Why is Ubuntu more pupular than Kubuntu

[ktech]

Apart from the 8.10 release with kde 4.1. Kubuntu (KDE) is more attractive and as stable and reliable that Ubuntu (Gnome). Its just that when windows users search linux they see Ubuntu first and don't even know about Kubuntu until later. I'm currently using KDE 4.3 rc2 and I'm impressesed. It's fast and feautured.

Gnome seems to be stuck since GTK2.
But seems like Gnome 3.0 has been announced.

I posted the same on ubuntuforums and see the replies from GNOME fans ;)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1221645

[aged hippy]

It seems to me that - in the Ubuntu Forums thread - Praveesh summed it up quite well:



The saddest thing is that some people compare KDE and Gnome by comparing KUbuntu and Ubuntu.



;)

[Fintan]

Apart from the simple fact that kubuntu IS a sister project, and a good one at that.
So it gets all the press, which Kubuntu could do with more of, but not until KDE4.x.x really starts to rock & roll.

Kubuntu's decision to adapt kde4 early was courageous and will pay off eventually.

Also, KDE is just not as popular in the States as it is elsewhere like Europe.

Maybe that is because we americans are inherently lazy and don't want t fiddle with our DE ;) :D

Personally I don't care.

The only real issue I have with kubutnu / kde a it is now is the network-"un"manager and kpackage kit which I refuse to use as I didn't use "non" adept in the past.

[kubicle]

IMO, this comes from two things:

1. Marketing
Canonical's marketing is clearly focused on ubuntu, and kubuntu doesn't get that much press. New linux users (who make a large protion of *buntu's userbase, and don't have prior preference for a desktop) choose the default, the one which they have read about...ubuntu.

2. Reputation
Ubuntu has a reputation (justifiably so) of a gnome-first distribution, and many kde users rather choose a distribution that focuses on kde (like opensuse or mandriva)

However, you can't really judge the popularity of kde and gnome based on the ratio of ubuntu and kubuntu users.

Traditionally, kde has been the more popular one of the two, but I'd estimate the playing field is quite level nowadays (ubuntu's success is a contributing factor here). There seems to also be geographical differences in the popularity of the desktops, kde seems to be strong in Central Europe and Latin America, while gnome is very popular in the US, for example.

EDIT: looks like Fintan stole my points already ;)

[aged hippy]

The only real issue I have with kubutnu / kde a it is now is the network-"un"manager and kpackage kit which I refuse to use as I didn't use "non" adept in the past.



I used Kpackagekit twice, once to up-date after installing.... then to install Synaptic. ;D

[Fintan]

looks like Fintan stole my points already

Sue me ;D

[lmilano]

I honestly think Ubuntu has a lot more polish then Kubuntu, and it is a better distro now. I just think KDE is so much better than GNOME that it makes it worthwhile to me.

Now the bright side: the Ubuntu family is moving in a direction I always advocated (and the FSF encourages): desktop independent libraries plus front ends for different DE's. Examples:

* Network manager and its GNOME and KDE front ends. Brilliant (I know, wicd is more solid but doesn't fit that)

* Package Kit, Policy Kit and its GNOME and KDE front ends. Brilliant. It hurts now because KPackageKit is broken now. But we need to be patient.

If we encourage and support these initiatives (and propose more along these lines), soon enough (within one year) both Kubuntu and Ubuntu will have similar degrees of polish. GNOME will still be more popular, because people download the default OS, and that's GNOME based and not about to change. I wish it was KDE, but hey.

[Fintan]

Just for the fun of it:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ubuntu-9-10-Alpha-3-Comes-with-Ubuntu-One-and-Linux-Kernel-2-6-31-117368.shtml

Have a close read ??? :P ::)

[BigCityCat]

I think it's because you have tons of new people that are just experimenting and Ubuntu is the most popular. Most new users have no idea what KDE is. Then you have old school guys who are command line guys and gui isn't important. In fact gui is almost looked down on as too windows like.

I really love this new kde 4.3. It's awesome.

[GreyGeek]

When Michael De Icaza first create GNOME he gave as his reason the fact that KDE was not GPL. Now, nearly a decade later, Qt, on which KDE is built, has been under the GPL for several years, and GTK, on which GNOME is built, is moving toward a dependency on MONO, which has licensing issues. So time has reversed the situation. This has given rise to the infamous "desktop wars" of the past but, thankfully, those wars are a thing of the past.

