After all that’s been said
November 8th, 2007I just want to give some sort of closure to my previous blog post about trying to (re)define Kubuntu’s identity and goals, just to get rid of this chip on my shoulder. (Amazingly, my post found its way to the pages of DistroWatch Weekly. How that happened, I have no clue.)
[Offtopic: I seem to have made this type of blogging into an art, which I now dub as "Blonting" - blog ranting. Special thanks to Sho_ for the term. Now back to my blont.)
What I really wanted (in summary):
… is a stronger brand and identity for Kubuntu, and consequently for KDE too. I dreamt of Kubuntu having the same “buzzword” effect as Ubuntu, but for KDE. It would be nice if Kubuntu stood on the same ground as Ubuntu. But if not (and it won’t), at least we could probably carve out our own destiny. What I really wanted to stop as Kubuntu having to play catchup with Ubuntu every release. I imagined 3 future paths for Kubuntu: the status quo, a KDE subteam, or a separate Kubuntu. I wanted Kubuntu to be more than “Ubuntu, but with KDE”.
But that’s too abstract!
Yes, I admit that, and I intended it to be that way (being a philosopher by academic background doesn’t help). Why? Because I wanted to start an abstract discussion that will hopefully trickle down into concrete implementations. Because I didn’t want to get too tied up with discussing technicalities. Because I didn’t want to start the discussion limited immediately by technicalities. I wanted to open minds, have an open discussion. But in the end, people want something concrete. So I had a few concrete things in mind as well **at that time** (see later for more conclusive concrete ideas).
a. A more flexible schedule – we still stick to 6 months, but maybe we can be a bit more flexible (delay for a few days?)
b. Same backend, but different look – if we share the same backends with Ubuntu, do we also need to copy the interface as well? (Add/Remove Programs anyone?)
c. A different set of planned features, right from the very beginning – sure Ubuntu has great, upcoming features. Do we need to copy/follow them feature for feature? Or do we have to wait for them to finish a new feature and hope to implement it in the next release with a KDE makeup?
d. Concretely and definitely define what Kubuntu really is, for future reference and for posterity’s sake.
e. Campaign for more developers and contributors!
Granted, these are either a bit too drastic or a bit to idealistic. We’ll see later probably some more saner options.
What people have said:
The responses to my blog post has been really varied. Excluding the “I’m on GNOME so it doesn’t really matter” comments (duh! I’m writing for/about KDE and Kubuntu), I could probably sum up the comments like so:
1. Even our own users have different views on what Kubuntu really is. Is it a separate distribution? Is it a KDE spin of Ubuntu? Majority of the replies however, seem to favor the “Ubuntu with KDE” nature of Kubuntu. However, one reply put that quite nicely: The fact alone that it uses KDE instead of GNOME already has a tremendous difference and benefit.
2. Seems to be a common conception that Kubuntu is a bit rough around the edges, compared to Ubuntu, or compared to other KDE distros like openSUSE. The good news is that in most cases, Kubuntu really just works. Some annoying quirks or bugs here and there, but nothing’s perfect.
3. A lot are still hoping that Canonical would step in and support/help Kubuntu as much as it does Ubuntu, like hire developers or put more weight into Kubuntu. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen anytime soon, if not at all. It’s a done discussion.
4. A lot of users are also saying, “wait until KDE 4″, like KDE 4.0 will magically solve all these. Indeed, KDE 4 my cause a surge of interest in KDE, and it will be Kubuntu’s chance to shine. And I really hope we can make it shine. But KDE 4 will not bring about radical changes to the way things are done in the Ubuntu community. Ubuntu will not switch to KDE. Like the item above, that’s a done discussion as well. KDE 4 will be an interesting opportunity, but definitely not a panacea.
5. It seems that the name “Kubuntu” is still an issue for some people. Personally I have no problem with it, since IMHO it conveys more identity and personality than, say “Ubuntu with KDE”. But a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What matters most now is substance.
