "Why?" will only confuse newbies even more. They'll also wonder what they should believe; me or the hype."

Fortunately that opposite will never be true if KDE is default and some newbie asks someone who prefers GNOME that same question...

Fortunately that opposite will never be true if KDE is default and some newbie asks someone who prefers GNOME that same question...

Yeah, well that's why we really need a desktop agnostic distro...

Seriously, wouldn't it be great if there were just one Ubuntu with different "Desktop Editions" available for download directly from Ubuntu home page:

* Ubuntu Gnome Edition
* Ubuntu KDE Edition
* Ubuntu Xfce Edition

The links could even change places randomly to make sure that any of the Editions are not "embraced" by the distributor

Optionally, you could download the DVD, which would have all these Editions on one disk, and you could choose which one(s) to install.

This way all the major DEs could ride the Ubuntu hype and compete on a level playing field from the attention of Ubuntu users.

For those saying choice that choice is bad:

1. FLOSS is all about choice
2. Even Vista has 6 or 7 Editions too

PS. I do realize this solution would have it's own problems too, but IMO it'd be still a better situation

>Seriously, wouldn't it be great if there were just one Ubuntu with different "Desktop Editions" available for download directly from Ubuntu home page:

* Ubuntu Gnome Edition
* Ubuntu KDE Edition
* Ubuntu Xfce Edition

Just change the names into Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu and you have already what you want.

>This way all the major DEs could ride the Ubuntu hype and compete on a level playing field from the attention of Ubuntu users.

Why? The advantage of Ubuntu is that you get one consistent system without asking the user questions which a new user cant answer anyway.

Why all this crying? Do you want Ubuntu with KDE? Go and install Kubuntu or Ubuntu and than do "apt-get install kde". It is that easy!
Why always this KDE boys starting crying if they don't get what they want? I don't hear that from the GNOME boys when we talk about e.g. Slackware or from the fluxbox boys, gnustep boys, icewm boys,...

>For those saying choice that choice is bad:

1. FLOSS is all about choice

I disagree. Open Source is about building powerful and reliable software by sharing the source code and work together. Free Software is about freedom.

<ironic>
Maybe we need a third name to satisfy the "it is all about choice"-people too?
</ironic>

>2. Even Vista has 6 or 7 Editions too

And Vista comes with only one desktop so Ubuntu is doing the right thing.

Edited 2007-08-28 14:51

Just change the names into Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu and you have already what you want.

No, that's not what I want. It's not just about the name.

It's about wanting the same status, polish and active development for Kubuntu (and Xubuntu too).

The same status would be achieved by putting them all on the same line on the same homepage.

The active development could be achieved largely by making the Ubuntu specific utilities independent of the DE (I wouldn't mind if they were all written in GTK+, just without Gnome libs).

1. FLOSS is all about choice

I disagree. Open Source is about building powerful and reliable software by sharing the source code and work together. Free Software is about freedom.

Agreed in that Free Software is not *all* about choice but this freedom includes choice.

FLOSS = Free/Libre Open Source Software BTW

Edited 2007-08-28 15:15

>It's about wanting the same status, polish and active development for Kubuntu (and Xubuntu too).

Nobody stops the Kubuntu/Xubuntu guys to do an as good job as the Ubuntu guys.

>The same status would be achieved by putting them all on the same line on the same homepage.

The homepage defines the status and the quality?

>Agreed in that Free Software is not *all* about choice but this freedom includes choice.

What is "this freedom"? Free Software is defined as:
- the freedom to run the program for any purpose
- the freedom to study the source and adapt it to your needs
- the freedom to distribute copies
- the freedom to distribute modifications

>FLOSS = Free/Libre Open Source Software BTW

I know, but "Libre Software" is just a synonym of "Free Software". So while talking about the implication of FLOSS we can concentrate on "Free Software" and "Open Source".

Nobody stops the Kubuntu/Xubuntu guys to do an as good job as the Ubuntu guys.

