Idea: Unify the Ubuntu name

Everyone agrees that Ubuntu is making huge progress towards mainstream adoption. But what do we mean when we say "Ubuntu"? Don't we really mean *buntu, a collection of all Ubuntu versions? How do we explain this to the mainstream user? Will the names "Kubuntu", "Edubuntu" and "Xubuntu" make sense to a newcomer? Are they self-explanatory?

I think we can all agree that these names are not easily understood by people outside of the Linux arena. Even worse, they will help to dilute the impact of the Ubuntu name in the minds of potential users. Therefore, if we want to encourage mainstream adoption, we need to use a simpler naming convention.

Let's take a look at some existing names that are easy to understand:
Why don't we come up with some new names that are easier to understand? Something like this:
  • "Ubuntu School Edition" - The OS formerly known as Edubuntu
  • "Ubuntu Lightweight Desktop Edition" - (Xubuntu)
  • "Ubuntu Desktop Edition with KDE" - (Kubuntu)
If you have some good ideas on how to rename Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu, please list them in a comment to this post. If I get a lot of feedback, I will create a follow-up post. Thanks for your input!

Comments

  1. This sounds so obvious I wonder nobody has not proposed it before.

    Other distribution should follow the example of how the server edition is named. It is called Ubuntu Server, and not Subuntu or something similarily silly.

    Once everything is called "Ubuntu", I think that what is at the right of it matters little. I understand it's important to name what is on the distribution media (GNOME, KDE, XFCE), but "Ubuntu Desktop" should be what the distribution is called. Or maybe just "Ubuntu" since that's what people tend to assume if the "Server" qualifier is absent.

    This might also help specialized variants stand out more than they currently do amongst the generic desktop variants we have now. (Think Ubuntu Studio)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that having *buntu rolled all into Ubuntu would be a good idea. It has worked very well for Fedora. Doing so would also allow Ubuntu to undergo more major changes (for example [and for the sake of argument], if at some point KDE becomes more viable for the main Ubuntu desktop than GNOME, all we would have to do is drop GNOME to "Ubuntu Desktop with GNOME" and make KDE simply "Ubuntu Desktop").
    This would also reduce the number of sites that need to be maintained. The Kubuntu website, notably, doesn't have very much information on the main page (it's basically just a blog). But if we were to do this, Ubuntu+KDE wouldn't need its own website, but would rather simply be a part of the Ubuntu site.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been thinking this in the back of my mind for months, perfect. I think this is a fantastic idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know, for me it's sounds too microsoftish. :-)

    ASF
    http://antoniofonseca.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think 'Ubuntu Desktop Edition with KDE' would be even worse than Kubuntu.

    Ubuntu G, Ubuntu K, Ubuntu X, Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Edu maybe wouldn't sound better, but it would be easier to remember and talk about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree with "Ubuntu Desktop Edition with KDE". It should be called "Ubuntu Desktop Edition" and give user the choice of the two desktops during installation.
    As it stands, its too biased for GNOME and against KDE (or XFCE for that matter).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I completely agree with you. Is a great idea, hope it makes to mainstream :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think in principle this is a great idea, however I think going a step further would be even better.

    For the Ubuntu Desktop, what are the core differences between "normal" Ubuntu and X* and K*? Really it boils down to choice in desktop environment and some artwork differences, right? In that case wouldn't it be possible (beneficial, even?) to have DE and art choice be an advanced install config option? Maybe this would require too much space. In fact, I think that's pretty likely. There's an interesting option. Keep the variants, but rename them in a more sensible way, but also have the option to install one of the other variants in the installer, as mentioned above. Then the installer checks for internet connectivity and fetches the required files that are not on the CD as needed. This would allow people to have the flavor of Ubuntu they prefer installed from one CD with no internet, while still enabling _any_ version to be installed from the same disk. Seems like a neat way to de-balkanize the Ubuntu variants somewhat.

    Now, playing devils advocate here, wouldn't this move also disenfranchise people who strongly identify with the X* and K* variants? Further, does that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good idea, bad names.
    The problem I see (with Kubuntu especially) is that users will go to a forum and say "I'm Running Ubuntu, here is my problem" and users will ausme that they are running Gnome.

    Cut the names Down.
    Ubuntu Desktop
    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu Mobile
    Ubuntu Lite (Xubuntu)
    Kubuntu Desktop.

