Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

[aleska]

One thing I think may be a bit confusing to the market is the fact that Ubuntu and Kubuntu are presented almost as completely separate distros (and maybe that's appropriate), yet they follow the same release schedule (like today's Feisty release) and switching between desktop environments is just a simple matter of running aptitude install kubuntu-desktop.

I guess my questions are, other than the obvious differences in desktop environments and preferred apps, what are the real differences between ubuntu and kubuntu? Is it really a good idea to market them separately, or should it all be called ubuntu?

My fear is that a lot of brand spanking new users (like I was 10 months ago) who are moving over from Windows and who have heard wonderful things about ubuntu are naturally going to install ubuntu and stick with that (at least a while) rather than jumping straight to kubuntu. In retrospect, now that I've been using the kde desktop environment, I realize I personally like it so much more, that I really should have been using this from the get go. But I didn't make that initial decision. I avoided kubuntu because I wondered whether it was maintained as well as ubuntu was; I didn't want my first foray into linux to be with, what I perceived to be, the "experimental" kubuntu group.

I think it would have been nice if upon installation, I was prompted to decide which desktop environment I would like to install (gnome, kde, xfce) and then some description of what each is. I know I know, this is probably technically impossible to do through a LiveCD; maybe it would take a LiveDVD instead to hold them all.

Anyone have any thoughts on this subject? Has this topic been hashed out before? Does anyone agree that kubuntu gets fewer initial users because it isn't named ubuntu?

[dibl]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

Here's a pretty nice synopsis of the "difference", which, as you say, is entirely in the desktop environment, not the underlying Linux.

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

To the extent that the entire open source "free as in speech" philosophy of Linux is to foster freedom of choice and style, I would think any attempt to steer people one way or another, before they have seen and tried a distribution, is somewhat heretical. I'm not that idealogical about it, myself, but I see posts that indicate that some are.

It's good that you have "discovered" that Kubuntu is more to your liking, but it's not the case that everyone who tries both flavors (plus Xubuntu) will necessarily arrive at the same conclusion. There are plenty of posts on the Ubuntu Forums along the lines of "tried KDE, hated it, ain't going back ever ...", so it's clearly a matter of personal taste.

However, I agree that a lot of people are strongly inclined to "run with the crowd" straight to Ubuntu first. That's fine -- at least they're running to some kind of Linux, which is what I'm hoping that lots of them continue to do.

[leexgx]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

in my use of ubuntu and kubuntu i find the Kubuntu interface alot more config frendy then ubuntu one allso Plug in Pray works alot better under kbuntu then ubuntu (like pluging an USB flash stick in) and other things that should be auto KDE does better in most cases

allso for new users going from windows to linux KDE is more user frendy the Main button is where it should be and when you wish to shutdown the pc is there as well

downloading the 7.04 disk now

[Skydancer]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

...also Plug in Pray works alot better under kbuntu

LOL, good one!

[leexgx]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

i still think alot of things work that way (you try geting things to work under vista 64 driver wise probly has less drivers then linux now cant even use XP 64 driver in most cases)

testing 7.04 now

[fdv]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

We'll, I'll agree. I thought it was damned unfortunate. I feel the exact same way and IMHO probably hurts adoption. If you're leaving Windows for Linux ... and you're right, it seems folks everywhere are recommending Ubuntu... and you get a full week's worth of Gnome, (uh-oh, I went there!!) you'll be pulling your hair out in frustration.

And you'll be back to Windows and you'll say "I tried Linux, I didn't like it." Because Win and Mac users have one interface choice (sure, there are variants; you can skin Windows, you can use the old-school finder view on a Mac) they will naturally see Gnome running on Ubuntu and never really realize they have KDE (or half a dozen others).

I think it's safe to post your question here (so far) since this is something that can take on religious-war overtones, the whole KDE versus Gnome thing; I just tell people who want to try Linux to use "Kubuntu, it's that Ubuntu you've been hearing about, but with a better interface."

And I totally agree about the whole Live CD concept. If I ran things I'd put both on one CD and offer users a choice, and make a separate download of a demo CD that people can play with. Or, make the alternate install CD Gnome-and-KDE capable. Both interfaces should continue to exist, and we can let people choose -- that's great and all -- but if they never even know about KDE, then it's not much of a choice, and Kubuntu will always trail in adoption, and again IMO so will Linux adoption.

[FOXX]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

I don't think the original poster was too worried about KDE versus Gnome but rather the Kubuntu project versus the Ubuntu project themselves.


