SuSe

I got started on SuSe first and I love it. I like kubuntu's ease of installation though. After I got my video card working properly on my laptop, SuSe looks real good.

Kubuntu and Debian

(K)Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable and testing

I've only used Kubuntu and I like it

Tried Gentoo sorta hell..

Kubuntu is based on Debian

Hi, i would like to say to everyone that i have just a few months with Linux and my Kubuntu, but i love it that is why im able to help some people, and that why i didnt know that (K)Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable and testing, ant it is still great, but i know is that debian "unstable" and testing are in fact very stable.

:P

Kubuntu and Debian

I like (K)Ubuntu distros better than debian cos they get updated every 6 months and have a huge community support.
As for Ubuntu i simply dont like gnome. Its visual aspect is too close to w95. I know you can apply new themes and stuff, but its looks boring. (Its more stable though, but that doesnt matter to me as i use kubuntu in a secondary computer). In the other hand, KDE looks awesome.
I started with Mandriva and it was fine, tvcard and bluetooth dongle got recognized from the start, but the updating was awfull. I like better the way repositories work.

Kubuntu and Debian

Kubuntu is Ubuntu, just another desktop manager, if you have any questions regarding the system itself, just ask a user of Ubuntu and maybe you will get your anwer. If it's a KDE related question there are a KDE section at the Ubuntu forum and now we have a forum of our own. (don't really know if that is a good thing or not, to divide us into 2.)

You can use that wondefull inofficiell guide to, most of the stuff written there will apply even on a Kubuntu system not just Ubuntu, sometimes you have to change witch editor to use though, whenever it says gedit use kwrite instead.

Good luck with your debian system though, (K)ubuntu is a fine distro but Debian is it's both mother and father and without Debian there would be no (K)ubuntu. /// Freddan

Kubuntu and Debian

I never can figure why Ubuntu chose GNOME over KDE as their primary desk-top environment. Several years ago, I chose Mandrake over Red Bonnet simply because of KDE. I used Mandrake for about 6 years, despite rpm's dependency hell. Is it possible that most Ubuntu users add KDE and that Kubuntu's apparent minority is really an illusion?

I discovered apt via Libranet and Mepis. For me, they're both more robust and user-friendly than Ubuntu or Kubuntu.

Now I'm running Knoppix on the HD - an unbelievably easy install from the DVD - and have the full range of Debian repositories available without breaking my system.

A more Debian-compatible Mepis or Kubuntu would be right up there with Knoppix or Kanotrix - and with a better release cycle, but I guess hubris dictates that every new distro has to try and look (and sound) different.

Tear me apart on technical grounds, if you like, but I'm just another user - like most people.

Kubuntu and Debian

I must take a slightly different tack here.

IMHO using Gnome is a very good choice for Ubuntu. One reason is that it makes it different, both from a lot of other distros, but also more different than compared to Windows. I even think the Brown-ness of it quite a refreshing contrast to eveything else as well. Gnome and Ubuntu's default theme are definitely not my cup of tea, but kudos to them for being at least a little brash

Secondly, IMHO again, Knoppix, though a very good product, well, just is aweful on the desktop. Far too busy, far too many apps, not enough polish (though I have not used the latest version I must admit).

As for Ubuntu growing apart from Debian, I am not bothered by this.Slackware was the parent of Suse, and Redhat begat Mandrake (now Mandriva)

Kubuntu and Debian

We're not so far apart, really, claydoh. Ubuntu/Kubuntu have a great team, including the generosity of Mark Shuttleworth. It's early days and they're going places in a hurry, while offering us all something really valuable. I agree that the brown theme is fine and it goes well with the meaning of "ubuntu".

KDE vs GNOME is a tiny issue - especially in any distro using apt.

Knoppix has improved a lot in the latest release and the install is about as easy as Mepis.

I'm happy with any Debian-based distro, but found that the network setup worked better on my gear with Mepis and Knoppix, than with Ubuntu/Kubuntu. (It's awkward having to call it both names, BTW).

We're both spoilt - and loving it.

Re: Kubuntu and Debian

Yes and KDE is the best choice for Kubuntu

Re: Kubuntu and Debian

From my 10 cents worth of linux knowhow, they are the same under the skin, both based on debian and using the same repo's. I choose kubuntu simply 'cos i like KDE as a desktop.

Re: Kubuntu and Debian

Hate to burst your bubble, however, under the skin is where you see the majority of differences. For example, during bootup, you'll find no /etc/inittab file in (K)ubuntu. Now, there are other differences, but the bootup process is a severe, crippling flaw to any linux system administrator who needs to be able to set the system to boot into e.g. single-user mode for security.