    Kubuntu needs it's own name, you cant label it as a special edition because then it is more confusing than the current names.

    The one thing I would do, is make all of the non Ubuntu produced Ubuntu derivatives get new names.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with anonymous right above my post:

    "Cut the names Down.
    Ubuntu Desktop
    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu Mobile
    Ubuntu Lite (Xubuntu)
    Kubuntu Desktop."

    I don't think Kubuntu can be rolled into Ubuntu Desktop with KDE. The fact is, ubuntu and kubuntu are not the same, require learning to the uninitiated, and all the multiple desktop's are too confusing to pick between. There really is no perfect choice, but there are better ones. Rolling xubuntu into Ubuntu Lite is a good though, imho, because it'll increase Xubuntu's visibilty and make more sense out of the potential options (rather than another "Ubuntu Desktop with X*"...)

    hope my comment helps..

    Vlad

    ReplyDelete
  11. I feel that the existing naming scheme would work well if Ubuntu were marketed correctly. Maybe if they advertised better and used an all-encompassing slogan like "Do you 'buntu?" or something like that. I mean Microsoft has how many versions of Vista? I also think that every version of Ubuntu should be easily convertible to another version, like for instance, let's say you only have an Ubuntu CD, but you want Xubuntu instead. During the installation, the developers could add an option to choose a different flavor of 'buntu, and then the installation could use any files on the CD that are also used for the chosen flavor and then go out and download everything else it needs. Sure, this is already easy to do AFTER installation, but then you end up with a zillion duplicate applications, which directly goes against Ubuntu's philosophy of simplicity. Me, I just installed "xubuntu-desktop" through Synaptic in order to try Xubuntu out. I decided I didn't like it, but now I'm stuck with all of these extra apps from the Xubuntu world that I don't want, and my only option besides deselecting a zillion packages (Ubuntu REALLY needs an "undo" feature, like the system rollback Windows has had for the last 5 years) is to reformat and start over. I think giving users an option during installation to "convert" their disc into another distro would be immensely useful.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I also agree with those above that renaming Xubuntu would be beneficial... Gnome and KDE do things differently, but ultimately they have the same goal and have similar system requirements, but XFCE and Xubuntu are specifically designed to run on lesser hardware, and I think reflecting that in the name would make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Completely agree. I think it makes a lot more sense to have Ubuntu + the flavour. Hope this gets through to those that have the say :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I could see renaming Edubuntu to Ubuntu Education Edition or something, but for KDE and especially your proposed name for XFce are just as, if not more confusing.

    Why is there a Ubuntu Desktop that is seperate for this thing called KDE? What is KDE anyways? Why can't I just install this KDE thing on my normal desktop?

    And Ubuntu Lightweight Desktop edition? Why didn't they make the default edition lightweight enough or adapt as necessary? How come when I install it, it uses the same amount of memory right after I boot up as the regular edition? The real performance savings thus far have been in stuff like replacing OpenOffice with Gnome Office set of programs. Gnome itself is pretty efficient, so that name doesn't really make much sense. For Ubuntu's with targeted tasks, I think its fine for it to be in the name, but if its radically changing the defaults for a user preference, I don't think its appropriate and would just lead to more confusing.

    So, I personally would agree, yes to Edubuntu and Medibuntu and the like, but no for distros that are not targeted towards a different task.

    However, I also disagree that it could consolidate resources. Edubuntu, for example if renamed, still better have its own product webpage describing the edition and the related resources separated from Ubuntu Desktop edition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree that the new name conventions are nice. But perhaps we can jsut make them a little simpler for common talk. For example...
    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu Lightweight
    Ubuntu KDE
    Ubuntu School/educational
    That way we get rid of the edition. Edition implies that they run different software, when actually they are close to the same thing.
    Just how I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  16. i totally agree with everything you said but maybe call Kubuntu; ubuntu desktop KDE edition.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We'd have at least 3 "Ubuntu SE"s in that case: Ubuntu School Edition, Ubuntu Studio Edition, and Ubuntu Satanic Edition.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My 2 cents are:

    * Ubuntu (the main desktop distribution)
    * Ubuntu KDE (Kubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Lite (Xubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Educational (Edubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Server
    * Ubuntu Mobile

    This scheme would enforce the Ubuntu brand.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As i read your post my idea was:
    Ubuntu/Kde
    Ubuntu/Gnome
    Ubuntu/Xfce
    Ubuntu/Education
    Ubuntu/Studio
    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu Mobile

    I use 2 of them, Desktop with Xfce and Server.