6. There’s this one very beautiful, almost poetic comment. And I quote, “What I find amazing is how *good* Kubuntu still manages to be despite next to no support from Canonical. If that’s not a testament to the power of the KDE infrastructure, I don’t know what is…”.
Therefore, I conclude…
My preferred solution #3, defining Kubuntu’s identity and goal, is not feasible at the current time. That requires a lot of sitting down, thinking, and discussing, probably more time than we’d all be willing to devote or more time than we, as volunteers, can spare. The status quo (option #1) somehow will prevail. And after much thinking and discussing, even option #2 (a “Ubuntu with KDE” or “KDE subteam within Ubuntu” situation) isn’t really as bad as it sounds. It may probably even be ideal in some ways, as I’ll try to explain later. Is the status quo that bad? Probably not, if we’ve survived this long. But hopefully now we can at least try to be aware of and consciously stir where the ship is going, rather than relying on the flow of the waves.
So what now?
Since there’s bound to be no big, radical paradigm shift within Kubuntu, what’s left to be done? What else but try to make Kubuntu rock harder than ever! The next release will be a Long Term Support release, and the last official KDE 3 release of Kubuntu. This would be a perfect opportunity to polish and refine what we have all built on for the past two years of Kubuntu’s existence. Of course, there’s also the part that we will inevitably try to catch up with what Ubuntu has (our users look for it, so what can we do? 
). So, what, in my own opinion, could we focus on for Hardy? There are already to specs for Hardy that were discussed during the Ubuntu Developers Summit:
1. https://wiki.kubuntu.org/KubuntuHardyCatchup – to “Ensure Kubuntu has the same functionality as Ubuntu.” (at least Kubuntu Hardy – Ubuntu Gutsy)
2. https://wiki.kubuntu.org/KubuntuHardyKde4 – for packaging KDE 4 in Hardy
My own ideas to add to these are:
3. Bug Huting and Squashing – going through open/confirmed bugs and try to fix as much as we can.
4. Adept – one of the biggest head/heartaches for quite a number of users. Let’s see if we can still make Adept as lovable as Synaptic, at least before Ubuntu decides to switch over to PackageKit and does something different. If ever Ubuntu will switch anyway.
5. Sending a clear message to users – specially with the release notes, both by Ubuntu and Kubuntu. This goes along with what Luka Renko (Lure) said in a comment to my blont post. nixternal has already done a great job with the previous release notes. We probably have a chance of making them even better. For example, as Lure said, probably separating the GNOME-specific from the generic changes in the release notes would be a good idea, so that it would be clear that the under-the-hood changes are available also to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu.
6. And finally, since we are clearly short of people, try to bring in the community as much as possible. As a community project, we rely much on the community, specially in the areas of testing and bug reporting/hunting. It would be great if we could really emphasize on this and probably provide the structure that will make it easier for people to participate in these areas.
I dream a dream
Ok, so I’m a dreamer. I’m also a thinker. Probably I dream and think too much. Anyway, I still have a dream, for Kubuntu. But that dream is probably not the same as what I thought prior to my previous blont post. My first dream for Kubuntu was for Kubuntu to have a strong brand, like Kubuntu, but in a way separate and independent but still based on Ubuntu, following its schedules, using its infrastructure. But I realize that that is not feasible, and that would probably hurt Kubuntu more. So what do I dream of now? Probably the other extreme: a unified Ubuntu. A single, unified distro, with separate GNOME, KDE, and Xfce teams. Each of the teams will be working on and maintaining their own packages, have their own default settings and look where possible, but adhering to more global, cross-desktop policies (we already have that right now anyway: no desktop icons, no startup wizards, etc). Sounds a lot like other distros, right? Yes, indeed. What would be the advantages of this setup? We can have cross-desktop tools sharing a single backend, developed by people from the different teams. Then each team can have their own desktop-specific GUI. This way, no one will be left behind. Hopefully.
