Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 6th May 2010 21:05 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The recently released 10.04 version of Ubuntu is the third Long Term Support (LTS) version Canonical has released. I installed this new version on four of my laptops (2 netbooks, 1 normal laptop, 1 portable desktop replacement), and here's my impression of it.
Permalink for comment 423241
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Sat 8th May 2010 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
Member since:

"Arch has an intrinsically better implementation of KDE than Kubuntu does anyway. Having tried Kubuntu 10.04 for a week or so, I have moved back to Arch. This is what I am running right now.

Welcome to Arch! I've been using it since 2006 in my desktop with just one reinstall (my own fault) and since 2008 in my laptop (just reinstalled to change to 64 bits).

And I'm really thinking of giving a Ubuntu livecd to my family members so they can start playing with Linux without too much compromise. Would you recommend Ubuntu or Kubuntu? I use KDE myself (can't even imagine me using Gnome) but maybe Gnome's implementation is better than KDE's for the *buntus?

Ubuntu's focus is GNOME, and basically Kubuntu is treated like a poor second cousin.

Having said that, Kubuntu Lucid is a lot better than previous Kubuntu's have been.

Ubuntu's strength is user-friendliness, but it is really quite heavily a GNOME-centric distribution.

So, if I wanted user-friendly and KDE, I'd probably opt for PCLinuxOS. If I wanted LTS-equivalent-stable, Debian apt repositories and KDE, (and user-friendly wasn't quite so important) I'd probably opt for MEPIS 8.5.

If I want cutting edge KDE and I didn't care about user-friendliness, then I would go with Arch ... which is what I have done.

Reply Parent Score: 2