When GNOME versioned from GTK 1.x to GTK 2.0 the GNOME developers also began emphasizing a "Keep it simple" approach. There was a lot of whining at the time by some GNOME users that the "new" GNOME was "dumbed down". When KDE versioned from 2.x to 3.0 there was a lot of whining amongst KDE users then, just as there has been a lot of whining now, as KDE 3.5.x versioned to KDE4. The Ubuntu Technical Board's announcement that the GNOME desktop remix will become dependent on MONO has raised a lot of complaints with GNOME users. Time erased past whines and will erase present whines. Both desktops have matured to very usable levels and which one a person uses is totally a matter of aesthetic AND political choices. Personally, I wouldn't touch a MONO tainted distro with a 20' pole.

Ubuntu's increasing popularity in the US is the result of marketing by Canonical, and that has led to a situation similar to what made Windows popular, being preinstalled on PC OEMS like Dell and others. In Europe SuSE and Mandrake were very popular. Mandrake changed its name to Mandriva and is still popular in Europe. The German distro, SuSE, was sold to Novell, which changed its name to SUSE, but SUSE is not as popular in Europe as SuSE was. SuSE featured the KDE desktop and after Novell got a hold of it they made GNOME the default. A recent uprising among OpenSUSE users is trying to get KDE reinstated as the default desktop. Mandriva has always been a KDE desktop, but they have recently released a version featuring GNOME. PCLinuxOS, MEPIS, KNOPPIX and several other top distros feature KDE, but Mint features GNOME. While KDE enjoyed a large share of the Linux desktop market in the past, that market is currently about equally divided, with the XFCE and WindowMaker Xclients rounding out the top 4 Linux desktops.

Most users will stay with the OS that is installed on their computer when they bought it, and for most Linux powered computers that is GNOME. However, if they have problems and they come to forums like this they hear about KDE and get curious. The LiveCD resolves that curiosity. Some switch and some do not. Besides desktop hopping there is also a lot of distro hopping. Most hopping around is more out of curiosity and playing around, because one can afford to do that in Linux, than it is about dissatisfaction. Linux is Linux, regardless of which desktop you use, or if you prefer the console.

Basically, which desktop is better depends on which one you like. What others think about your choice is immaterial.

[claydoh]

Basically, which desktop is better depends on which one you like. What others think about your choice is immaterial.


+1 :)
I would also add the fact that I may choose one environment doesn't mean that the alternatives are bad.

[kbunt]

Why does Kubuntu's KDE have a poor rep? I am being completely neutral as I plead ignorance in this case but I wanted to hear the other side. I am sure that someone here will know what I mean and this is specific to the 'KDE version' in Kubuntu. I didn't know that there was a distinction between the various distros which use KDE (especially KDE 4) and I suppose there are some differences between the most recent developments in KDE (i.e. KDE 4.3). I didn't know that the differences were so significant that various users had preferences or alluded to one doing 'a better job' than other distro's developers etc.

Do they refer to which packages they use or how they implement them? The devs? Or how they utilize and modify the packages or what?

Anyhow, I have read repeatedly from various sources of Linux users being negative on Kubuntu's KDE use (and I guess most of it applies to a preconceived notion that Ubuntu favors, well, Gnome and so the KDE work or implementation is neglected or shoddy?

[lmilano]

Why does Kubuntu's KDE have a poor rep?


Excellent question, and I am not sure I know the answer. But here are some thoughts:

* Anything *buntu gets bashed, because the *buntu has been very successful, and success tends to draw lots of reactions in the Linux community.

* Ubuntu (Gnome) has a lot more polish, because it get a lot more resources. Some KDE lovers feel that Canonical is neglecting them, and that other distros have a more polished and complete experience built around KDE. This seems true of OpenSuse, though I strongly support http://boycottnovell.com/

* The wrong conclusion, though, is that the KDE in Kubuntu is bad. This is just not true.

Cheers!

[claydoh]

Why does Kubuntu's KDE have a poor rep?


Excellent question, and I am not sure I know the answer. But here are some thoughts:

* Anything *buntu gets bashed, because the *buntu has been very successful, and success tends to draw lots of reactions in the Linux community.

I agree here, and the fact that Kubuntu does get less resources than Ubuntu does tend to add to the perception that Kubuntu is not as good because of the different level support from Canonical.

