I wish it were that simple. But the things you hear people complain most loudly about usually have nothing to do with muscle memory. "it doesn't need all this eyecandy" is one of the most common complaints, presumably because it doesn't run so well on old hardware. The scrollbars are a big issue with Unity, but hey look they _work_ exactly the same as they did before, you just have to mouse over it to see it.

With linux desktops, you're not really using it unless you've got your hotkeys configured anyway... AFAIK there aren't any DE's that simply remove the option to change your keybinds.

Those packages are meta-packages that install all the standard-distro desktop software and dependencies (so like the kde calculator instead of the gnome one, kate instead of gedit, etc) for either environment. The only other real differences are in system libraries.

The kde desktop does lack a *small amount* of the polish of the gnome desktop, simply because of developer focus and userbase size. Certainly nothing dealbreaking. Most users will never notice. It used to be a heck of a lot worse, but kubuntu has stepped up their game significantly since kde4 was included.

The difference between Kubuntu and Ubuntu is what packages come preinstalled and loaded on the CD.

To convert a "standard" ubuntu installation to a kubuntu installation is this "painful" bit right here:

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop; sudo apt-get remove ubuntu-desktop

The main reason that the two separate "projects" exist is to organize which packages come on the CD by default, and to centralize the streamlining of the desktops, that is, that the standard collection of ubuntu functionality (including integration) is available under both environments. It's a fork only in the sense that they each have a separate CD distribution, and a default set of preinstalled apps that do not depend on the underlying libraries of the other DE.

Clearly, not everyone was as happy as you thought. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many people working on so many alternatives.

Not a damn thing. You can use gnome 2.x until MATE is working well enough to replace it. It's really the same thing.

I for one don't understand why people get all emotionally attached to their old UI. I've used fvwm, twm, windowmaker, enlightenment, kde, gnome 1, gnome 2, xfce, unity, gnome shell (with extensions). Honestly I think these things just keep improving over time. But seriously. If you are a romantic masochist, just install the window manager that emulates the amiga workbench and be done with it.

Linux as a whole, is the kernel. The kernel. There are different versions, patches, etc. but it's one kernel.

Maybe you mean open source as a whole?

Maybe you mean software as a whole. That would make a whole lot more sense. Except it hasn't "turned in" to anything... it's always been that way.

So the combination is... one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!

Even microsoft now admits the "start menu" metaphor was a failed experiment.

Round, square, who cares?

Before I start, let me clarify that I am not a *fanboi* but the primary maintainer of a least a dozen production machines each of Windows 7, OS X, and Ubuntu linux. Therefore I feel I'm qualified to shed some light on your misconceptions. Take this response not as *hate* but as an assumption that you are not willfully ignorant about what you're talking about, and you just need someone knowledgeable to clear up your obvious confusion. That said...

conceded

Dead last on desktops. Number one in the server space. Number one in handhelds. PC ownership has stagnated. The mobile space is where all the growth is happening, and linux-based OS's are eating everyone but Apple's lunch in this field. Even Apple is still relegated to playing a strong second fiddle.

There are no anti-competitve bundling deals with PC distributors in the linux world. There's also little in the way of manufacturer and application support. Those are the real reasons. Less technical and more political than you seem to think.

This is a gross generalization. Gnome is really no more or less user friendly than any of the commercial alternatives. All of the several different viable options for linux destkop environments have their strengths and faults. It's not any different for Windows or OS X.

For at least the last 5 years, use of the terminal on an Ubuntu desktop system is about as central as it is on Windows or OS X. Pros do it for convenience, but it isn't necessary unless you're trying to do something unorthodox. This is an old, dead, troll of an argument against Linux. Try a modern Linux desktop, it's really not as bad as you seem to think it is.

By the same token, windows is still missing many features Linux had 20 years ago.

Driver management in Linux is handled through the package manager, because drivers are software. I haven't needed to roll back a driver, ever. I did so exactly once to enable visual effects and it was complete cake. No CLIs were employed. The last time I needed to use lspci to determine the model of a piece of hardware because it wasn't autodetected was 2006. The last few releases of Ubuntu even notify me when there's a better proprietary (manufacturer) driver than the bundled open one, and automatically install THAT.

so wait, *you're* the one worried about getting "hate" from "fanbois"? Ummm...

