taking Unity to the next level

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, March 04, 2013 01:50:22 PM Jono Bacon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Gould <ted at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 15:35 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 
> > Projecting out a year or two, I'm personally starting to run short of
> > reasons
> > why a non-Unity desktop flavor of Ubuntu makes sense as a value
> > proposition. I
> > can probably build a current KDE + Debian Wheezy derivative with less work
> > than it'll take to continue to maintain anything similar withing Ubuntu.
> > 
> > 
> > For some derivatives that may be the case, but it would seem for Kubuntu
> > specifically Canonical now has vested interest in keeping the Qt stack
> > working really well and will start to pick up work that has been done by
> > Kubuntu-devs previously free'ing time to working other more KDE specific
> > stuff.  I don't know, seems like a golden time for Kubuntu to me.
> 
> I was thinking the same thing - surely if we have a solid Qt stack, an
> extensive app developer program based around that stack that keeps it
> fresh, as well as the actively maintained foundational pieces (e.g.
> kernel, bootstrapping layers), wouldn't this help Kubuntu more? It
> seems the primary blocker here is whether KDE will run on Mir, but if
> Mir offers a compelling display server, maybe upstream would be
> interested in making use of it?

As long as Canonical doesn't follow their usual practice of patching stuff 
without upstreaming, then that might be the case.  An incompatible Qt5 is just 
about the worst case scenario.

Scott K