Personally, while I would love to see Kubuntu's KDE get the same level of attention as Ubuntu's Gnome, it is pretty unrealistic to expect this to happen. And I am not upset by this in any way. Why dilute the fine work Ubuntu has done for the Linux community?


* Ubuntu (Gnome) has a lot more polish, because it get a lot more resources. Some KDE lovers feel that Canonical is neglecting them, and that other distros have a more polished and complete experience built around KDE. This seems true of OpenSuse, though I strongly support http://boycottnovell.com/

Opensuse and mandriva often heavily patch their KDE implementation, as well as add distro-specific tools and programs. Sometimes, they 'backport' features and code from development versions. Kubuntu and I assume Debian are much, much closer to a 'stock' implementation of KDE.


* The wrong conclusion, though, is that the KDE in Kubuntu is bad. This is just not true.

Cheers!


Agreed :)

I am positive that many of the reasons a user of Distro A thinks Distro B is terrible can be pointed back to Distro A by another user for whom Distro A does not work well, but Distro B works wonderfully :)

[GreyGeek]

Why does Kubuntu's KDE have a poor rep?


I am not sure that it does, except among Ubuntu GNOME users "protecting their turf" and KDE 3.5.x users who hate KDE4.

Every time I have tried Ubuntu, and distros based on it, like Mint, the experiment failed because Ubuntu's HAL could never configure my video chip (GM45) and it gave me a grey screen, even though the desktop was up and working invisibly. I never tried Kubuntu because I figured that it used the same HAL as Ubuntu.

I had been running Mandriva PWP 2009 for about 6 months. It featured KDE 4.1.3, which worked very well for me, but it could not give me 3D accelerated video. And, Mandriva announced that they would not move to KDE 4.2 until the spring release. At about the same time I heard that Kubuntu Jaunty featured 4.2 so, on a lark, I booted the LiveCD. In addition to KDE 4.2 I was stunned to see 3D accelerated video. I switched to Kubuntu immediately.

In the last 6 months I have upgraded to KDE 4.3, which is stunning, much faster and stable.

IMO, KDE 4.3 and Kubuntu is VERY POLISHED.

Yesterday I replaced FireFox 3.0 with 3.5. The difference in speed between FF3 and FF3.5 is just as remarkable. Now, FF is as fast as KDE4.3 is on my box.

This laptop came with VISTA Home Edition preinstalled. It was SLOW, buggy, was constantly throwing up useless confirmation dialogs. Visually, it was better looking than XP but isn't nearly as beautiful as KDE 4.3. Functionally, in terms of power and ease of use, KDE 4.3 far outshines any other OS or destkop I have ever used or tried.

[Ole Juul]

Most people outside the net ("real life" lol) know only the name Ubuntu, if they've even heard of Linux. That is not a bad thing. Canonical has done a great job of getting "the alternative" out to the general public and we will all gain in the long run. But I think there is more to it.

I think it has a bit to do with expectation. Many people new to Linux will be coming from the MS-Windows environment, and will not have as high expectations of their desktop. I only have a little experience with Gnome but although it is obviously very polished and functional, it seems not to be as configurable - just like MS-Win in that respect.

KDE on the other hand can expand the desktop experience considerably. Right now I have 29 windows open on 5 desktops. (KDE v3.5) Three of those windows are terminals, two of which connect to other computers. All of that is right at my (left hand) fingertips with Ctrl-Fx and Alt-Tab. (Thumb-1st finger, Thumb-middle finger) In other words: with a trivial, and very ergonomic, movement, I can shift my window choices in two dimensions. I have little MS-Win experience, but I don't think that is how they do it over there. Not everyone will want that complexity, but the bottom line is that I don't think that many "switchers" know what they're missing when their first encounter is Ubuntu.

PS: If indeed Ubuntu is more popular, then not to worry - our time will come. :)

[Snowhog]

Right now I have 29 windows open on 5 desktops.


Holy c*%p! :o

But hey, that's the power of linux. ;D I have both Ubuntu and Kubuntu (two of my three installed linux OS's). I do find that I enjoy 'visually' what Kubuntu and KDE bring to the table, and I am a visual person.

My Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope installation is very stable - I've had no problems with it. But I can say the same for my Kubuntu Intrepid Ibex.

