Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

[dptxp]

I have installed Ubuntu 6.10 64 bit on my ACER laptop and almost everything seems to work.

Installation was however a problem on my desktop (AMD64) with just 256 MB RAM. Gnome had a problem and I guess it was due to RAM.

I do not want to use XUBUNTU.

Can Kubuntu be run with less resources ?
Can I run all application in Kubuntu as in Ubuntu ?
The Ubuntu Forums seem to be much busy as compared to the Kubuntu.
Can I get proper forum support in Kubuntu ? Can I use Ubuntu Forums for
Kubuntu support ?

Why are you guys using Kubuntu in place of Ubuntu ? Is it because you do not like Gnome and/or prefer KDE ?

Any advantage/disadvantage of using KDE ?

[ggaaron]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

(K)Ubuntu seem to use about 200MB or RAM when it starts, so you can have some problems with it, perhaps you could install it without some features and make it use less ram.

Kubuntu uses KDE and qt, programs, designed for gnome usualy use gnome libraries, but it isn't a problem, you can install them on your kubuntu (only libraries are needed, not all gnome files), adept will do this for you, so yes, you can run every program on kubuntu and you can run KDE programs under gnome. Kubuntu and ubuntu use the same package database.

As I've said the program packages are the same in ubuntu and kubuntu, the only difference is KDE and gnome and pre-installed packages, so you can get help on ubuntu forums, just because your problems will probably affect gnome users as well.

I use kubuntu because of KDE (there are no other differences between this systems), I prefer it's configuration tools - kcontrol for example. Some time ago (quite a long time), gnome was considered less resource eating than KDE, but now I think this is not the issue, as both enviroments have comparable speed. It's just a matter of what you like - which configuration tools are easier for you and for example, do you like konqueror or you prefer gnome file manager. Really, I don't see many differences, try both, ubuntu and kubuntu are liveCDs so you can try which best suits you.

Good luck.

Aaron

[dibl]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

Here's a nice comparison of Ubuntu/Gnome and Kubuntu/KDE:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome

I couldn't decide, so I have one installation of each. Maybe one day I'll leave one behind, but they each have attractive features.

There are many more users of Ubuntu, that's why the Ubuntu Forum is so active. But the installation, hardware, and software issues that people ask about are pretty much the same, and so are the solutions. There's not a resource difference, as far as I can tell -- that would not be a good reason to pick one or the other. It's more a "style" question, for each user to decide, plus once you get used to one way, you're always going to be more efficient using the known method than learning a new one, so I think people tend to stick more with one or the other.

I agree with ggaaron -- try 'em both, check out the file managers and text editors and see which desktop is most attractive to you.

[aysiu]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

If you want minimal resources on KDE, try this:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kde-core

[dptxp]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

Thanks.

How do you compare Kubuntu with other (KDE) Ubuntu based Operating Systems like SimplyMepis and FreeSpire.

I have run these two live, both were dead slow on the system with 256 MB RAM with live CD, FreeSpire was faster of the two. But too slow to evaluate, shall try on laptop with 512 MB RAM. They will run faster when installed on the low-ram system, but how fast I do not know.

I shall prefer KUBUNTU, maybe with the light KDE-core. I assume I shall have to use the alternate CD.

[aysiu]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

Any fully featured Gnome- or KDE-based live CD is going to be dead slow on 256 MB of RAM. The more RAM you have, the better performance you'll get out of the live CD, because that's what the live CD uses--the CD itself and your computer's RAM.

For 256 MB of RAM, I'd definitely use the Alternate CD and definitely use kde-core if you don't like Xubuntu.

[MoonRise]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

For me it was a matter of preference of the interface. KDE to me was more intuitive. Originally about 2 years ago when I first stumbled across Ubuntu, that is what I tried and used for a while but I never could get use to the interface then I tried Kubuntu and that was it. As mentioned here things are fairly cross Desktop capable. I have quite a few GNOME tools running. The best way is to test them and decide, either forum will give good support. I've never been let down yet. I have Kubuntu on my ACER 3618 for a little over a year now.

[rscheckler]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

From what I have experienced Kubuntu actually ran much better on my machine compared to Ubuntu. The machine that I am using is a Pentium 4 IBM intellistation w/ 512 mb of ram. For some reason it seems that GNOME is every so slightly more needy when it comes to system resources.

[dptxp]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

Thanks.

BTW, I downloaded Puppy Linux 2.14 just to see how it is.
It runs from RAM (128 MB needed). Takes a few minutes to
load but once loaded runs blazing fast. Just 86 MB, but has
quite a few things packed into it.

There is a 131 MB community version too, 2.15CE. I have
downloaded. Shall check.

Great for old systems.

Has anyone checked Knoppix 5.1 ? 691 MB CD or 4 GB DVD ?
Reviews say that it has great hardware detection capabilities.

Torrents too are available for Knoppix .
Just choose one with correct language.
The version released in April 2007.
http://torrent.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/

[dibl]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

Funny about Knoppix -- it gets such rave reviews, so I downloaded the newest released version a couple weeks ago, verified the md5, burned the ISO to a CD ROM, and booted it on my new system (Intel Core 2 Extreme, Intel D975XBX main board, Nvidia GeF 7900GS), and after appearing to start, it actually died to a black screen. I couldn't believe it. Maybe it's looking for older hardware -- I dunno .... it's the only Linux that I've tried that couldn't easily handle my hardware.

[ggaaron]

Re: Why Kubuntu, why not Ubuntu

Has anyone checked Knoppix 5.1 ? 691 MB CD or 4 GB DVD ?
Reviews say that it has great hardware detection capabilities.

Hahaha - I've tried Knoppix today - no network (even when I manualy loaded the driver) and wrong video card driver - really great distribution=/ If you try other distributions, check if they have some package management system - it is so easier when you have all packages with all dependences in one place installed by one click... I've found two such systems - Ubuntu and Gentoo, but with Gentoo it takes years even on new computers to install programs.