But this dream is probably more utopian than my previous dream. Because it involves a lot more than just changing Kubuntu. It involves changing the whole Ubuntu universe, to favor not only a single product and desktop, but three (four, if you count Edubuntu). It requires making the other projects co-equal with Ubuntu and GNOME in Ubuntu’s universe. And that will require a bigger paradigm shift for everyone. It will also mean a change in how tools and featuresare developed, to be cross-desktop and “backend-facing” rather than “for Ubuntu first, then others will follow”.
But like I said, I’m a dreamer…
In the meantime
Real life must go on, and I must deal with real life, as well. So instead of just dreaming and thinking, I have to actually do something. I have to look at the bigger picture, at the grander design. As I try to re-evaluate where I’ve been and what I’ve done, I try to define where I myself am going… Big changes ahead…
Just some small updates, while I'm trying to get off my ass and migrate the site completely to Textpattern.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
There’s also one more pesimistic view you left out. If for one tried Kubuntu and didn’t like it. I found it very lacking compared to let’s say PCLinuxOS. Now PCLinuxOS is a KDE only distro and that shows, their KDE and UI is certainly more polished. I also use KDE on a smaller distro called Frugalware and they take special care of it even though it has Gnome too. There’s the gtk-qt engine activated by default and properly configured a openoffice.org-kde package and stuff like this.
IMO Kubuntu will always bee too much in the shadow of Ubuntu which is and will perceived to be a Gnome distro.
What I think Kubuntu needs is to be a KDE distro with its own name and goals and using Ubuntu packages.
I for one will always recommend a disto that is KDE oriented like PCLinuxOS rather than what seemed to me like KDE on top of Ubuntu when I tried it out.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I worry about the delay of KDE4 until Hardy+1, could there be an option to install KDE4 with a warning to remove LTS support as a consequence?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I think that one of the main problems with Kubuntu and all the KDE distros in general is the freeze state of KDE3.
KDE4 has taken too long, much more than it was intended in the first time so KDE 3.5 is an old desktop. When you upgrade from one Ubuntu version to the next, you find all kind of new stuff that is due to GNOME itself and that doesn’t happen with Kubuntu. ¿What’s new in KDE to upgrade from Feisty to Gutsy? ¿And from Edgy to Feisty? and so on.
KDE 3.5 was released two years ago and it was even not going to happen. KDE 3.4 was intended to be the last version before KDE4 so KDE 3.5 is a minor release in the KDE3 series compared to KDE 3.4, that was released in March 2005. A lot has happened in the Linux world since then (Xgl, AIGLX, Compiz, Cairo, Hal and Dbus improvements) and KDE has not integrated any of them just because they are going to be integrated in KDE4 so basically you have a desktop that two years ago was much better than Gnome but that now is being left behind because in those two years Gnome has been improved a lot.
Meanwhile, we have a KDE4 that will be in a Beta state (named KDE 4.0) by the end of this year (I hope) and that will be stable enough to use maybe by the time Kubuntu 8.10 will ship (with KDE 4.1, I hope) so until then, people will find basically a 2005 desktop in a 2008 distribution.
The other big problem of course is the lack of support from Canonical but that’s a different story.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I think the developers need to stop looking at whether a piece of software is made with QT, GTK, or whatever else. Default packages need to be chosen based on which one is better for the job. Why try to make Adept better when Synaptic already does a great job? Most KDE distributions put Firefox in, yet Kubuntu won’t. I could go on with the list. Ubuntu does the same thing (Amarok & K3b are a couple of examples).
November 8th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Hi Juan,
Thank you for the great post!
Like you, I would like to see the name of Kubuntu gain as much brand identity as Ubuntu. However, I don’t think it can happen: here’s why.
Brand identity is almost 100% marketing, and marketing requires ressources. And I don’t think Canonical has any interest in divesting marketing ressources to Kubuntu, especially if it’s about positioning it as something different, something more than Ubuntu. Diluting their own main brand would be counterproductive and I very much don’t expect them to do that.