[Ole Juul]

I have both Ubuntu and Kubuntu (two of my three installed linux OS's).
Is the third one Greek Sidux?
In the multi language OS department, I don't bother to use anything other than English, but I do read a lot of Danish news and keep up a bit with the IT in that country. Boy, they sure do like their MS over there - although there seems to be very good Danish support in Linux.

[Snowhog]

Yes, my third is (was) sidux Πόντος (English version). It is now, sidux in name only, as I've purged the developers sidux specific packages (and kernel) in favor of a 'purer' debian sid system running on a customized kernel (developed by damantz).

[Adrian]

It's not based on objective assessment of quality (although Kubuntu is the poor relative -- for example update notifier still doesn't work right) the main cause is that when Ubuntu was released Kubuntu was not even available -- so people got used with Ubuntu and GNOME. Same with the press and with the general marketing image. When people outside Kubuntu users think Canonical they think "Ubuntu". Even trolls on other sites say "Ubuntu sucks" they don't even bother to say "Kubuntu sucks" (unless it's a KDE distribution forum ;D )

For what is worth this is irrelevant for me, I do wish Canonical would pay more attention to Kubuntu and don't release without features that are available (or working) in Ubuntu. Update notification is one if them (it doesn't work for me at least, some people claim that it works), guess account is another one, also the Ubuntu One doesn't have KDE client as far as I know... but again the popularity of Ubuntu vs Kubuntu is not based on a objective assessment -- it's just herd mentality, marketing, and getting used with it...

[lmilano]

IIRC, there was a proposal very early in Ubuntu's life to have Ubuntu-Gnome, Ubuntu-KDE, etc, let the user decide, at download time, to choose a "flavour", and IIRC again, Mark's idea was to have a simple alternative idea to Windows, so he thought one flavour had to be chosen as the official flavour and not bother the user.

I think that was a sane decision. I would have preferred KDE to be chosen, which I believe was a better choice in technical merits (consistency of the interface, quality of the underlying libraries, possibilities of clean development and expansion of the default desktop).

However, Mark is using his own money to fund this. He is supporting all this out of his altruism, in part to give back to the open source community that allowed him to get rich, and in part because he believes in a better world, and he rightly thinks Free(dom) Software is a way towards that.

So, I have nothing but respect and gratitude to Mark Shuttleworth, and I respect his decision.

What _we_ can do is help the Kubuntu project. Here:
http://www.kubuntu.org/news/timelord

Cheers!
-- Leo

[GreyGeek]

Why does Kubuntu's KDE have a poor rep?
......
Anyhow, I have read repeatedly from various sources of Linux users being negative on Kubuntu's KDE use (and I guess most of it applies to a preconceived notion that Ubuntu favors, well, Gnome and so the KDE work or implementation is neglected or shoddy?


I'll posit a theory of mine, based on analyses of the attacks that have recently taken place against KDE4.

First, while SOME users have had problems with KDE4, most complaints can be reduced to whines/rants based on the fact that KDE4 wasn't like KDE3. When you look at the rants found at various locations around the web you notice a trend: it is the same small set of Linux "users" who go on tour with their rants and post negative messages about KDE4 in as many forums & blogs as they can. Some have the misguided hope that by making their numbers seem larger than they are they can "force" the developers to recant and make KDE4 exactly like KDE3. They don't seem or want to understand the reasons why that is not possible or desireable. One fellow I tracked around the web even posted his anti-KDE4 rants into threads that had no activity in over a year!

Althought there were the usual trolling by a few GNOME fanbois they didn't contribute nearly as much to the anti-KDE4 diatribe as a new kind of Linux "user" -- the Windows developer hoping for new markets in Linux by importing their .NET applications via MONO. A recent ranter on this forum who publicly quit working on an eeepc distro, claiming that it was because Ubuntu was "junk", was actually having problems importing his .NET system tray tools into that distro. I have also noticed that a lot of anti-KDE4 and pro-MONO propaganda is coming from folks associated with attempts to get as many Linux distros DEPENDENT on MONO so that they only have to publish their proprietary software in one format: MONO. MONO is tied to GNOME with GTK# bindings, which makes GNOME their favourite desktop. KDE4 is built using Qt4, which is an independent, GPL, toolkit without any Microsoft IP taint. Qt4 and its applications are a direct competitor to Microsoft desktop monopoly, so it is only natural that Microsoft turn its TE's loose on KDE4 and Qt4. Many of the anti-Linux "reports" are by journalists exploiting the situation for page hits. Some are merely republishing MS PR points as "news" stories.

