Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

today's leftovers:

Filed under

On hurdles to Ubuntu desktop adoption

Somebody should seriously advise Canonical and Mark shuttleworth to switch to KDE4 as the default desktop. For the last 10 iterations, Ubuntu has tried to match usability and speed (as described in the article) of Windows and failed.

I really wonder what shape linux desktop would have been had they gone ahead with KDE -- even its 3.5 avatar. Look at distributions like PCLinuxOS, Mandriva and even Xandros and you will know why GNOME is a bad choice for existing Windows users.

All along Kubuntu has been treated as a step-child and that, im my opinion, is a waste of money and development effort being put into the default GNOME-based Ubuntu!

Um, how do you figure?

I for one have tried to like KDE 4 (I applaud their effort to revamp things) but to date, I can't stand it. And, I really, really like Gnome (honestly). So, being that people like you and I with different viewpoints exist, how can you conclude that KDE would make Ubuntu better. And finally, Ubuntu doesn't seem to need "serious advise", they are the defacto (in terms of adoption) distribution.... which means you are most likely in a minority.

If you want a kde based distro...

then go download one.

What is the point of trying to force an existing distro to change just becasue some folks like glitzy shiny toys?

This is the world of Linux. It's a big boy and girl world where you get to use the apps and software you want to use and not what some company tells you you can use.

take a shot of independent thinking and relax a little.

Big Bear

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more