    If someone ask for desktop support, he/she can freely ask i use Ubuntu/*** and everyone knows which enviroment is about.

    I also agree that people should have the ability to choose in the installation phase which edition they like to have on desktop, even if it needs a DVD installer.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Great Idea. This could be the way to keep a unique name to the official flavors of Ubuntu.

    This is a must blueprint to Ubuntu.

    The names can be selected in polls but I think is not so important.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You say that using a range of different names dilutes the Ubuntu name. Actually, the reverse is true—it's applying the name to lots of products that dilutes the brand, which is why for years there was only one product called “Coca-Cola”. (That's just a minor note.)

    Using the Ubuntu name for other variants would, however, make the wide range of options more obvious. And it'd be tidier.

    But I think any edition that uses its own desktop environment (e.g. K and X) is sufficiently different to warrant a different name.

    In Xubuntu's case, it's not intuitive that “Ubuntu Lite” uses a different DE from “Ubuntu”; I'd assume that it uses a stripped-down version of Gnome. I know xfce is similar to Gnome in many respects, but they're different enough that assuming someone's using Gnome when they're really using xfce would cause Support headaches.

    Any name that can be shortened eventually will be by someone—“Ubuntu with KDE” would sometimes be called just “Ubuntu”—which would lead to lots of confusion.

    I think the main name should be determined by the desktop environment, with the edition's speciality described afterwards. This makes it much easier to be clear what the edition's primary purpose is, while very clearly and easily distinguishing among disparate desktop environments.

    So:
    Ubuntu
    Kubuntu
    Xubuntu
    Ubuntu Server
    Xubuntu Server
    Ubuntu for Education
    Ubuntu Studio
    Ubuntu But Really, Honestly, Properly Free (maybe)

    and hypothetically,
    Xubuntu for Education
    Kubuntu Studio
    and so on.

    All this amounts to is renaming Edubuntu (for the sake of consistency—its speciality is already very guessable) and Gobuntu (which hasn't even had a release yet).

    One problem is how to differentiate Gobuntu without making Ubuntu sound too non-free—“Ubuntu Fundamentalist Edition”? Maybe “Ubuntu Quadruply Free”, referring to the FSF's four freedoms. (“Extra-Free” sounds like it comes with more stuff for free.)

    Also, I like the idea of being able to install (e.g.) Kubuntu from an Ubuntu CD by downloading the extra bits over the internet, as long as we don't over-complicate Ubiquity's (the installer's) UI.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yeah, it's hard to explain to new users that Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu are basically the same and support the same devices thru same drivers.
    Standarized names beginning with Ubuntu could help that.
    Changing Kubuntu to ie. Ubuntu KDE Edition might create confusion too, but I think it's worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree that there can be confusion when trying to talk about [Ku|Xu|U]buntu. If I'm not talking about Ubuntu, I feel like the conversation is more complicated -- especially with those I'm trying to win over into the ways of Linux.

    I thought the suggestion of
    * Ubuntu (the main desktop distribution)
    * ((maybe "Ubuntu Gnome" instead?))
    * Ubuntu KDE (Kubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Lite (Xubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Educational (Edubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Server
    * Ubuntu Mobile
    is great.

    Keep it short. I've noticed there is a tendency to want to come up with long, descriptive marketing names (anyone notice how even books now have subtitles longer than the main title?). Keep it simple and something that can be easily said ("Ubuntu Desktop with KDE" is just a mouthful).

    I'm sure "we" are still going to say "Kubuntu" because it's even shorter -- that's the "*nix way", no? ;*)

    Short and sweet, just like shell commands.

    -- comin' at ya from Ubuntu KDE :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think rather than "unifying" the Ubuntu name this would in fact weaken the meaning of the Ubuntu name.

    Ubuntu would become some vague, confusing, ill-defined thing.

    Not good.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What about:

    Ubuntu Home Basic
    Ubuntu Home Premium
    Ubuntu Business
    Ubuntu Enterprise
    Ubuntu Ultimate

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree. Not to mention that people need to start pronouncing it correctly: oo-BOON-too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree.