The situtation isn't as simple as I used to think it was: Shuttlesworth spending millions advertising Ubuntu. That is a lot of it but that doesn't explain the MONO fanboi attacks or de Icaza exposing himself as a stealth MS proponent.

[jpenguin]

When you here about Kubuntu, it is Ubuntu with KDE. You don't often hear of Ubuntu as beeing Kubuntu with Gnome

[Adrian]

When you here about Kubuntu, it is Ubuntu with KDE. You don't often hear of Ubuntu as beeing Kubuntu with Gnome


Most correct! Very good observation, besides "Ubuntu" is the name of the African concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy), Kubuntu only coincidentally means the same in one of many Bantu languages.

[rideburton56]

I think the fact that Gnome is touted as more user friendly than KDE, the fact that there is so much less support (from what I have experienced) from the project for Kubuntu (Mark Shuttlesworth had his reasons to pick gnome) make people apprehensive about KDE, and then when they try it after using Ubuntu and run into some problem, I think they go running back to Ubuntu because it is safe.

I found it a little more difficult, but I definitely switched over for the wrong release (9.10), so I am not sure if that is always the case. Fortunately, I liked K so much better I stuck it out, and at this point I prefer it (been running it for about 2 weeks). Even the forum is a little more advanced user geared, which I like.

I almost wonder if forking off and teaming up with KDE would be a better option for this project, so Kubuntu gets the attention it deserves.

[claydoh]

I think it IS simple:
Ubuntu was created by a group of Debian GNOME users/developers who wanted to create an easy-to-install, easy-to use distro designed to make it easy for new users to switch to linux. Part of this design ethic was to be a single-cd distribution. This precludes having the new user having to make too many choices up front during the install, and also focuses the development team to reach its goals without having to spread out in so many directions. It just happens to be Gnome.

As a die-hard KDE fan, I respect and agree with that choice 100%. We ARE the second dog here, as it should be. Now as for the future, that is wide open. Ubuntu sets the bar to a certain place, but it doesn't necessarily take money (ie paid developers) to strive to reach that level.

Right now, the attention Kubuntu gets is more or less what it deserves. The switch to KDE4 is pretty much complete, most of the anti-kde4 whiners have wandered off, much of the recent criticisms are now more often legitimate, whether from Kubuntu ourselves, or from upstream KDE.

As to so-called forking, that would be a huge waste of resources. And as for teaming up with KDE? As many KDE developers use a variety of distros, this would be both awkward and cause some friction, I would guess. Plus, I think working very closely with what upstream could actually come with extra strings attached in regards to theming and other customizations we might want to use to separate us from the herd (ever wonder why we use the KDE logo on our Kmenu instead of a Kubuntu one, for example?)

[lmilano]

As to so-called forking, that would be a huge waste of resources.


Couldn't agree more, I actually think most of the problems we have had would have been avoided by using a gtk/gnome application here and there as needed. Examples: package manager, and some admin tools that were lost in the KDE3-KDE4 transition but are still provided in Ubuntu via Gnome. So, I think we should leverage _more_, and not _less_, in the default Gnome Ubuntu.

Except for KDE purists, most users will rather be able to use a second monitor, and not to be told they can't do it because KDE4 doesn't have this functionality yet. They will not care if, when they click on that section in System Settings, a different looking GUI pops up. It may look a bit off, but they'll get going and keep using their computers :D

[claydoh]

I am a kde purist myself (rather a DE purist in general) but for some basics, alternatives may need to be considered. gnome's network manager applet for one. But it would be a bit difficult I would think to integrate a gtk applet into system settings. It doesn't even have to be a gnome applet, either :)

I sure hope people are not actually being told they CAN"T do something, but rather pointed to the tool that may work

[lmilano]

Yes, I people can and do end up running Synaptic, etc. But ins same cases it is very time consuming to find the right tool. What I think is that all these things should be included by default, even if they are not KDE native.

In other words, the default installation should be feature complete IMHO, even if at the cost of filling some blanks with non-kde applications. And we haven't een very good at it!

[GreyGeek]

Great comments, claydoh! 8)

[forcecore]

Yes, I people can and do end up running Synaptic, etc. But ins same cases it is very time consuming to find the right tool. What I think is that all these things should be included by default, even if they are not KDE native.

In other words, the default installation should be feature complete IMHO, even if at the cost of filling some blanks with non-kde applications. And we haven't een very good at it!