You and I both know that they don't have nearly the same amount of resources.

The homepage defines the status and the quality?

In the world of marketing, quite often yes. Sadly.

In real world no.

The paradox here is that marketing actually shapes the reality of most people these days...

What is "this freedom"? Free Software is defined as:
- the freedom to run the program for any purpose
- the freedom to study the source and adapt it to your needs
- the freedom to distribute copies
- the freedom to distribute modifications

Yes, these are the *officially stated* freedoms but at least *to me* it includes choice too (by it's very nature).

I know, but "Libre Software" is just a synonym of "Free Software". So while talking about the implication of FLOSS we can concentrate on "Free Software" and "Open Source".

No, If I'm talking about FLOSS i'm talking about Free Software. If I had written FLOSS/OSS you'd be right.

I'd rather say that the Open Source part in FLOSS is quite redundant.

That would defeat the purpose of what Ubuntu is. One of the main reason ubuntu is popular is that it all fits on one cd that you could download relatively quickly and that contains all that you need. Also, if you want kde get kubuntu, you want XFCE get Xubuntu. I really don't see much difference between what you just said and the current situation already.

Oh, you mean like Debian, Gentoo, openSUSE and Fedora?

SCOWNED! Haha. There are other distros other than Ubuntu. I'm saying this as an Ubuntu user.

I am not an IT expert, I use my computer as a tool not as a full time employment. I tried KDE3, it is wonderful, but it just looks much more "powerful" and useful for power users. I am an ordinary user, enjoying clean desktop, easy to use interface (without too much additional stuff) and gnome seems to be far better that way. I really enjoy Ubuntu and would not use it if it's default desktop would be KDE.

There used to be a time when suse seemed closely tied to the development on KDE. That all seemed to change after the Novell acquisition. It would be nice to know which distro is could be identified as the 'reference implementation' of KDE. That way the strengths of both can be compared on a some what level playing field.

Kubuntu doesn't strike me as following that closely behind KDE development, or I may be wrong. So when the pre release announcements are made for Ubuntu, while being on the same release cycle, Kubuntu not being highlighted does detract from its apparent relevance.

Like SuSE used to be a reference implementation of KDE at one point or Ubuntu and Fedora are for gnome, it might be beneficial if Kubuntu or some other were to be developed 'closely' in sync with KDE. That way feature summaries like this one could be available for those who prefer KDE.

I for one do not mine the lack of 'ground breaking' feature lists if it means all that effort is being put into polish and stability. You know the boring loose end type bugs that are not 'interesting enough' to deal after years of sitting in bugzilla. Now if the polish and stability efforts are being put into problems that have been alleviated in newer features or different solutions, then by all means focus on replacing those old solutions.

I just think there is a case to be made for setting an area and focusing appropriately on it.

>it might be beneficial if Kubuntu or some other were to be developed 'closely' in sync with KDE.

First you need something to sync before you can sync.

Mark Shuttleworth has said it already in his keynote[1] at aKademy. If KDE commit themselves to a rythm of releases than Ubuntu can and will commit themselves to integrate the latest and greatest of KDE into their Kubuntu releases. But therefore they need a reliable timetable to sync with.

[1] Video: http://home.kde.org/~akademy07/videos/1-06-Keynote-Shuttleworth.ogg

Edited 2007-08-28 11:26

Mark seems like a great guy and all but why must everything revolve around *buntu. KDE has been doing a superb job with there "release when ready" scheme.

>Mark seems like a great guy and all but why must everything revolve around *buntu.

That's not the point. The point is that if you want that a distribution always ship with the latest and greatest software you have developed than you have to give them a timetable so that they can plan their releases and sync with you.

Call me crazy but I'll take the release when ready approach...imho it's a lot more stable. I mean look at Debian compared to Ubuntu....nuff said.

>Call me crazy but I'll take the release when ready approach...imho it's a lot more stable. I mean look at Debian compared to Ubuntu....nuff said.

