sounder Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12

[Chris Puttick]

On 23 March 2010 16:33,  <sounder-request at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Send sounder mailing list submissions to
>        sounder at lists.ubuntu.com
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:27:47 +0000
> From: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Is Canonical getting "Neroed"?
> To: sounder at lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID:
>        <575131af1003230427r176f0095x3fdfb0fc5fb552da at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
<snip>

> So we have specific-purpose remixes like Edubuntu, with which I have no issue.
>
> Then there are second-class citizens like Kubuntu or Xubuntu. These
> remove the hand-tuned GNOME interface, bolt on a pretty generic build
> of less-polished interfaces, don't bother with custom themes, and slap
> it out there and hope it flies.
>
> KDE is a lot less polished than GNOME

No, it isn't, if anything out of the box the reverse is true.

and the Kubuntu people can't
> even be bothered to provide a theme for it so it looks like Ubuntu.

Why would the Kubuntu people want to copy the ugliness of the default
Gnome theme use in Ubuntu?

> Nope, the default ugly greys-and-blues is what you get. Here kid, have
>  a wallpaper.

Well, gosh. The ugly grey and blues instead of the ugly browns and
purples? Yes, well. That just goes to show ugliness is in the eyes of
the beholder; while I'm sure the KDE artists would be highly
appreciative of your constructive criticism, such a vehement Gnome
supporter should be mindful of the adage "those who live in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones".

>
> Xubuntu is similar, not actually any lighter or faster than proper
> GNOME Ubuntu and rather less featureful.
>
> Personally, I think he should strip them of their special "we've been
> around so long we get to use a tweaked Ubuntu name" status and set
> standards of integration and polish for them to live up to.
>
> As in, "sure, you can call yourself 'Ubuntu KDE Remix' or 'Ubuntu Xfce
> remix", but I want to see a version of the Human theme, matching
> wallpapers etc., and complete functional parity."

The complete functional parity? Well, while it would be nice if some
of the gotchas were removed, and with the same consistent level of
resource Gnome has had from Ubuntu/Debian over the last few years no
doubt they would have been, complete functional parity would require
removing numerous features of KDE which I personally couldn't support.

>
> As it is, these not-quite-equals dilute the Ubuntu brand.
>
> Ubuntu means Debian, GNOME, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc.; it means one
> best-of-breed app choice per category,

No, it doesn't. It means one app choice per category, but with a huge
swathe of best of breed applications ignored if they are not
Gnome-orientated.

> best-effort-to-perfection
> compatibility with the modern Internet of Micros~1 apps and tools,

You mean emulating, persistently playing catch-up, and always being
ever so slightly too far behind, while being unable or unwilling to do
the work that would actually solve the cause of the problem. Or do you
mean unwilling to compete by innovating?

> the best godsdamned fit, finish, polish and integration in the Linux
> industry,

Well, I'd love to see some feedback from the SuSE/Redhat/Mint
communities to that claim...

> and if your personal respin can't match that, it should not
> be called any version of Ubuntu. I don't think Kubuntu or Xubuntu
> match up to that, for a start.

Ok. Sure. The GUI choice that gets the bulk of the development
resource is more polished. How about we try a couple of cycles of
development using a better base GUI and see which would be more
polished then?

Just, of course, just my simple end user perspective.

Chris