Ubuntu KDE

[wallijonn]

Romeyn Prescott Wrote: 
> Both KDE and Gnome can be made to look identical as was demonstrated
> by...what was it...RedHat 8.0?  It didn't matter if you used KDE or
> Gnome, it looked the same. 

Yes and no.

While RH & Fedora had KDE hooks, it basically looked like GNOME 2.6,
it's underlying base or foundation was GNOME.  SUSE had GNOME hooks but
while it looked GNOME it's underlying base was KDE.

Neither would probably placate pure KDE or GNOME users. Those that
loved the eye-candy of KDE went with KDE mainly because of it's look.
Gentoo came along and everyone wanted to emulate their look by
introducing SuperKaramba into KDE. Now it seems that everyone wants to
introduce gDesklets into GNOME. 

I picked Ubuntu mainly because it had exactly what I desired: GNOME2.8,
Firefox, Evolution, OpenOffice, the GIMP and Nautilus - that's right I
do not want a Windows based browser for the desktop. I wanted a Win95
type desktop which was not tied to the internet browser.

I did not want a distro which I had to remove Mozilla and then install
Firefox.
I did not want a distro which I had to remove KDEOffice and ABIword. 
I wanted a clean desktop; I wanted the piece of art that is GNOME2.8.

Now that Slackware 10 is the last iteration to support both KDE and
GNOME, since they have decided to drop all GNOME support, more GNOME
users may be coming towards Ubuntu. 

Those who wish to have both KDE and GNOME can install two different
distros on their hard disc drives. 

As for the newbies, when installing Fedora, SUSE, Mandrake, et. al.,
they are very likely to install everything since they do not know what
they may need. 

I prefer the Ubuntu philosphy of starting out with the best apps.
possible and adding functionality as I see fit, rather than starting
with everything and pruning.


-- 
wallijonn