Debian stable is something complete different than stability if you develop applications.

Also i have to say again the same i have already said to you: That's not the point.

The topic of the thread is if and how a distribution can sync the release with a project and this is only possible if the project has a timetables with which the distribution can sync their releases.

I strongly agree with you on the lousiness of the recent Ubuntu releases. They sound exciting at first but really they are unimportant and are just adding more bugs and slowness.

That's the beauty of Linux based operating systems: Choice. Gentoo makes sense to you. Slackware makes sense to me, though on my new laptop Ubuntu works better. I'm happy when I see any distro making great strides like this, even if I don't use it.

If desktop effects are enabled by default they'd better well work. Currently it's broken since I can't switch between X and the console. Black screen of death.

Keep in mind it's alpha; hopefully such bugs will be squashed by the time it goes live in six weeks.

"It's a bit sad that Ubuntu have chosen AppArmor over SELinux. Not that AppArmor is a bad system, but because things like this should be handled the same way by all Linux."

A simple reason: Ubuntu's new Upstart init system does not support SELinux yet. You would have to remove Upstart and install old sysvinit in order to use SELinux with new Ubuntu releases. Not sure about the development status in that matter?

Also, SELinux is not really that widely used in Linux distributions yet, only a few distros have it enabled by default. It is, just like AppArmor, only one of the various options to restrict the actions that software can take. Grsecurity and RSBAC are yet other solutions, and those do not depend on LSM that some security people don't like at all: http://www.grsecurity.net/lsm.php

Both AppArmor and SELinux have their pros and cons. From Wikipedia's AppArmor article:
"For example, a file that is inaccessible may become accessible under AppArmor when a hard link is created to it, while SELinux would deny access through the newly created hard link. On the other hand, data that is inaccessible may become accessible when applications update the file by replacing it with a new version (a frequently used technique), while AppArmor would continue to deny access to the data. While there has been considerable debate about which approach is better, there is no strong evidence as of yet that one approach is preferable to the other."

Gentoo Wiki has a neutral comparison of the four main access control solutions for Linux:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/Access_Control_Comparison_Table

You have a point wrt mainline acceptance. The kernel community is pretty negative toward AppArmor because they want to pass vfsmount structs through the LSM layer so that paths can be determined relative to the namespace root rather than relative to the filesystem root. There's good reason for why SELinux also needs this in order to produce full pathnames in audit logs.

But Christoph and Al Viro are both NACKing this part of the AppArmor patchset because they consider pathname-based security to be fundamentally icky. These guys are notorious for killing patches simply by wearing down the developers until they don't feel like arguing anymore.

LSM was created specifically because Linus realized that there would be multiple security frameworks. But SELinux is the only LSM implementation in the mainline, probably because they got it in during the 2.5.x series. The LSM interface is not the greatest, and it causes problems for NFS and stackable filesystems.

But technical issues aside, AppArmor has been adopted by Novell/SUSE, Ubuntu, and Mandriva. SELinux is pretty much a RHEL/Fedora thing. So if the argument is about picking one solution and sticking with it, then it's 6-to-1 half a dozen the other.

I think that this is a lot like the GNOME/KDE debate. AppArmor is clean and simple but limited. SELinux is uber-capable but cluttered and intimidating. Users are going to fall on both sides of this tradeoff.

Active Directory support will be oncoming with Samba 4, but it still remains in development. This will even allow Linux computers to be Active Directory Domain Controllers.

As far as network printers/mount shares depending on user, Sabayon for the former, I imagine, and NFS for the latter. Don't forget before it was a Windows world it was a UNIX world.

im not saying that these things are imposible, its all posible today. But you have to put in some time and if its a one man shop, you may not have 2 weeks to work on it.

I my self put in the time, some time back and have linux workstations running great in a "windows world". But the time you have to spend before you get any benefits(if you dont know linux/unix) is a pretty hard sell to management.

Active Directory support will be oncoming with Samba 4, but it still remains in development. This will even allow Linux computers to be Active Directory Domain Controllers.