    I like the names you suggested, and I like too these of one comment above:

    * Ubuntu (the main desktop distribution)
    * Ubuntu KDE (Kubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Lite (Xubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Educational (Edubuntu)
    * Ubuntu Server
    * Ubuntu Mobile

    ReplyDelete
  28. I personally think there just needs to be one desktop version.

    Then at the time of installation you have the choice to install either Gnome, KDE ,or Xfce. Much like other distros have been doing for years.

    ReplyDelete
  29. * "Ubuntu Lightweight Desktop Edition" - (Xubuntu)

    Complete failure. XFCE is not lighter than Gnome in reality at all. What you end up in reality with is that people will be forced to install some KDE/Gnome applications because XFCE doesn't provide everything required similarly. That will pull in and running several environments simultaneously, and in overall it's far heavier than pure Gnome/KDE. It will lead to some new comers installing that version "ooh it's LIGHT", and getting really disappointed to that final perceived lightness, and moving along to something else. "Light" should NOT be used as a selling point for Xubuntu, ever!

    I second some comments about there being just one "desktop edition" which allows you to select from Gnome/KDE/XFCE. The default installations contain a lot of plain cruft like crappy games and weird language files&fonts for dozens of marginal groups of people. Remove some of those and it will still fit on one CD. Or, switch to DVD format! In most of the places empty DVD media is already cheaper than CD already, and they have not sold non-dvd-reading drives for years anymore!

    * "Ubuntu Desktop Edition with KDE" - (Kubuntu)

    Erm, how about "Ubuntu for Shuttle Cockpit lovers"?

    ReplyDelete
  30. One of Ubuntu's competitive advantages, compared with many other operating systems, is that it doesn't trouble you with ludicrous questions like whether you want "GNOME" or "KDE". (If you don't think it's ludicrous, go out and survey people in the street about what their answer would be.)

    Calling the various Ubuntu variants "Ubuntu something" -- or moving their Web sites to ubuntu.com -- would be reintroducing that problem, just at a different level.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The problem with the different desktop environments is that the average new user doesn't understand that Linux provides the option. Windows just has "Windows", Macs have "OSX" and so forth. Plus, beyond the different D/E's, you have a different app package and new users aren't equipped with the info as to which choice is best for them.

    That "ignorance" cannot be overcome easily, but at least can be mitigated somewhat by making the names:

    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu Mobile
    Ubuntu Desktop
    Ubuntu KDE Desktop
    Ubuntu Lite XFCE Desktop
    Ubuntu Education Edition and so forth...

    At least having "Ubuntu KDE Desktop" or similar implies to the uninitiated that its a different desktop than the default "Ubuntu Desktop"

    Though I'm on the fence as to whether it's a good idea to unify them all into one site, etc... the *ubuntu sites do a fairly good job of explaining the difference between themselves and the default Ubuntu Desktop setup...

    I personally think most "newbies" are satisfied with the default GNOME setup as it is the best balance of features/ease of use.

    ReplyDelete
  32. i would leave it up to the community council, but i've thought about this in the past myself. what if kde4 starts kicking gnome's butt?

    in regards to xubuntu, i would say that it would deserve to be called "ubuntu with xfce" as much as a kubuntu would deserve to be called "ubuntu with kde."

    ReplyDelete
  33. j1mc, that is possible although extremely unlikely. KDE folks have just no idea about aesthetics and usability and before they start fixing those KDE will stay pretty much as the last option.

    ReplyDelete
  34. An unobtrusive install-time option to "select a variant" would be a useful convenience. However, the motivations for there being just one default "Ubuntu" with one default gnome desktop are well formed.

    First, Ubuntu is very focused on ease of install, and an old and valid concern is that new users cannot be expected to make an informed choice about their desktop environment.

    Second, a huge portion of the work which "ubuntu" does goes into the desktop integration. Making "ubuntu" and its reputation accountable for multiple different desktops simultaneously splits up the effort and goals.

    People who are already familiar with linux, or are being advised by a friend who is, are the only ones who can make a choice between the variants of ubuntu, and can deal with getting more specific help for them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ubuntu
    Ubuntu KDE
    Ubuntu Xfce

    'Lite' does not equal 'Xfce'!!!