ARE they the same project? Is Kubuntu a fork of Ubuntu? Is Kubuntu fully endorsed by the Ubuntu project? How come certain features advertised as being a part of Ubuntu releases are missing from Kubuntu (such as Compiz being installed by default in Ubuntu for Feisty but it's not in Kubuntu...things like that can make fairly important distinctions)? Is Kubuntu actually supported by Ubuntu or is it a leach?


These questions and more should probably more clearly be answered.

[claydoh]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

Kubuntu is endorsed and supported by Ubuntu, definitely not a leech. The main dev, jonathon Riddell is a paid employee if i am not mistaken, and Mark Shuttleworth does use it on his laptop, iirc.
It is not a fork, all the base kernels, libraries, etc are shared, They use the exact same repositories.

Now, the differences are mostly in the desktop UI, and that explains many of the things not available in Kubuntu. Compiz, for example. Aside from it (imho) sucking greatly in KDE, the applet to enable it would have to be 'converted' to KDE as one of Kubuntu's things is to be very KDE/QT specific, and doing those little (but numerous) things takes time and manpower the KDE devs do not have in comparison to the Gnome/GTK Ubuntu squad. But we do have fewer packages to install for multimedia in Kubuntu, and Amarok even prompts to install the needed mp3 packages if needed. I don't think that happens in Ubuntu (but I could be wrong on that one)

So basically i consider it Ubuntu's younger sibling, mostly the same genes but its own personality, and just a tad behind its older brother (but still growing)

[FOXX]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

Thank you VERY much, that's EXACTLY the kind of answer I know I personally have been looking for.


I really like Kubuntu (to be perfectly honest I just cannot stand in any way, shape, or form the Gnome desktop. I've tried it time and again over the years and it just keeps getting worse for me) and I'm glad it's here, fully supported and all.

[sussexer]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

Reading this thread has helped me make a final decision .For the past month I have been using both Kubuntu & Ubuntu Live CD`s alternately trying to make up my mind which to instal . I really like the Kubuntu best but all my friends are applauding ubuntu .So it`s been dither dither. Now tonight I shall dither no more and instal Kubuntu .

[aleska]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

Thanks to all for the discussion.
I wonder how most people come to (k)ubuntu; both from a "how did you hear about us?" perspective, and a "what OS are you / were you previously using?" perspective.
It would make for a great poll I think on this forum, and ubuntuforums.org. I think it could provide some insights into whether this issue I've raised it significant or not.

For the percentage who are coming over from some other linux distro, then I imagine they have had ample time to learn about, if not experience, the various desktop environments. So for them, I don't think the issue of which gets top billing (ubuntu or kubuntu) is such a big deal. They probably know what they like, and are going to go with that. Now for the group that came over from windows, like myself, I think the question of how we came to (k)ubuntu is important. It is important because if word of mouth, and friends giving you LiveCDs, is a big avenue, then the answer is simple. We, kubuntu users, just need to make sure we're really actively suggesting they give kubuntu a try from the get go. You know, we just need to be Kevangelists ;-) If they really just learned of it from on-line articles and blogs, then that means they have mostly been exposed to the ubuntu moniker, not the kubuntu moniker. While not perfect evidence, check out google trends on ubuntu vs kubuntu in search http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubunt...o=all&date=all
Or just type in "ubuntu" in google, and you get back 50.3 Million results, do "kubuntu" and you only get 7.5 Million results. So, make no mistake, from a market perception perspective there is tremendous bias towards one over the other.
What I would like to see is a visible section on ubuntu.com called "New to Linux?". Along with whatever standard commentary one would put in there about key differences between Windows, Mac and Linux, and why Ubuntu Linux might be a good alternative, this would be a perfect place to educate them that there are different desktop environments available. I think it would be fair to point out here that many Windows users may feel more comfortable with the KDE environment and therefore might consider kubuntu as a good place to start. I dunno; does anybody else think that would be helpful? Thoughts, in particular from those of you who specifically came form the windows world, and didn't really have previous linux experience?

[catemu]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

I installed Ubuntu when it first came out. At first I was impress by how easy it was to install it; but also, I was shocked by the looks of it, then it hit me, Ubuntu is Gnome based Linux. Once Kubuntu came out, I made the switch, so far so good, I prefer the KDE looks, I have no complaints, actually, I am very happy.

[leftbas]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

So basically i consider it Ubuntu's younger sibling, mostly the same genes but its own personality, and just a tad behind its older brother (but still growing)

I prefer to think of Kubuntu and Ubuntu as fraternal twins. After all, they have the same version numbers and release dates.

[aleska]

Re: Is Kubuntu technically a different distro than Ubuntu?

I prefer to think of Kubuntu and Ubuntu as fraternal twins. After all, they have the same version numbers and release dates.

Yes, and Kubuntu is by far the more athletic, intelligent and beautiful of the twins. ;-)