I am dying for this to come out. I really don't want a whole other LDAP server for authentication just for my handful of Linux workstations/servers.

As for KDE vs. Gnome, personally I find KDE 3.5 a lesson in frustration, usability-wise. If it were to become the default as one poster recommended, I'd most definitely install Gnome immediately.

I will give KDE 4.0 a fair shake, if nothing else because I enjoy trying new DE's, but the current one is definitely not my choice of DE.

So it really all is personal preference (obviously), and with Kubuntu, Fluxbuntu, elbuntu, xubuntu, etc I don't see what the big deal of installing one of these variations is.

I honestly don't understand how the most complained about thing about Ubuntu is the "brown theme." It just so happens to be the most easily changed item that is complained about. Can we move on?

Also, it isn't brown anymore. It's orange. It's been revamped and I honestly love the new theming. It's more interesting than the usual blue.

It is mostly Brown not Orange, and as it is the most complained about thing about Ubuntu then it might go in their favour to offer alternative themes.

Why should we move on, when it is the most complained about thing as you suggest?

The desktop background is a lightish brown. All the other elements are orange. The buttons are orange lined, the default titlebars are orange, text entry widgets are orange lined. Everything is orange save for the wallpaper.

So really. Not mostly brown.

And really, it is a moot point. It can be changed. Why waste time arguing about something that has nothing to do with the features of the distro?

I would say that the lighting is subjective and somewhat relative. Not all other elements are orange, e.g. I can see some grey elements. So really, mostly brown.

The theme is a feature of the distro, and if you have a wide selection of themes to choose from then all the better.

Some users find it hard to change the default theme, and I think that is something small and easy that could be changed and be the answer to many complaints - again just my MHO ...

Plus - the Brown and Orange make the distinctive Ubuntu look. What other color combination would you suggest? Blueish? 9 of 10 distros have a shade of Blue.
Being a KDE guy this is what I miss about Kubuntu - it is too Blue for my taste.
But granted - this whole debate is moot since all of this can be changed so easily. My own color theme dates back to my Mandrake days with just small refinements.
What I am trying to say - it is good that anyone can tell Ubuntu by it's color theme at a glance. It is their trademark and should stay that way.

It makes me laugh how people get so upset over the aesthetics of Ubuntu. I just see that it is common complaint, and so easy to address through choice.

Many are quick to suggest that there are other alternative themes in Ubuntu, which is correct but the choice is very little IMHO.

As for the colour, it is subjective so there really is no point in arguing it any further. I personally like a blue crystal look, but I wouldn't say it is the right choice for everyone just because I like it.

"It is mostly Brown not Orange"

I have an Ubuntu desktop right here, with the default theme, but I cannot see anything brown in the theme (yes, my monitor works ok.. ;-). The main colors used in the theme are shades of orange and shades of very light beige (closer to white than brown). (It's been like that since Ubuntu Dapper, before that Ubuntu default theme used more brown shades.)

The default Ubuntu theme is hardly even close to being among the most complained things in Ubuntu. Many people, me included, like the default theme. Personally I like especially the orange-shaded Ubuntu icon theme.

And, yes, changing the theme really is one of the simplest things to do in Ubuntu, if you simply couldn't stand shades of orange and light beige. You don't even have to install some extra themes, just go Preferences: Theme, and choose something else. Oh, and as far as I know, it will become possible in Gnome to easily change the color hues of existing Gnome themes too.

Oh, and as far as I know, it will become possible in Gnome to easily change the color hues of existing Gnome themes too.

You cannot change the color hues of the Ubuntu Human theme however you can already in Gnome 2.18 change the colors of the default Clearlooks and many other recent themes (Glider, Glossy and Industrial to name a few).

