Ubuntu KDE

[Travis Newman]

> 2) Like Internet Explorer, there should be a single tool that works as
> both a Web Browser, and a File Manager.  Nautilus makes a good file
> manager, but doesn't work at all as a web browser.  Mozilla makes a
> superior bloated web browser, but a poor file manager (and was not able
> to be used to update the menus).  Yay, Konqueror!

I don't agree with that at all. I think that the two should be kept 
completely separate. As we've seen in Windows, that opens up more 
security holes.

> 3) How about cusomizability?  Superkaramba for KDE.  ??? for GNOME??? 
> Nuff said.  Yay, superkaramba!

Most users (not most Linux users, most users in general) don't care 
about customizing. How many people still have the "bliss" wallpaper in 
Windows XP? Trading customizability for ease of use is a good idea in my 
opinion.

> That being said, I'm not saying that Ubuntu would best work if switched
> from GNOME to KDE.  But I would suggest that GNOME was a poor choice for
> a window manager when it's menu system seems so disjointed.

That's changing in Gnome 2.10

I have not
> found any specific issues with KDE, even though so many seem to be
> vehemently against it.  The only reason I've seen people suggest so far
> is -- KDE uses configuration files.  Um -- doesn't every window manager?

I don't care about config files, it's the massive amount of options that 
even seasoned UNIX/Linux users are overwhelmed by. Nobody needs to 
configure that much stuff. And no matter what theme I use, it always 
looks nasty and too Windows-ish for my taste. And in my experience, 
Gnome is much faster.

> For all I'm concerned, it would be cool for a distribution to use a
> completely different default window manager (maybe, IceWM?) -- as long
> as the thing works (and the menus can be updated easily).
> 
> Both KDE and GNOME can run each other's programs, so compatibility with
> certain must-have tools, like Synaptic, Gnucash, Kdevelop, etc is not a
> problem -- they'll run in both systems.
> 
> The other thing is -- my system is already set up.  I would like a way
> to migrate easily to whatever distribution I'm going to use next.  I
> can migrate from Debian to Ubuntu, just my changing my Apt Sources
> list.

Yes. That's a FAQ on the ubuntulinux.org site.

> The original question on this thread was not whether we wanted Ubuntu
> bogged down with KDE, but whether any KDE users would like to see the
> spirit of Ubuntu put into a new distribution that had goals similar to
> Ubuntu, but using KDE instead of GNOME.  I would be all for such a
> project.  

Mark Shuttleworth may be rich, but he may also not want to throw money 
at a separate distribution. I wouldn't be against it as long as the 
Ubuntu devs aren't stretched, but I don't see a point, since you can 
install KDE in Ubuntu, and if there was a KDE version, you could install 
gnome.

> In the meantime, the Ubuntu people have promised that they are working
> with KDE people to try to bring KDE to the main package base.  No, this
> wouldn't need to mess up a GNOME setup.  Imagine a ubuntu-gnome-desktop
> and a ubuntu-kde-destop.  Users could choose one or the other, both, or
> neither as they needed.  For that matter, there could just as easily be
> a ubuntu-icewm-desktop, etc.  Although I would like to see such a
> thing, I fear that trying to create such diversity in Ubuntu would
> break the spirit of the project.

Maybe not the spirit of the project, but to use KDE as an example, when 
you provide too many options, nobody knows where to start.