An OS is not "CLI or GUI". OS's work to abstract hardware from software. That is their purpose. OSX is a mach microkernel OS with a GUI on top. Windows 7 is a NT-family kernel with a GUI on top.

You're obviously really upset about linux. I don't really understand why, it sounds like you're really happy with Win7 and that's fine. You can rage about terminals and drivers, and it's not going to change any Linux users' minds about their choice in OS. And since win7 can't run ZFS and won't take the GUI code out of protected kernel space, your angry rant isn't going to change my mind either.

Point being that choice is good, each OS has its strengths and weaknesses. I salute your right to choose and even though windows is far and away the hardest of the three to administer, and you clearly have no need of the superior features Linux does offer, I'm glad you're happy with it.

Linux was already booting in 1991 when the FSF formally announced that they were starting development on HURD which wasn't bootable until 1994. "Supplanted" is not the word you are looking for.

I'm not a huge RMS fan and I agree with you to an extent, but he's right to assert credit for the FSF and GNU on the userland software that is distributed with 99% of installed Linux systems. One isn't so useful without the other.

Well, do you really want someone to give something back to your project because they have a gun to their head? It seems like there are a lot of commercially supported and viable BSD licensed projects, where the people profiting from the work give back simply because they profit from it, not strictly because they have to.

I'm not going to try and argue the premise that the trend isn't pushed by marketing. But the inarguable fact remains that people are buying more tablet and mobile factor devices. I don't in any way believe that this is PURELY due to hype either. I think that around the time of the iPad and kindle's release, the introduction of iPhones and android phones, there has been a fundamental tipping point in the capabilities of devices in these form factors, such that they are actually useful to consumers and offered at a price that's acceptable whereas 5 or more years ago they were not.

you know for a lot of entertainment purposes I was really happy with my PC from 10 years ago. I now carry something more powerful in my pocket. Am I going to compose my doctoral thesis on it? probably not. But I can use it to take notes, look up facts during discussions, and take pictures and video. I can watch my favorite TV shows on the train, in line at the DMV, or while i eat lunch. I take it with me when I am riding my bike or running, so I can listen to music. When my kid and I are in the waiting room at the doctor's office, he can play angry birds while we wait.

so the point is, the shift is happening, and the reason doesn't matter. Developers could choose to either respond to these changes, or not respond. You can argue with HOW they respond all you like. And you should. But arguing with the fact that developers are responding to a changing computing environment... man. Go back to using your vt100 for a while, because it's still 1978. Desktop PC's will never be cheap nor powerful enough for general use.

Iowa City, IA has wifi on every city bus, as well as realtime gps route tracking. Perhaps you should implore the Fort Wayne Transit Authority to outfit their buses simlarly?

There are different metrics for these things of course.

Stability in terms of application/desktop crashes is extremely different from stability in terms of cold kernel reboots.

Efficiency could also be taken to mean power consumption or simple execution speed... drive space is cheap, after all, but time is money.

EXT3? new distros haven't used EXT3 for several years now. That's like saying "some users might say windows is inefficient for machines using FAT32" I mean sure it's possible but why. However you won't find a windows machine that can run anything close to zfs.

Just like we all laughed back when it was suggested that someday people might all have wireless phones in their pocket in place of home phone lines...

Oh.

Say what?

All joking aside, there's a definite shift in consumer behavior. This "overblown hype" isn't making something up out of thin air. Whether or not the shift in device types warrants drastic UI redesigns, well, I for one am happy to see the experiments. Invariably some will fail, some will succeed. If they just left it all the same, nobody would complain, but it would also never progress.

You got me cold on point two. Suppose I should have said "construction supplies". Not sure I follow you on point one. First of all there is evidence to suggest that not only were the Nazis working on the bomb but had conducted actual tests. Second we were racing to the technology, not trying to develop something that everyone already had pointed at us. Third and finally, Iran already is working on and may indeed already have actual nuclear weapons. That program came about as a direct response to the fact that Israel already has them and regularly implies readiness to use them against Iran (despite their general unwillingness to admit that they have them) and that we put Iran in a vice with a war on either side of them, geographically and metaphorically.