Synaptic has one critical feature that it can repair damaged internal apt system.

[wfp]

Ubuntu gets more media coverage. Was using Ubuntu for over a year. But found my self fighting with gnome too much. Switched over to Kubuntu about 4 months ago, and happy I made the switch. Kubuntu has run flawlessly during those 4 months not one problem. ;D

[gemmakaru]

I have use KDE on a number of occasions and did prefer KDE3 to 4 if I am totally honest. All of the distros I have used over the years have had KDE including Suse, Mepis and of course Kubuntu.

I am currently using Kubuntu karmic and loving the speed and stability. A few days ago I Installed Gnome and I haven't looked back. I may find a reason to go back to KDE I may not but for now I'll stick to Kubuntu with Gnome. It's all about choice right. I haven't really used Gnome before and it's both something a bit different for me and at the same time pretty simple. Mango Parfait would roll in her grave!

It occurs to me KDE (kind of) looks like Windows and Gnome (kind of) looks like Apple OSX. I am a windows software developer so for me, maybe, the attraction of Gnome is that it doesn't look like my work computer. Hehee. Underneath though its all *buntu yeah? As they say, it's all good.

[GreyGeek]

I have no doubt that Microsoft and Apple are taking hints from KDE4 and GNOME! ;D

Switching to GNOME, however, may be a future fraught with Microsoft IP, since Canonical has declared the future desktop remixes of Ubuntu (hence GNOME) will be DEPENDENT on MONO. In case you aren't aware, MONO is dependent on .NET and if it is to remain compatible it must remain dependent. Take a look at my sig...

[lmilano]

It occurs to me KDE (kind of) looks like Windows and Gnome (kind of) looks like Apple OSX. I am a windows software developer so for me, maybe, the attraction of Gnome is that it doesn't look like my work computer. Hehee. Underneath though its all *buntu yeah? As they say, it's all good.


I am forced to use Win XP at work, and I would say perhaps KDE-3 looks a bit reminiscent of WinXP (to some extent, though I like it way more). I find KDE-4 quite different though. And I find GNOME usable but a lot less appealing, but hey, as you said, it's all about choices.

Point in case, I have Lubuntu installed as a secondary light desktop "just in case". It turns out that to remote into my work machine, it works a lot better from LXDE and from KDE. So, I use LXDE for that and KDE otherwise.

Cheers!

[verndog]

...
I am forced to use Win XP at work, and I would say perhaps KDE-3 looks a bit reminiscent of WinXP (to some extent, though I like it way more). I find KDE-4 quite different though. And I find GNOME usable but a lot less appealing, but hey, as you said, it's all about choices.

Point in case, I have Lubuntu installed as a secondary light desktop "just in case". It turns out that to remote into my work machine, it works a lot better from LXDE and from KDE. So, I use LXDE for that and KDE otherwise.


Oddly enough, I'm sort-of reversed. I use Ubuntu as my main distro and KDE as a backup. Simple explanation is I'm more use to gnome and more comfortable with it than kde. Oddly I always though of kde4 as being top heavy and slow. But not anymore. suse was my first kde4 that I tried and was real impressed with its speed.
i just don't know my way around the ends and outs of kde yet to feel secure enough when something breaks to be able to fix it instead of a re-install.

The more I use kde and the more I pay attention and read some of the trails of the posts here the better I feel. Also, you won't find better docs than we have here on kde.

[GreyGeek]

....
i just don't know my way around the ends and outs of kde yet to feel secure enough when something breaks to be able to fix it instead of a re-install.
.....


There used to be a true dichotomy between the terminal and the desktop. Not so much, now. For one PC at work I wrote Python scripts which were placed in /etc/skel and set to run as the "shell" when ever a new account was added. I created two spawning dialup modem connections in /etc/inittab, once VERY important in other distros, but not in Kubuntu, if it ever was. When someone dialed in and entered their account name and password, they were taken to their account and the "shell" was run. It gave them the opportunity to upload new tax filings, download results for previous filings, or hang up. Putting your own executable "shell" in /etc/skel was (is?) how you forced non-root user accounts to run a specific executable when they logged in.