    Else you would have:
    Ubuntu Medium
    Ubuntu Heavy
    Ubuntu Lite

    ...which doesn't make sense to me...

    Hiding 'Xfce' is also very rude for the Xfce developers!


    -H-

    ReplyDelete
  36. I couldn't agree more. As was mentioned above, Microsoft has a million different types of Vista, but they don't run into any problems because each separate edition is fairly self explanatory. Vista Business Edition, is fairly clearly aimed at business users. In the same way that MS Office Student Edition is clearly aimed at students.

    I do also agree that kubuntu represents a somewhat special situation. But if the choice was possible at install time (as has also been suggested), like openSUSE, then it wouldn't be a problem. Download the Ubuntu Desktop Edition DVD (necessary for both desktops) and then you get prompted, or you could even boot into both from the DVD, to see which you prefer.

    I think some kind of change is necessary for the other projects to capitalize on the publicity of Canonical's deals. Ubuntu on Dell implies that only Ubuntu with GNOME will run. Where as, if Ubuntu referred to the general brand, there wouldn't be the potential for such confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. it does make sense. Ubuntu is becoming almost synonymous with Linux and so to call everything of the ubuntu style "ubuntu" will make it clear to everyone.

    Good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "This is a must blueprint to Ubuntu.The names can be selected in polls but I think is not so important.' i agree 100%, but the big question is this going to reach Canonical or is this just more talk and no action?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm a Kubuntu user but when someone ask me what os I'm using, I'm telling them I'm using "Ubuntu with KDE" becouse people with no linux knowledge do not know about ubuntu, kubuntu and other editions so just telling them I'm using Ubuntu with KDE is as good start to get their attention to linux.
    And I do not thnik kubuntu is a seperate project, it's ubuntu with kde so it's like debian CDs. There is one debian cd #1 for gnome desktop and one debian cd #1 for kde desktop and all the other cd isos are common, having ubuntu (with gnome) and ubuntu with kde (kubuntu) on seperate cds is not a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I like it the way it is: Edubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu. Mark, don't listen to these junkies. They need to be in a straightjacket: maybe too much of M$ influence.

    ReplyDelete
  41. How about:

    Ubuntu GNOME Edition
    Ubuntu KDE Edition
    Ubuntu XFCE Edition
    Ubuntu Kids (Edubuntu)

    ReplyDelete
  42. how about we put the desktop versions at the end, like:
    kubuntu = Ubuntuk
    Xubuntu = Ubuntux
    Edubuntu = Ubunted
    Ubuntu (gnome) = Ubuntug
    and we can add server edition or whatever to the end, like Ubuntug Desktop edition.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ubuntu is great. The first thing to change is, now EVERY version is not like an "LTS" type version.

    The second thing is, forget (managed or not) dist-upgrading. This is only better when the target is old. Thus servers only. A "clean" install is ALWAYS better. Stop wasting time/dev effort.

    What is a name? Much! The meaning of Ubuntu is great. Yet it's too long, weird and confusing to pronounce. This is not the image we want IMHO.

    My idea is a base installer CD that everything uses. This is Ubuntu (but better name?). Now when you select your iso, if (for example) you want the KDE DM, you simply get the Ubuntu KDE CD. The Ubuntu part of the CD is EXACTLY the same for development speed and ease purposes. The KDE part is modular and added to the CD as the KDE packages and all of the things that put the finishing touches on Ubuntu KDE (for example).

    As other DM's get customized for "Ubuntu", like Fluxbox (See AntiX) then you can get the Ubuntu Fluxbox CD.

    Optionally the Fluxbox and/or Icewm set(s) could be the base Ubuntu (yet still removable. They are tiny).

    So, the install would have a function to add whatever pre-built total distro flavor offered(and/or third party customised).

    Take Mint as well. What if Mint was a CD(iso) with the base "Ubuntu" and mint module on it?

    Therefore the base install would let you pick you DM based on RAM and other hardware limitation. If you have a super, fancy, new computer, you would just select (with installer guidance) what fits best (mainly based on RAM and other recognized hardware).

    Now say that you are dead-set on KDE but have only 128MB of RAM. Well then, the installer would warn you that it may not be snappy (etc...), BEFORE a newbie gets a bad taste in their mouth.