If you read the article, you'll see in one screenshot that there are multiple color schemes you can choose from: Orange, Blue, Purple, Charcoal. You could do this in the past versions as well; it's a built in function of GNOME. Why are you still complaining that something should be fixed when it was never broken in the first place? For that matter, why argue at all? As so many people have tried to tell you, the orange/brown/whatever color scheme is not set in stone. If that is the sole reason you choose another distro, you may wish to step back and take a hard look at your priorities.

It's not as if an orange color theme is going to cause the software not to work. I don't care for the orange theme myself, but it's trivial to change it and I personally think that you are just using it as a cop-out. I may be wrong, but I think you just don't like Ubuntu period and you have chosen an absurd issue to express your dislike. That's perfectly fine; it's your right as a human being to choose to use whatever tools you wish. However, saying that a distro is junk because you don't like the theme the developers ship it with is just silly and reeks of ignorance.

I certainly hope you do find a distro with the "correct" default color scheme because god forbid you have to spend fifteen seconds and a few mouse clicks to change it yourself.

If you read the article, you'll see in one screenshot that there are multiple color schemes you can choose from: Orange, Blue, Purple, Charcoal.

But these are not just color themes. These are themes that change everything from window borders to icons and widgets.

You could do this in the past versions as well; it's a built in function of GNOME.

Real color themes, or making custom color themes is not possible in Gnome (as it is in KDE).

This creates a problem that, while the ubuntu team has put a lot of effort to polish that one theme's appearance and even usability (e.g. bigger window close button), you'll loose all that just by choosing another theme.

Edited 2007-08-28 00:24

True, but my point to him was that, since he is not satisfied with the default color, why not choose another instead of complaining about it? That's like complaining that your hot dog didn't come with any mustard when the mustard bottle is right in front of you. It's not as if the Ubuntu developers and the hot dog vendors can or even should read the end user's mind. That's why choice exists, though some are apparently too dense to see that (him, not you).

"too dense" - you are the one that brought hot dogs into the conversation.

Errm, no, gnome has full color themes support now. It was added pretty recently though (last version I think)

I don't recall junking Ubuntu, or copping-out because of the color theme. It is funny how some people such as yourself distort what another person has said.

Seriously ... the Ubuntu color scheme does really suck. And this is a real problem. I've had a number of non-tech people learn about Ubuntu thru me and a livecd. They almost always complain about how bad it looks and this affects their decision on going forward. People build their lives around their PCs like they do their cars. Not many people are buying brown and orange cars off the lots.

My daughter, who is like most computer users, does not know how to change the system to look much better. Think typical users can change the splash screen and the boot transition screens to get rid of all the brown and orange? She commented, naively, that this was the worst OS ever - having used half a dozen other livecds, and os x, and windows.

I once worked for Mr. Donut. I wore brown and orange all the time. They went out of business. Okay ... maybe I'm reaching.

Still it seems its just a matter of time before the Ubuntu people do enough user testing to determine that a lot of people know what they are talking about.

These people are a minority (in both cases) and does not make a good set from which to create your user interface.
Most people don't give a damn and seeing that they have no problem changing the Windows wallpaper and colors they won't have any problems changing the Ubuntu look.



This is not a valid comparison because a) it's much more time consuming, b) difficult and c) more expensive to change the color of a car.



What, you couldn't take 1 minute to show her the Appearance configuration?



Or perhaps they just figure (correctly?) that the people complaining are a minority. Just because someone is vocal about their opinion does not mean they're right or that they are a majority.

Edited 2007-08-28 12:00

"Whuznot: People build their lives around their PCs like they do their cars."
"Soulbender: These people are a minority (in both cases)"

Maybe true in the PC world but that is changing. In the car world? You're off your rocker. What percent of people in the US are not dependent upon a car? Really greater than 50%? Where do you live? Do they buy based solely upon engine specs and structural integrity? Vanity (and aesthetics) are a very powerful motivator. Why else are the vast majority of people trying to impress their friends, colleagues, potential mates, fellow osnews readers, etc. with jobs, clothes, cars, houses, music, brains, even tattoos?

