No, by default Ubuntu uses Unity, which is partly based on GNOME. If you want KDE by default with Ubuntu, then install Kubuntu.Originally Posted by FourAngels
No, by default Ubuntu uses Unity, which is partly based on GNOME. If you want KDE by default with Ubuntu, then install Kubuntu.Originally Posted by FourAngels
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
O_oI see you as more of a "Beetlejuice" type of ghost.
I can't imagine the disappoint of someone triggering a summoning only to get me...
Soma
“Salem Was Wrong!” -- Pedant Necromancer
“Four isn't random!” -- Gibbering Mouther
It could be worse:Originally Posted by phantomotap
![]()
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
Many years ago both the GNOME and KDE desktops were very nice. I remember that GNOME was built with GTK+, it was a C library. I don't know what library is used by KDE. I think that I liked GNOME 2 the best, however it was not a clear choice. Right now, the Ubuntu OS is just fine. It does not look like they made a great big deal about GNOME or KDE during the years that I have been away from Linux. I see that Linux Mint is actually the most popular distribution of Linux.
It still is.
KDE is built on Qt.
If so, XFCE or MATE are the desktop for you. Though MATE still uses GTK 2 (which has been forked by the MATE developers), so I'm not sure if the project will last (continuing a desktop environment AND a deprecated toolkit is tough work).
Who? The Ubuntu guys? It's a distributor - so what do you mean by 'making a great big deal about GNOME or KDE'? Canonical chose to build their own desktop, Unity. Unity looks nice and may be productive once you're used to it. But in my opinion, they're clearly aiming away from the classic PC desktop. As for me, I don't see a future for Ubuntu as a desktop Linux system. But again, I am totally fine with people preferring Ubuntu over other distributions.
I'm always suspicious when it comes to 'the most popular' statements. There's always a lot of media hyping involved. But it sure is a very popular distribution; but in my opinion, a great deal of Mint's popularity comes from having taken Ubuntu as their basis. I don't really see what they make different compared to other distributions. Sure, they enable multimedia codecs by default, but with other major distributions that's not a big thing anymore either. And they invented Cinnamon as a classic desktop environment, but then there's Xfce, so no revolutionary feature too.
Personally, I don't get all the fuss around Ubuntu / Mint. Ubuntu was a thing 10 or 12 years ago, when installing a Linux desktop system actually was a not-so-trivial task. It's their achievement that the situation is a lot better nowadays. But since most major distributions caught up, I don't see what makes Ubuntu, or Mint, so special.
I have not used Linux in about 12 years. I think that I do remember Ubuntu though, it was a brand new distribution. A lot of people used to show off their GNOME or KDE desktops.
Oh, ........ off. It's annoying to learn a new command and then not needing it the next two months. Coming back later, you've forgotten it.
I also find the time to learn new commands in CLI vs GUI much more in favor of GUI because it takes less time. Yes, I'm lazy. Eat me. I just want to use my computer in a productive manner, not spend time learning how to use it.
I think Valve only officially supports Ubuntu and their own SteamOS which is a fork of Ubuntu, I think.As for me, I don't see a future for Ubuntu as a desktop Linux system.
It's amazing, developers are actually making big budget releases for Linux now too. You should always go where the support is too.
Ubuntu is also supported by Nvidia.
Steam + Nvidia = Ubuntu's the best!
That's changing, actually. Devs go where the money is. Windows is losing its stranglehold on the OS market. Ubuntu was great in my mind because it's one of the distros that showcases how Linux isn't this archaic OS from the past where you need to be living in your mom's basement to learn to use. The modern graphical shells have a lot to do with this.
So, as people get sick of Windows and are curious about the Steam Machine, Linux is growing in popularity meaning devs will, hopefully, be more likely to make a Linux version alongside the Windows one.
What shocked me is that Dying Light came out for Linux on its release. And Outlast got a port as well. There's bigger and bigger games getting released each day and Valve themselves have been pretty good about porting all their games to Linux.
I really think if Valve does make a console, we'll see pretty much every new game come out for Linux as well.
Yes, devs go where the money is and that's exactly the problem. How big is the linux market? To windows, it's almost nothing.
You're going to have to prove that Windows is losing its strangehold on the market. I don't see that happening.
I don't see people getting sick of Windows and curious about the steam machines. The steam machines, in my eyes, is just a way for Valve to make a PC console--or in other words, something that's bound to crash and burn. Why pay so much money for a machine that's unable to play most games available out there today? That's a very expensive machine. Not to mention, it's Linux. People aren't familiar with Linux. And then there's all the extra functionality. Streaming, recording, etc. We'll see how it goes, but I believe right now that it's completely and utterly pointless and stupid. Valve should focus on making actual PCs come to the living room and hooked up the TV.
Of course, I'm not analyst. We'll have to wait and see how it goes. One thing is for sure: I am absolutely not interested in these so-called Steam Machines. Pointless waste of money, if you ask me.
Well, yeah. But that's because you're vehemently anti-Linux and super-duper pro-Microsoft.