I was drawn to SuSE 5.3 because it contained BETA1 of KDE 1.0. I had been running RedHat 5.0 for the previous 5 months. Now, RH5 was simple. LILO was your boot loader and and /etc/inittab contained the spawing and runlevel settings. You ran xf86config to set up your graphics card and when it created the proper xf86c.conf file (IIRC) you issued "startkde" to start up kde. Of course, you could put "startkde" in your home bashrc file to make it fire up when you logged in. "startkde" was easier than starting up one of the other 20 or so xclients, NONE of which held a candle to KDE 1.0. When it came to networking the easiest thing to do was populate resolv.conf yourself. Wireless wasn't around and one even rolled his own routing tables to make web connections (which were usually dailup or dsl).

SuSE 5.3 was set to start KDE automatically from bootup, so I didn't have to modify scripts to get KDE to start, or do it manually. BUT, SuSE had YAST, which was a powerful system admin tool. From the USER's standpoint, it simplified admin tasks, but it was more difficult to follow what it was doing. If you intervened and changed something manually, suseconfig "sensed" it and turned itself off, leaving you with management duties for ever. The script, susconfig, was called, it presented a console or gui page to change settings, then the "save" button caused 20 other scripts to run, even if your change required only one of those twenty to run. SuSE had set up a complicated management system, easy to use up front, but complicated on the back end.

Distros have gotten even easier to use but MORE complicated on the back end. For the last 3 or 4 years I haven't even bothered to figure out exactly how any of the distros I run get from power on to a desktop. All I learn is how to get KDE running again if I end up at a terminal. There isn't even a tool to use to configure and/or tweak your own video chip/monitor any more. Even the "-high" parameter has been removed from dpkg. One has to create a "partial" xorg.conf file and hope he/she doesn't mess up or burn out their display unit, which is easy to do IF you don't use gtf and overdrive your frequency settings by guessing. Fifteen years ago, by toggling between port 928 and 958 more quickly than 50ms you could over drive the filament in your CRT (monitor) and burn it out. It's probably still possible to overdrive a pixel on an LCD panel.

There appears to be several paths available when going from power on to desktop. Debian (Kubuntu) has one, Fedora, has another, SUSE has a third, and both PCLinuxOS and MEPIS seem to have blazed their own paths. There are at least 5 different run level settings, plus a "typical" one.

From what I have gathered, Canonical introduced "Upstart" to replace the init daemon. Upstart is event-based. KDE is event based (because Qt4 is, which is what "signals & slots" provides). What that means is that when a KDE desktop starts it initializes a perpetual loop
...


#include <qapplication.h>
#include <qpushbutton.h>
int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
QApplication a( argc, argv );
QPushButton hello( "Hello world!", 0 );
hello.resize( 100, 30 );
hello.show();
return a.exec();
}

...
which constantly checks for events. The loop quits only when KDE4 quits or dies. When a new task is run it is added to the KDE4 loop so it can communicate with KDE4, the other tasks, and the environment. Instead of watching (polling) a port for a specified amount of time for a voltage change, or timing out, the even loop looks for an interrupt event, a signal or flag which says something has happened. In stead of watching the line to see if a fish hits, the line rings a bell to tell you a fish has hit.

By creating an event driven replacement for init, Ubuntu has moved the main event loop away from the domain of the desktop and down to the domain of the kernel. The KDE event loop becomes a sub loop within upstart, if I fathom this change correctly. This could be viewed as moving the desktop control down to the OS level, or making the OS the new desktop, so to speak. Normally, the Linux kernel interfaces the BIOS to what's above it, the terminal and/or desktop. Now, it appears, the desktop is at the kernel level. If the desktop is KDE4 I don't mind. IF it is MONO....

[BubbaBlues]

I tried Kubuntu back when kde 4 first came out and it was pure crap. Everything was unstable and very difficult to configure. Therefore in my opinion Kubuntu was crap. Then I tried PCLOS with it's rock solid kde 3.5 and it worked flawlessly and was easy to learn and configure. It wasn't until kde 4.2 that it started behaving properly and 4.3 was solid again. Still complicated and it takes a while to learn, but it's solid. So I decided to give Kubuntu another shot, just in case they improved it, and was I ever shocked. Its beautiful and stable and I love it. Gnome on the other hand, though ugly as it is, is solid and stable and and so easy to figure out, a cave man could do it. Sorry cave men. 8)

I used Kpackagekit twice, once to up-date after installing.... then to install Synaptic. Grin

That's exactly how much I used it too. and after the update, my system wouldn't boot into the new kernel. I had to set it back to 26.32.21. Still don't know why. ???