"Whuznot: Not many people are buying brown and orange cars off the lots."
"Soulbender: This is not a valid comparison ... "

You totally missed the point. You could use nearly any commodity. You don't see many brown and orange anythings: flowers, clothes, houses, electronics, hairstyles, what else? Look at the shelves of any store you're in. If it was pleasing to most people it would show up in most products.

I get your point. Its easy to change. For most people. But there are a very substantial number of users for which this is a problem. I know as I work with them all the time.

And its not as easy to change the look as its made out either. Like I said, get a naive (or even average) user to expunge all the brown and orange in the startup and logon sequence (and lets not start on the typical black and white boot info screens which Windows minimizes and Apple bypasses altogether cetainly for very good reasons). And why should they have to? Shouldn't this at the very least be a configurable setup option?

And on top of which why should someone's first experience with Linux be so damned ugly and cobbled together in all apsects (true of nearly all distros). Most Linux geeks could give a damn and I understand. But your average person begins their judgement of quality as soon as the machine is started (and what they see really does in many ways comment on Linux's quality) and they lack the understanding to know in what other ways Linux's quality surpasses that of Windows.

Invariably they are then beset by a bunch of issues that simply work with Windows: setting up a printer, playing a multimedia file without needing to get codecs, and numerous other seriously annoying and puzzling questions (with typically horrible error messages and no documentation). I've tried maybe 20 Linux distros, multiple versions of each, ppc and i86, and they all have their setup quirks. They work for about 85% of taks with o config needed but the remaining 15% is a PITA. Naive users will never use this product. Which is who Ubuntu hopes to someday capture. I've been working to get a bug out of Ubuntu where Nautilus (the default CD burner built right into the menus/UI) fails straight out of the box for a fair number of burners. Think this would happen with Windows?

The aesthetics of Ubuntu's startup point up Linux's biggest weakness. The developers are typically not paid and work in their spare time. And they have no prick boss (fortunate for them) saying "this is just not acceptable ... you're working on it until I say it is done". Quality is bound to suffer.

You're confusing the usefulness of a car with building your life around it. Most people also have shoes, phones, t-shirts, underpants, socks etc but they don't *build* their life around these items.



Your comparison would have been valid if there were NO orange or brown cars. However there are so obviously someone like these colors and buy those cars. Same with Linux, there are different distros with different look. Pick the one you like.



Actually, I see a lot of orange and brown flowers and clothes where I live. I bet you see even more in Africa. Done right it looks very nice.



Really? I like the colors, so does my wife and daughter.
You could argue the contrary, Ubuntu's aesthetics is Linux strong point; there's always an alternative.



Because we all know the commercial space with it's insane deadlines and feature creep create wonderful quality...

Edited 2007-08-29 12:01

"they don't *build* their life around these items"

Let's take away everybodies' cars (not to mention delivery trucks) for a month (or just yours if you have them) and see the result. Your argument is ridiculous. If you can't concede on this point you're really not thinking - you're arguing. (BTW are you building your life around breathing or is it useful? I'd say both.)

"Your comparison would have been valid if there were NO orange or brown cars."

Again this is a ridiculous assertion. I didn't say the combination of brown and orange should not exist and no one wants it. I said it is unpopular (and an unwise choice for a default color scheme) for good reason and is reflected in the world around us.

"You don't see many brown and orange anythings: flowers, clothes"

In large proportions? Care to address the other examples or more importantly the bigger point?

" Really? I like the colors, so does my wife and daughter. You could argue the contrary, Ubuntu's aesthetics is Linux strong point; there's always an alternative."

Again this is hard to address when ducking everything else. More broadly what do Linux's aesthetics say about it as a product?

"Because we all know the commercial space with it's insane deadlines and feature creep create wonderful quality..."

I agree. Been there and done that. And I took away some valuable lessons. Having someone focusing attention on a problem and holding a group (truly) accountable is sometimes necessary. Linux development models make this difficult. The "driver's" role is choosing between more functionality and finishing what is already done. And yes, making it attractive.