    The base installer can be stabilized and the install default (say icewm OPTIONALY) would be about 10 minutes (on a PIII).

    This would scale much better across old computers and to new ones.

    P.S. BTW, An Ubuntu alternative name might be short and clear. Such as "Easy". Thus "Easy KDE". Also "Easy Gnome" for the CD's.

    "Easy" the artist formally known as "Ubuntu". :P

    ReplyDelete
  44. I forgot to add that if you had a "Ubuntu KDE" installer iso and you wanted Gnome, then you would ONLY download the GNOME module (or select GNOME and network install the then missing GNOME module).

    If you found that you wanted xfcd (Xubuntu) then you could down load the xfce module, make a "Ubuntu XFCE" CD with it and/or do a net install of just the XFCE part (as you would have the base).

    ReplyDelete
  45. While a good idea, Tristan, I'll disagree because Ubuntu's already done it on the front page of their website with "Ubuntu Desktop Edition" and "Ubuntu Server Edition," followed by the related projects of K, Edu, and X. The present names already signify — and simplify — the versions you list. Let's all start with Ubuntu, and once they visit the website, they can decide for themselves which version they want. It's explained in the very first paragraph of each project's site.

    Let Microsoft extend names. It's not needed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Drop KDE. Easy as that. Its not nice, it looks cluttered. Therefore we'd have:

    Ubuntu
    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu Learner Edition
    Ubuntu Lite

    The Lite edtion could be Xubuntu or for mobile and embedded

    ReplyDelete
  47. Good idea. I like,

    Ubuntu
    Ubuntu Server
    Ubuntu KDE
    Ubuntu XFCE
    Ubuntu Studio
    Ubuntu Mobile
    Ubuntu Educational

    ReplyDelete
  48. Just 'Ubuntu' would be great. Why all these different names. I think it's great that Ubuntu comes in different flavours (I use a few of them myself) but for which group is this naming system important?

    I guess that would be the novice users and people who are taking first steps into a Linux distribution. That group will probably not be installing a server or trying to revive an old pc with a lightweight Linux distribution.

    Even better: chances are that they want a complete distribution on a relatively recent pc.

    So: go for an Ubuntu dvd with a small step (with an explanation) where the user can choose kde, gnome, educational packages, you name it.

    And alternate or netinstall cd's for the people with special demands.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The only thing imho is the fact that Ubuntu isnt Gubuntu.
    Xubuntu
    Kubuntu
    Gubuntu
    Ubuntu Server

    It make me hick when ppl ask if I run ubuntu. Well I dont I run Kubuntu.
    Peace with Ubuntu, though I always call it Gubuntu.

    /happytiger

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hate to be the odd man out, but asking users to select a desktop at installation "like the other distros have done for years" would be a big step backwards.

    IMHO, an important reason that Ubuntu has risen so rapidly to 25% market share in the Linux desktop market is that it asks no silly (read: geek) questions. If the new user can pick his time zone, he's set - and we need a way to automate even that!

    Choice-free installation is a feature, folks.

    Also, as mainstream computer vendors such as Dell begin offering Ubuntu to the masses, making several desktop choices "equal" would divide our newly won mind share back into the noise.

    I appreciate the power of choice, but first the masses must choose Ubuntu (that means Gnome).

    Once they've experienced freedom, not to mention actual OS quality (haven't seen that out of Redmond yet!), then the partisans can arm-wrestle with them over alternate desktops, application sets, color schemes, pronunciation guides, and the thousands of other Free Software choices that make computers fun again!

    ReplyDelete
  51. I don't think this is a necessary step. Ubuntu is what it is, and that includes a GNOME desktop environment. That's what they chose to incorporate. Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu are all Ubuntu-based, but they are not Ubuntu. They are their own projects, their own brands, endorsed and promoted by Ubuntu as part of the Ubuntu family, and following the same spirit and guidelines as Ubuntu. But they are not Ubuntu.

    Think of Ford motor company. They are Ford, and they produce Fords, but they also claim Lincoln Mercury and others within their family of brands. They are not the same products. They may be similar, but not at all the same.

    I think the naming conventions are just fine because you know when you download Ubuntu you are downloading Ubuntu as the developers intended it to be, with a GNOME desktop.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "The problem with the different desktop environments is that the average new user doesn't understand that Linux provides the option. Windows just has "Windows", Macs have "OSX" and so forth. Plus, beyond the different D/E's, you have a different app package and new users aren't equipped with the info as to which choice is best for them."