Besides, Kubuntu IS Ubuntu, in people’s mind, I think. While data is not the plural of anecdote, I have seen enough occurences of people saying “I use Ubuntu” when it was really Kubuntu installed, to make me wonder.
This is why I still think the only feasible way to give Kubuntu the marketing exposure it deserves, is to position it as “Ubuntu: Advanced Technology For People”, relatively to “Regular Ubuntu: Daddy’s Desktop”.
And that’s where renaming Kubuntu to “Ubuntu Advanced” or something of that ilk comes in. The marketing money is on the name ‘Ubuntu’. We can either try to go against that (in vain, I think), or instead appropriate the power of that brand; the choice is ours, ultimately.
I wonder if we could get commenters on this blog to suggest better names along the same idea. I already brought up “Ubuntu Appeal”, “Ubuntu Plasma” and stuff like that, based on KDE projects of the same names, but I would love to see more intelligent people than me seize the idea and invent better names.
And yeah, like Juan, I did dream of Kubuntu making it happen on its own with the sheer awesomeness of its technology. Alas, the world doesn’t work like that.
Thoughts?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I’m wondering, don’t you see the uselesness of a venture that isn’t able to define its goals “because it requires sitting down and thinking hard”? It requires more than just christening the child to make it grow up.
Sit down and find out where you want to go, and you’ll find others going the same route.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Nice post. Agitation is good. If Kubuntu’s definition is never questioned it will never change. I’d say it simply isn’t time for Kubuntu to stand on it’s own, yet. If that is our dream then we will need the critical mass of users, devs, and doc writers to gather around the product. IMO, KDE4 will be the magnet that pulls the resources to it. I’m in for doc and bug testing this cycle, and I hope we’ll gather some more. As you said, it’s an LTS, and that’s important.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Indeed, I think we need to work VERY hard at KDE4. I have heard from many many GNOME users that they would give KDE4 a serious try because it looks so cool/has good technologies
November 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I think it would be best (and I know this is probably a pipe dream) if there was just “Ubuntu”, and the desktop/wm was entirely optional at install time. One DVD to install Ubuntu w/Gnome or Ubuntu w/KDE or Ubuntu w/Xfce, or whatever. Kubuntu will always be second-rate because Ubuntu has the name recognition, and so that is what most people unfamiliar with the different desktops will install.
Also, I feel there needs to be a better effort to educate people about desktops. I don’t mean just evangelizing KDE (which is good, but not perfect). I mean actually educating people about what the pros and cons of various desktops are, objectively, and what traits make them different from one another. Kind of like a flame war, but without any flames.
To Tom Mann: so far as I know, KDE4 will still be an option in Hardy, much like it’s an option in Gutsy. It’s available, but I don’t use it because… well, it’s not very usable.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I wrote most of my opinions about this Kubuntu problem in a comment to your previous post a few hours ago, so now just a few words about this post:
> b. Same backend, but different look – if we share the same backends with Ubuntu, do we also need to copy the interface as well? (Add/Remove Programs anyone?)
Maybe you’re right, Kubuntu doesn’t need to copy everything from Ubuntu. Just copy the good things
And add a few things that Ubuntu hasn’t got…
> e. Campaign for more developers and contributors!
I agree
> what’s left to be done? What else but try to make Kubuntu rock harder than ever!
Yeah :]
> Adept – one of the biggest head/heartaches for quite a number of users. Let’s see if we can still make Adept as lovable as Synaptic, at least before Ubuntu decides to switch over to PackageKit and does something different.
I personally don’t use any of those GUI package tools – I only use Aptitude… not that I’m some huge fan of working in console, not at all, but I’ve found that Aptitude gives me more control than the other apps. I can see exactly what packages, libraries, other programs, etc. will be installed if I select something, and why – if they are strictly required, or only suggested. So I can select specifically only those packages which I need, and don’t install those which would get installed because some people may need them (but not me) so they’re marked as suggested or recommended. I don’t know any graphical package tool which has such features – am I missing something?