To summarize my POV: Linux has quality problems which I see reflected in Ubuntu's color scheme, almost all distros startup UI, and then the invariable setup issues, program bugs, conflicting UI conventions between programs, etc.

I really want Linux (or some Open Source OS) to succeed. I use it as much as I can where I work and I dual boot at home (Windows and Ubuntu). I work with commercial products all day and I hate how much money my company has to pay for them. Then I see what you can buy off the shelf for home machines and again I hate it. But I hate to admit their quality (not quantity of features, not performance under load, etc.) but their completeness of their product (what they choose to release) and their attention to detail is ahead of Linux.

"You're confusing the usefulness of a car with building your life around it. Most people also have shoes, phones, t-shirts, underpants, socks etc but they don't *build* their life around these items."

I reread this and realized I did not address this point very well. If you don't think you build you life around these items:

- pants and underwear: try living a month without those and continue to function normally. Could you buy groceries?

- shoes: a winter month without them would kill you where I live. Or you'd stay inside. I'd say that changes how you build your life.

- phones: I'd be happy without but most peoples' lives would be strongly affected. Some people couldn't do their jobs.

- socks: you're right

- computers: do I need to answer this to an osnews reader?

"If you don't think you build you life around these items"

I don't, they're simply very useful. Building your life around something means taking an extraordinary interest in it.

"Why don't other distros' alphas get such scrutiny? "

Please feel free to use your spare time to write about other distros alphas. Noone is stopping you from doing this.

Well if you must, then you should also post a link to Aaron's response to that post, which was also aggregated on planetkde:

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2007/08/xinerama-and-plasma.html

I reckon he has some credibility as well, maybe even a bit more...

I don't see why they should put any effort into anything other than Ubuntu. So much depends on the DE, that the DE, and the way it is customised, is really an integral part of what gives an operating system its character. If communities peripheral want to work on Kubuntu and Xubuntu and whatever *ubuntu you care to think of, that is fine, but it dilutes the core focus of the Ubuntu project if the main devs were to work on them. Ubuntu is getting to the point where it feels like a cohesive operating system rather than a hodgepodge of FOSS loosely bundled together like most distros are, and this would be jeopardised if the Ubuntu team were to commit too much time to other variants.

I actually like XFCE over Gnome, but the default Xubuntu desktop does not appeal to me at all. Ubuntu does nice things with Gnome that not many other distros manage to achieve.

I have no problem with Kubuntu being left behind in the dust, as I'm not a big fan of KDE. They should Kubuntu look as similar to the default Gnome Ubuntu as possible if they want it to go anywhere - as it is it just looks like a generic KDE distro with no real distinguishing features.

"...end with KDE vs. GNOME wars? "

The same reason every article about OpenBSD end with "theo is a jerk" slagfests and every Windows article with "Windows sucks, use Linux"; people are morons.

Oh.

You can use getdeb.net, backports, zeroinstall, klik, autopackage and even compile your own stuff, so its not like you are limited in any way.

Oh, but I am limited, since using third-party repositories and package managers is not the “official”, “recommended”, “supported” way of installing software. Also, compiled software is not software the package manager is aware of. The backport repositories maintainers are fascists, they won't backport applications that bring "too much newer functionality that could b0rk the oh, so fragile atp-get ecosystem".

So you see, I am locked-in, since we're in the twenty-f--king-first century and Linux is still in the previous one.

How about the Ubuntu community focusing on the OS only and the rest of the developers focusing on the applications they create?

I agree that the official backports are crippled.

That's why it is great to have getdeb.net where you can download new versions of programs not in the repositories.

The best way is to know how to create debian packages yourself. I agree, this is not user friendly and it sucks you have to do it yourself.

I think when klik2 is released, things will start to look different.

Ubuntu should embrace openSuse build service (software.opensuse.org), but they probably won't because they are developing their own solution (ppa).