Also, the repositories aren't the same. For example, you notice that in ubuntu, to install KDE, you install the package "kubuntu-desktop" -- why? Not sure. But in debian, the name is "kde", which is a metapackage for "kde-base", and a few other programs either required or most likely desired on a desktop. The builds are also different -- things are compiled for kubuntu separately than for debian, last i checked (feel free to correct me here, but I'm looking at the versions, a lot of things are marked "1.04.3-ubuntu" and the like).

Personally, it was only after I got my linux certification that I noticed these differences -- to anybody who doesn't know, need to know, or want to know what's under the hood, and only needs features that come built-in to kubuntu, i would recommend it highly. Adding non-repo'd software, changing core system settings, and so on, become close to impossible if you have to compensate with these differences, however. Differences are fine -- red-hat and debian have many differences -- but kubuntu takes it to a whole new level.

IMO, use kubuntu to get started with linux, but move to debian as soon as you have an understanding of the shell and basic userland configuration.

Re: Kubuntu and Debian

Why move to debian if Kubuntu works for you? I do have a basic understanding of the shell (and at least the basics of configuration) and I don't have any desire or need to switch to Debian. Of course I simply run multiple desktops, not servers or the like.

Now imo *ubuntu is definitely a bit different from Debian, even though it is based on a new Debian snapshot every 6 months. But from my end, they fix things to make it better or fix what may not work correctly. Replacing sysvinit with upstart is probably the biggest change to the base system (and why there is no inittab). Now if you are using Dapper LTS, you do have the traditional sysvinit system on the version of kubuntu with Long term Support. Which I think a sysadmin would consider using if differences are a concern.

Also, you still can installl 'kde' or 'kdebase' these are just different metapackages, thats all.

Re: Kubuntu and Debian

There are a couple good reasons. As said, there are other differences -- edgy, for example, uses the DASH shell, not the BASH shell (yes, you can switch to a bash shell by modifying the /etc/adduser.conf, and changing user's shells either with usermod or by changing the /etc/passwd file. It is, however, still a nuisance to have to do that just to make sure the normal shell is still normal), which, if you didn't know that, it would be immediately frustrating when you try to run a script and it won't work, esp. when it's a script you used in dapper.

The changed boot process also concerns me -- I can't say i'm familiar with upstart (actually, i've never heard of it, and my linux certification never mentioned it, which tells me it's not common), so from my point of view as an administrator, it's insecure by default until proven otherwise. Sys V is (in my opinion, anyway) one of the more secure systems out there. Why change it?

Dapper has support, agreed. However, at the time that it runs out (3 years, i believe?), I would need to look elsewhere for linux anyway (assuming that edgy maintains it's changes and I decided at that future time that I didn't want them) -- it's a lot less painful to migrate while you have time then find out you're in trouble later on.

Perhaps it has changed since the last time I used kubuntu, but last time I did, "apt-get install kde" found no packages. I don't mind metapackages -- but AFAI knew, there were none. Thank you for the correction.

But again, the biggest problem is that the changes DO matter, many of the subtler changes can cause problems when you try to install software from source code, especially core packages (if there is a severe security hole that is patched, and you need the patch before it's available in the repositories, you have no choice but compile it), which run the rest of the system. It doesn't take a whole lot of modifying to make source code basically useless much of the time (core programs, especially things like compilers and the C library, or even init -- or upstart as the case may be -- tend to use very specific things within the operating system that could behave slightly differently). Note that well-written software shouldn't have much problem with this on modern systems, it's just a sincere possibility -- not all software is written well.

But again, it's also a matter of both opinion and needs: I need a linux system, not a modified linux system. In my opinion, debian is better than (K)ubuntu.
If what you need is just out-of-the-box "it works" -- (K)kubuntu's probably just fine for your needs. Just wanting to make sure it's clear that it's my opinion, and not a definite fact, and that my arguments are in many cases also opinions (for example, that dash is a nuisance, not a feature).

Re: Kubuntu and Debian

The dash/bash semi-switch will certainly cause confusion (which debatably may or may not outweigh the potential benefits), but as far as scripts go, one should not use '#/bin/sh' (Bourne Shell compatible) in scripts that uses bash only elements (even though it works on systems that symlink /bin/sh to /bin/bash), for bash-only scripts you should use '#/bin/bash'...even on debian it's good scripting practice to use '#/bin/bash')

Also the default user shell is still bash.

Upstart is fairly new, which is probably why you haven't heard of it. As for the change, it's about evolving software, I think upstart promises to be faster among other things (Upstart and the switch to upstart still seem to be a 'work-in-progress', though)

the kde metapackages are in the universe repository, which you may need to enable to see them.

---

Debian is a very good and stable distro for servers, but I don't see a clear reason to switch a desktop machine from kubuntu to debian, but that of course is a matter of opinion