    What if we just had the startup page on first run of Firefox explain this to them?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I ran Kubuntu for a long time, and still do on my laptop. I just switched to Ubuntu for my desktop machine.

    I don't think the names should be unified until the tools are equivalent. I am not talking about the places where GNOME and KDE do things differently - I am talking about the additional tools and wizards that help make Ubuntu as popular and user friendly as it is today. Where is my Proprietary Driver Manager in Kubuntu? That sort of thing.

    Until that happens, I think that making the other *buntu derivatives part of the same product is asking for trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  54. So naming products in a clear and concise manner is "too Microsoft?" Give me a break. People have a hard enough time just trying to remember and pronounce "Ubuntu." Getting rid of all of this Ku-Xu-Go nonsense would be a big step in the right direction. Besides, for all of Microsoft's stupidity, their naming conventions are significantly more memorable and pronounceable than anything Ubuntu or Linux-in-general offers.

    I see nothing wrong with allowing users to choose one's desktop on install. If it isn't GNOME (the default), it can be downloaded from the repositories. It doesn't need to be on the LiveCD. A simple drop down list is not too confusing for novices, especially if GNOME is the default and the installer recommends using the default. Most users cruise through using default settings anyway.

    I seriously think Ubuntu's naming conventions need revamped and I hope Canonical and others within the Ubuntu community acknowledge this debate and -- at the least -- provide a response.

    ReplyDelete
  55. First of all the name Ubuntu is hard enough for most I know.

    Human Linux or Friendly Linux might have worked better.

    But you are correct, the names could be unified.

    One note I call Debian with KDE, KDEbian, he he!

    ReplyDelete
  56. I agree with the following statements:
    "I don't know, for me it's sounds too microsoftish. :-)"
    "Ubuntu G, Ubuntu K, Ubuntu X, Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Edu maybe wouldn't sound better, but it would be easier to remember and talk about."
    "I disagree with "Ubuntu Desktop Edition with KDE". It should be called "Ubuntu Desktop Edition" and give user the choice of the two desktops during installation."
    The last one I really like. Having one Ubuntu and you simply pick your X client at install. To keep it simple (which is what Ubuntu is all about) it would default to Gnome and just have KDE and XFCE as options.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes! We should have more editions then there is of windows vista! We'll beat them!

    How about:
    Ubuntu Desktop Edition Gold Ultra with KDE
    Ubuntu School Edition Teachers Edition with KDE Desktop

    and so forth.

    Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Kubuntu: there may be many install sets of ubuntu, but the names are at least easily distinguishable. It's easier to tell a friend "get kubuntu, just goggle it", then "get ubuntu desktop edition with kde".

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  60. How about:
    "Ubuntu Desktop (GNOME)"
    "Ubuntu Desktop (KDE)"
    "Ubuntu Desktop (Xfce)"
    "Ubuntu Educational"
    "Ubuntu Server"
    "Ubuntu Base System" (command-line installation)

    The installer needs to make the differences clear between the desktop editions.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ubuntu means Ubuntu, not *buntu -- not all *buntu distros are run or even recognized by Canonical. If all variant distros had the same names as the original, then Ubuntu would be called: Debian Human Edition

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ubuntu KDE Desktop is easier on the tongue than Kubuntu?

    In that case, how about:

    Ubuntu KDE Graphical Desktop Environment
    (Kristian's name was even better)

    Sorry, but having one letter in front of the word Ubuntu is a lot easier to remember than a generic Microsoftish name.

    It seems like solutions in search of a problem.

    -----

    >Ubuntu is becoming almost >synonymous with Linux

    I swear I am going to get rid of my 'buntu partition one day strictly based at my revulsion at the fanbois the community has spawned.
    Theyre not as insufferable as Mac kool aid drinkers but in another year theyll get there.

    On the plus side, I was annoyed enough to give PCLinuxOS a shot and I think it will be the new distro that I will be installing on friend/family computers from now on.
    (Nothing will make me get rid of my workhorse Slackware and Debian.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Using the Cisco console in Linux

What it takes to make Ubuntu ready for use

Five ways to use Windows apps in Linux