Edited 2007-08-28 07:40

You are all over the place. You complain that you have to use the repositories which are limited in what software they have. Then when someone points out several places where you can get software outside of the repository, some of which apt will be aware of, you complain about that.

If Linux is in the previous century then where does that put other OSs? Linux can do the "go to a website and download the clickable binary" thing, and it can do the repository thing. What the crap are you complaining about?

Nice contradiction. Excuse me for not saying after you.


It's not. If you don't like it use another product that uses a different system, like PC-BSD.

Edited 2007-08-28 12:07

If KDE doesn't adhere to a time table, how can they be "late like Vista".

kubuntu (KDE) has had most of these features for along time and gnome is still lagging

Like what?

Well they did have the display config thing before it made it to ubuntu. In-fact the one in ubuntu is based off of the work on the kde one.

Only that?

mmm.

btw:

this is the KDE display manager:

http://www.novell.com/documentation/nld/userguide_kde/graphics/cc_d...

and this one is the one shipped with Ubuntu:

http://fosswire.com/2007/08/17/ubuntu-getting-xorgconf-gui/

As you can see, the KDE one is pretty basic, GNOME have had this too since a long time ago, the new stuff is beyond all that.

Edited 2007-08-28 16:28

Like the graphical X config for one.

I don't get why this is such a big deal...I mean there have been generic ones around for years...and really, how many times do you configure X? I mean seriously think about, most of the "new " stuff in Ubuntu comes from either Debian, upstream, or some other distro...Ok they've had a few noteworthy projects in the past but this release doesn't bring anything new and innovative to the table sorry to say.

Edited 2007-08-28 17:43

Yeah, only if Cinderella is an ugly fat ass bitch.

Your ready to fight, you need to see a Doctor about that! I would like to just see Kubuntu get as much effort as they put in to Ubuntu. None of the new stuff has any thing to do with Kubuntu.

Edited 2007-08-28 16:53

That's true but the Kubuntu distro is usually put together by a different team, they could work on polishing the distro themselves. They just don't have the resources that Ubuntu has, eventhough they've been brought under the ubuntu umbrella officially. I also think that the Kubuntu team is banking on KDE4 since they are releasing packages as soon as they come out. The issue is the same that has been stated here before, it is hard to sync development with KDE when they don't release on a timetable. Gnome releases like clockwork even if it is to their detriment. This is also why their releases are so understated and usually not very impressive at first glance.

> it is hard to sync development with KDE
> when they don't release on a timetable

That's something that's entirely doable by KDE. All they need to do is change their "release when enough features come in and they're stable enough" release planning to "have regular releases with whatever new features that are stable enough to make the cut and postpone unstable features until they're done" release planning. The KDE team doesn't seem interested in following through on this change, despite the advantages. The key fears, I understand, are:

(1) With timed releases, you have to cut "almost finished" features until the next release, even though delaying you can get the feature "if you only waited a month or two". This results in releases that aren't as spectacular since improvement is more incremental.

(2) Large architectural improvements will have to be spread over more releases than would otherwise be the case since the "break everything and then get things working 'the right way'" philosophy is just too risky for a single fixed release.

(3) If releases become common-place, there won't carry as much press impact.

(4) If releases are less impactful and common-place so that distros make their plans and achieve greater impact, people will stop anticipating KDE release and start anticipating distro releases. Distros will get most of the credit of KDE developer's hard work.


These fears are valid, as confirmed by GNOME's releases (which followed the KDE model until the 2.x branch), but, IMO, the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages.

I would think that the KDE devs would want the satisfaction of knowing that their product is being used to better the foss desktop initiative, not in hogging the limelight. I always thought that those with the most respect don't say much, but they sure do a lot. Let the DE do the talking, and leave the hype at the door. DE's are nothing without a good backend and proper configuration, just like a good desktop distro is nothing without a easy to use extensible (by developers) DE. I don't believe that the KDE devs are hams, I do believe that they lack focus on certain points.