Kubuntu Could Be Open To External Sponsors
Phoronix: Kubuntu Could Be Open To External Sponsors
The Ubuntu Technical Board would not object if Kubuntu, the Ubuntu KDE derivative, were to be sponsored by some organization outside of Canonical...
Just rename the distro Timelord already! :3
Quality is job one
It really is immaterial whether Kubuntu continues in the Canonical fold as far as the user is concerned. It is the superior quality of the UI that must be maintained, along with the extensive repositories of application software. Anything that does that would get my support. If Shuttleworth is on a campaign to further marginalize Canonical's products, well, so be it. Anyone want to buy a slightly used Ubuntu t-shirt?
I read some blog post at planet Ubuntu where it was said Canonical did with Kubuntu the same what they previously did with Gnome. It seems Canonical wants to have full control over its flagship product and this is something understandable. They can't control KDE or Gnome. As for Kubuntu it seems there didn't change a thing after Canonical's decision. There will be LTS releases and it's a very solid and community maintained (like Debian) distribution now.
Originally Posted by Rambo Tribble
I'm half amazed that Kubuntu had paid developers in the first place. Not to be harsh but I always found it to be one of my least favorite KDE distributions. I eventually settled with Arch Linux which has great KDE maintainers. I think the mountain of patches that Ubuntu/Kubuntu uses really makes the distribution suffer in the end.
Kubuntu and Arch are completely different distribution with completely different goals. I can't imagine how distribution that works out of the box can make users to suffer? Not everyone has time to play with Arch and do some modifications after upgrades from time to time.
Originally Posted by dalingrin
After installing KDE on Arch I find it works better(less buggy, higher performance) than Kubuntu. Yes, with Arch it is not installed by default but I can't imagine that making it install by default is what causes the general "bugginess". In my experience, openSUSE, Fedora, and Chakra all seemed like better KDE distributions. My major point is that my two favorite KDE distributions do not have major sponsorship or paid developers, Arch linux and Chakra. Chakra offers a great out of the box experience for those that want it and is not completely rolling release.
Originally Posted by kraftman
It really does not make any sense for Kubuntu to maintain their own KDE packages. They should rather package the latest KDE software directly in Debian – together with Debian’s packagers – and treat them just like all other packages that are imported into Ubuntu every 6 months from Debian and then stabilized.
>Jonathan Riddell, the lead Kubuntu developer at Canonical, is set to be tasked with non-Kubuntu work following the Precise Pangolin release.
Im pretty sure that I read aseigo say on his blog that this was already the case BEFORE the release and that Jon was working on Bazaar for Canonical during this cycle for 12.04. So it should give us a good idea of what Kubuntu with more community work will look like this month..
And lets not forget he has a bad accident and was out of commission for a while as well.
I don't mind installing packages or configuring PPAs.
Originally Posted by Awesomeness
However Kubuntu offered a very consistent, integrated and rather painless(*) upgradeable Desktop. This has been proven useful for me in corporate use, where a common software baseline helps focus on your real business. I don't think you want to have Gnome 2, Unity and Gnome 3 alltogether in your company, which kind of happens if you install Ubuntu out of the box. One could argue whether you want to manager "your own corporate distro", but that requires a lot of resources, which would be useful elsewhere.
That's why I personally would regret if Kubuntu would disappear altogether in favor of a bunch of installable packages.
(*) Certainly each KDE release introduced new hardware related issues with kwin on particular graphics hardware and major backend changes like Akonadi/PIM integration required changes in your software configuration. However the user experience didn't change too much and all issues faced were related to one underlying desktop environment (here: KDE) instead of multiple (Unity, Gnome).