> 5. Sending a clear message to users – specially with the release notes (…) separating the GNOME-specific from the generic changes in the release notes would be a good idea, so that it would be clear that the under-the-hood changes are available also to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu.
I agree, it would be great if Kubuntu got a bit more marketing from Ubuntu… people may just not know that there is another option.
> As a community project, we rely much on the community, specially in the areas of testing and bug reporting/hunting. It would be great if we could really emphasize on this
I used to test betas of previous Kubuntu versions – Edgy, Feisty. With Gutsy I gave up, because previously I’ve reported a few bugs and almost none of them have been noticed at all…
> We can have cross-desktop tools sharing a single backend, developed by people from the different teams. Then each team can have their own desktop-specific GUI.
Sounds good. I think it’s already happening – there’s e.g. apport, apport-gtk and apport-qt. I expect there will be more such tools split into two frontends… (and XFCE and Edubuntu don’t have to have their separate versions – there are just two main GUI toolkits, Qt and Gtk, so there will be two versions of each tool).
November 8th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“So what do I dream of now? Probably the other extreme: a unified Ubuntu. A single, unified distro, with separate GNOME, KDE, and Xfce teams.”
I thing it is good idea. It will also help “fixing” Ubuntu in general. For ex. it could help fixing this issue
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qt-x11-free/+bug/66917
and other qt-related issues in Ubuntu.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I like Kubuntu, but do agree, it could be so much more, personally , yes, keep it on a 6month rollout, BUT, 2 months AFTER the Ubuntu rollout, both good for Ubuntu, as a brand, and also, if its going to be kept on the same back end as Ubuntu, this gives the development team a little more time for spit and polish..
November 9th, 2007 at 12:07 am
We must stop talking about Ubuntu and derivatives and move on.
Ubuntu will always be a GNOME based distro (the distro specific tools are done in GTK and targeting GNOME).
There are better KDE oriented distributions avaiable.
Its simple: they don’t want us, we don’t need them.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:23 am
I agree with most part of your post, just I want to add a few issues:
* Play catch up with Ubuntu is not productive, it hurt innovation. Also some features from Ubuntu are not really good ideas.
* 6 month release cycle maybe to short if the you don’t have enough developers/testers.
* The small things are more annoying, and usually will be more visible than a great feature. Like a artwork that is not consistent, bad organized/outdated/lack of help.
* I hope that some day will be cooperation to add new features to Ubuntu so that they can be easy implemented by Gnome/Kde/Xfce/… versions (this requires good planification).
* You have to know which people are interested/using Kubuntu, and request feedback and LISTEN what they want/use, that way you can take better decisions.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:03 am
> “6. And finally, since we are clearly short of people, try to bring in the community as much as possible. As a community project, we rely much on the community, specially in the areas of testing and bug reporting/hunting. It would be great if we could really emphasize on this and probably provide the structure that will make it easier for people to participate in these areas.”
This led me to think — I don’t frequent the forums much, but surely there are people on ubuntuforums.org and kubuntuforums.net that come up with all kinds of tweaks to Kubuntu and workarounds to bugs. Maybe we should actively recruit these people to do official development and documentation and bug hunting.
This applies to anybody reading and commenting on this blog — I assume it is because you are interested in improving Kubuntu, so come help out!
November 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am
If you know that Canonical won’t give kubuntu more resources, why not just go back to Debian where KDE and GNOME (are supposed to be) on equal footing?
November 9th, 2007 at 5:06 am
@Shawn: For the same reasons that Ubuntu was started instead of just using Debian. Ubuntu strives to create an end user product out of Debian upstream packages. Kubuntu does the same thing, but chooses KDE for its desktop environment. The way I see Kubuntu is the equivalent of Ubuntu but with KDE, and using the same repositories and other infrastructure so as not to duplicate non-DE-specific work. It’s a KDE-centric Debian derivative that shares the work and vision of Canonical and the Ubuntu community in an efficient manner.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:28 am
@getaceres:
” A lot has happened in the Linux world since then (Xgl, AIGLX, Compiz, Cairo, Hal and Dbus improvements) and KDE has not integrated any of them…”
Xgl and AIGLX are X Server side technologies so KDE uses them just like any other X client does.
