Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:22 UTC, submitted by vivainio
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu This is kind of... Well, good news, I suppose? It depends on where you allegiances lie, but it seems like Ubuntu is warming up to the idea of using Qt to develop applications. It's no secret that Qt is a far more advanced development framework than Gtk+, so it only makes sense for Ubuntu - a GNOME/Gtk+ distribution - is looking at it.
Thread beginning with comment 446092
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by cmost
by cmost on Thu 21st Oct 2010 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by cmost"
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

""Qt has a lot to offer Ubuntu..." Funny, you wouldn't know it from the sad state of Kubuntu presently.


Clearly a person who hasn't tried Kubuntu on 10.04 or 10.10. Its fine except for Kwin within KDE 4.5 with the ATI open source drivers just now, but that is a problem for any KDE 4.5 installation not just Kubuntu, and the only effect is to disable compositing. One can use compiz for KDE as a work-around.

In every other facet, Kubuntu 10.04 or 10.10 gives you a great desktop with a fine set of well-integrated KDE SC applications, and it is completely free of Mono as a bonus.
"

Clearly, you're wrong! Actually, I've had Kubuntu running on my laptop since Kubuntu 9.10. KDE 4.x, itself is absolutely fine. What's missing is the myriad of customizations Canonical bakes into its Gnome based Ubuntu. Very few, if any customizations have made it into Kubuntu which is why I stand by my statements. Kubuntu really doesn't offer much apart from a stock KDE implementation or anything unique from Canonical to separate it from the myriad of other better KDE offerings from Sabayon, Linux Mint, or Mepis. Canonical and the Ubuntu devs treat Kubuntu like an afterthought. It's little more than an Ubuntu base install with the (vanilla) KDE packages and a few different default applications. And they call it a distribution. Really?

Edited 2010-10-21 00:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by cmost
by lemur2 on Thu 21st Oct 2010 00:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cmost"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Kubuntu really doesn't offer much apart from a stock KDE implementation or anything unique from Canonical to separate it from the myriad of other better KDE offerings from Sabayon, Linux Mint, or Mepis. Canonical and the Ubuntu devs treat Kubuntu like an afterthought. It's little more than an Ubuntu base install with the (vanilla) KDE packages and a few different default applications. And they call it a distribution. Really?


If Kubuntu has nothing to distinguish it from KDE offerings from Sabayon, Linux Mint, or Mepis (or OpenSuse, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Slackware or Knoppix for that matter where KDE is also the default), then how are any of the other offerings "better"?

Kubuntu 10.04 is an LTS distribution. It uses debian .deb packages and hence apt/aptitude package manager backends. It can add any of the Launchpad PPA projects to expand the number of applications that can be installed. It can install any Ubuntu package (most of them don't assume GNOME but only gtk+ support BTW). This gives Kubuntu the largest selection of installable packages (that can be installed from repositories) of any KDE distribution.

This alone IMHO makes it worthwhile.

Frankly I'm struggling to see any Canonical customisations that could be applied to Kubuntu that would be worth it.

PS: I have thought of a few worthwhile Canonical customisations. These are: upstart (quick boot process); jockey (install proprietary graphics card drivers); Ubiquity (distro installer); GRUB 2 and automatic detection and configuration of printer drivers when the printer is first plugged in.

Kubuntu has all of those.

Edited 2010-10-21 00:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by cmost
by cmost on Thu 21st Oct 2010 01:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cmost"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

If Kubuntu has nothing to distinguish it from KDE offerings from Sabayon, Linux Mint, or Mepis (or OpenSuse, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Slackware or Knoppix for that matter where KDE is also the default), then how are any of the other offerings "better"?


Have you used OpenSUSE? Have you tried SimplyMEPIS? Have you given Sabayon's KDE offering a good workout? Have you even looked at Linux Mint's community KDE edition? Based on your comments, I'm fairly confident the answer is "no."

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by cmost
by sorpigal on Thu 21st Oct 2010 12:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by cmost"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

If Kubuntu has nothing to distinguish it from KDE offerings from Sabayon, Linux Mint, or Mepis (or OpenSuse, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Slackware or Knoppix for that matter where KDE is also the default), then how are any of the other offerings "better"?

What the grandparent was saying was that Kubuntu's KDE has little to distinguish it from stock KDE, whereas the other distributions mentioned have added value in the form of defaults, integration, tools, etc.. By comparison Kubuntu KDE is weak.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by cmost
by flynn on Thu 21st Oct 2010 01:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cmost"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

It's little more than an Ubuntu base install with the (vanilla) KDE packages and a few different default applications. And they call it a distribution. Really?

I don't really see anything wrong with that. Then again I'm an Arch user and one of the things I love about it is the fact they keep things as vanilla as possible. I view distro additions as the linux equivalent of all the bloatware that comes on new Windows PCs. A vanilla install is the way to go in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 2