Compiz is a composite manager with window manager capabilities and, since it is also a different part of the X architecture, does also work with KDE application’s as clients.
HAL and therefore D-Bus are already used in KDE3, e.g. for detection of removable devices like USB sticks, and so are networkmanager, powersaved aand other “desktop” infrastructure projects.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I think Kubuntu should try to follow _KDE_ and not Ubuntu. What I mean: instead trying to catch up with Ubuntu Kubuntu should _use_ KDE as much as it is, and enrich it with the distribution (not DE) specific stuff. Okay, copy the good (and only the good ones) things of Ubuntu.
The integration of Kubuntu configuration in Control Center is a good example of “Kubuntu: The (really good) KDE ditribution”.
And for KDE 4.x Kubuntu should try not to hurt too much the KDE way of doing things.
(IMOs)
At the momment Kubuntu is not my primary distribution but by the evolution I had seen it goes in the right direction. In my case what I really want is a good Debian and KDE based distribution, well integrated with KDE and with the “Wow” of Ubuntu. At the moment the bigger candidate is Kubuntu
.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I tend to agree with Fieldy above. Is there some Earth-shattering reason Kubuntu can’t be released at a different time from Ubuntu? The primary reason for Ubuntu’s release timing is presumably to allow it to sync with Gnome releases. Why, then, could Kubuntu not sync more closely with the KDE release cycle to allow the Kubuntu devs more time to properly integrate the latest and greatest?
Additionally, a split release schedule for what is essentially a completely different product makes sense from the “but everybody else does it that way” standpoint. It’s rare to see a company or organization release all of their products simultaneously. Splitting the release schedule would allow Kubuntu to borrow some Ubuntu devs, even if only for a short while, for some final spit-and-polish before its release. It would also keep the Ubuntu brand more in the forefront, as there would be multiple PR opportunities with the various releases.
Finally, splitting the release dates would allow for multiple sets of release parties, no matter which Ubuntu flavor you favor. And who’s really against parties?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I am of the wait for KDE4 mind set. But I understand that alone won’t be enough. See, right now, you are only maintaining a different implementation as something else that already exists, and KDE is not the Ubuntu main GUI. You will forever be playing catchup in this scenario, because with both implementations being equal, the one that leads the one to stick with. We hope KDE 4 will provide the KDE experience to be a better implementation and/or have more value. If that is the case, then it will become dominant naturally. The other notion I postulate is that KDE apps are easier to develop, and we should be able to attract more developers and achieve higher “velocity” than GNOME. This would naturally switch the balance of power to KDE.
As you see, there is no quick fix. We have to win over the GNOME developers and have then develop for KDE. But there are some things we can do to speed this along… 1) Identify features that are hard/not possible to implement in GNOME. 2) Recruit GNOME developers specifically (this is better than MORE KDE devs, because it comes at the expense of GNOME development, and we get their ideas too.) This of course requires several criteria to be met: traditionally the license terms were the sticking point. Some still think Qt4 is not Free. Also, you have to convince devs that they can code faster/easier in KDE, and finally that C++ is worth learning (if they are still coding the C API).
Do I feel guilty about “scheming” this way? No, because it is public, and every developer wants to have people user their code. If my presumption that KDE development is faster, then this would only empower the developer more. They could choose then to work on more apps, or put more features into the app. Either way you cut it, I think devs would be happier on KDE/Qt. I’ve often been encouraged (read: made) to learn stuff that I didn’t want to, but was eventually glad I did.
If you take anything from this comment let it be that: If you identify the value, and work on equaling and extending that value, you will naturally become the preferred solution.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I agree with post #20. Why don’t you shift your release cycle???
Why don’t you made up some better name than kubuntu? Some people just can’t understand what is “kubuntu”. It sounds almost as an “ubuntu”. But what is the difference?
November 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
[...] have sort of purposely avoided replying to my previous post about my thoughts on Kubuntu, partly to let it die a slow and silent death, and partly because [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 2:09 am
[...] have sort of purposely avoided replying to my previous post about my thoughts on Kubuntu, partly to let it die a slow and silent death, and partly because [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 8:06 am
[...] This is the cached version of http://jucato.org/blog/after-all-thats-been-said/ We are neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. Juan Carlos Torres (jucato): After all that’s been said [...]
January 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I’m a little late to the party, looks like, but I’d still like to share my thoughts on Kubuntu. I started out with KDE (On Mandrake) back when I first got into Linux. I’m comfortable in either KDE or Gnome, but there’s no question that I like KDE a lot better and find it the superior environment. I switched to SUSE as soon as it went OpenSuSE and left OpenSuSE 10.2 for Ubuntu due to some package manager issues. Not long after came the infamous deal.
Well, long story short, I’m still running Ubuntu and missing KDE a good bit, so much so that I’m really considering heading back to the SUSE camp next release despite their deal. Many other distros hate some of my hardware, and I didn’t like Kubuntu. Main reason being that I didn’t like the way Kubuntu always lags a release or so behind Ubuntu in features. I know it isn’t the Kubuntu team’s fault. I know Kubuntu doesn’t get the Canonical love that its Gnomish brother does, but it still sucks to wait 6 months for great new features that are only a desktop-environment change away. I really really wish that Ubuntu could be more like Mandriva with respect to Mandriva’s desktop-agnostic attitude and equal support and integration for Gnome and KDE, but that’s beside the point. Point is, here’s my take on the options:
1) Constantly lagging behind Ubuntu feature-wise doesn’t look good, especially to people that don’t know or don’t care about the politics involved. If it isn’t possible to release simultaneously with Ubuntu and still keep features, then how bad would it be to delay the release a little, as many have already suggested? For all I care, having Kubuntu versions release 3 months after the respective Ubuntu version, but still retaining all features of said Ubuntu version, would be fine. Or maybe even break off entirely and sync more with KDE. For better or worse, a common perception of Kubuntu is “Ubuntu with a ‘K’(DE) tacked on. It really seems like, if possible, the best path would be to either do whatever it takes to ensure equality with Ubuntu on every release, or start doing your own thing to give Kubuntu its own unique identity and innovations.
2) Offhand remark: {Ku,Xu,Edu,U}buntu is the only distro I know of that has to split its name over which desktop you are running. A unified Ubuntu with teams working on each flavor would be best, but in a perfect world, Bug #1 would be fixed by now too.
3) KDE 4. Use it. Use it wisely. 4.0 isn’t going to win many new converts, but once KDE 4 hits its stride, this will be your best opportunity to catch up to and maybe even exceed Ubuntu. Gnome still has little improvements from release to release, but the whole thing feels a bit stagnant. The more popular KDE 4 becomes, the more better for Kubuntu’s advancement.
4) Here’s a random thought. Feel free to ignore it: Any possible chance of/benefits to some sort of collaboration with Linux Mint? They know how to take stock Ubuntu and “freshen it up a bit.” Maybe they don’t really focus too much on KDE right now, but both Kubuntu and Mint are focused on creating an end user product out of (originally) Debian upstream packages. Mint just bases on Ubuntu instead of Debian. But both Mint and Kubuntu are similar in that they are community offshoots of Ubuntu. If the idea of working side by side with Mint is anathema, just brush it aside, but there are more than a couple groups out there that base distros off of Ubuntu or Kubuntu, and I’m just trying to think of ways to strengthen KDE and Kubuntu manpower, especially if Kubuntu ever does really split from Ubuntu.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
[...] have sort of purposely avoided replying to my previous post about my thoughts on Kubuntu, partly to let it die a slow and silent death, and partly because [...]