Canonical To Drop Support For Kubuntu

[kraftman]

You clearly haven't used Windows since the 90s. USB works fine in Windows, unlike Linux, and NTFS, while it has its faults, does pretty darn well most of the time for the range of loads put on it. The fragmentation issue is overblown (it was mostly a FAT problem, anyway) and I rarely defrag and it's rarely that fragmented when I do, even though I use most of my disk -- which would cause fragmentation on ext3/4 as well. The security mechanism isn't "messed up", you just don't understand it. I'll admit ACLs are more complicated than standard Unix permissions, but if you know what you are doing, you can have a lot more fine-grained control over security than in Unix. Even my mom doesn't get viruses anymore and viruses are still mostly a social engineering problem. You can have all the security in the world, but if people are willing to install whatever the webpage tells them to (and sometimes the sites tell you to turn off security stuff or click through warning boxes!), there's nothing you can do to keep people from getting viruses.

Oh, I did. USB works instantly on Linux while on Windows I have to wait every time when I plug something. This "does pretty darn well most of the time..." can be said about everything, so it's meaningless. I can say the same even about Ext2. It seems you have no clue about fragmentation. I'd like to hear some explanation why it takes hours to defragment partition? While on Windows usually more than 75% of your data is fragmented on Linux it's usually 1-2%. No, I really mean Windows security mechanism is messed up. Some example:

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/the-curious-tale-of-windows-7s-uac.ars

It's funny you mentioned ACLs while it's also available on Linux. It seems your Mum uses computer just to play solitairy. The viruses are not social problem (keep in mind I'm not talking about trojans which are just programs you run yourself), but it's a Windows design problem. There's no windows like viruses on Linux and Mac, so it clearly shows it's a design problem. Another proof of this is Windows XP viruses were working on Vista as well, so they probably "keep" design mistakes, because of some compatibility.

On topic: I'm really sad to see this, but not at all surprised. I can't believe Canonical talked all those years ago about how KDE would be supported as a first class citizen. No surprise. Linux seems to want to make itself irrelevant with crappily designed interfaces and dumbing down and ultimately, making Linux on the desktop a sort of second-rate OS for second-rate netbooks. Going with KDE would represent trying to remain competitive.

In this case I'm with you. In my opinion they fear Kubuntu will become more popular then Ubuntu and they will loose control over it. Canonical wants tablet market and guess what? KDE which isn't backed by any company is there first. Unity is somehow broken, because it's probably only DE where you can't suspend compositions, so it makes games to work slower. Kubuntu was a part of some of the largest migrations to Linux (like Brazilian schools). I doubt if they switch to Ubuntu now. In my opinion one of the most sane distributions will be Mageia, because it has one year lifetime, it focuses on KDE and will use systemd.

There's also this:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/what-s-the-best-linux-desktop-environment--1045280?artc_pg=1

Review of the three most popular Linux desktops and community driven KDE is the winner.

[droste]

Once again, that isn't really KDE's decision, it has to respect the FDO specifications on the matter. But you can override them if you want in KDE (few other window managers let you do that).


Up until Dolphin 2 that was not possible because of how the Qt item view was designed, but I think this will be implemented for Dolphin 2 (perhaps in 4.8.1 or 4.8.2, I am not sure).

Honestly I didn't pay that much attention since I always use single click.

Not quite correct. Dolphin 1 can do this (Settings -> Configure Dolphin, General tab, check Rename inline), Dolphin 2 can't do this right now.

[Teho]

KDE which isn't backed by any company is there first.

Plasma Active backed by both open-slx and basysKom so that's plain false. There also few other companies working on KDE.

[kraftman]

Plasma Active backed by both open-slx and basysKom so that's plain false. There also few other companies working on KDE.

Yeah, but I meant no company stands behind KDE like Canonical stands behind Unity and Fedora/Red Hat behind Gnome.

[droste]

Yeah, but I meant no company stands behind KDE like Canonical stands behind Unity and Fedora/Red Hat behind Gnome.

Well in case of Unity that's more bad than good. If Canonical gives up on Unity nobody is supporting it. Gnome and KDE have more than one company and a huge community supporting them.

see http://ev.kde.org/supporting-members.php and http://foundation.gnome.org/about/

[siride]

Oh, I did. USB works instantly on Linux while on Windows I have to wait every time when I plug something. This "does pretty darn well most of the time..." can be said about everything, so it's meaningless. I can say the same even about Ext2. It seems you have no clue about fragmentation.

I would say that's more true of you. You just parrot these "facts" about fragmentation between the different filesystems without any understanding of it, or any facts, for that matter.

I'd like to hear some explanation why it takes hours to defragment partition?

Because you have to read and write a lot of data? This isn't hard. But your simplistic understanding prevents you from figuring out this very simple issue.

While on Windows usually more than 75% of your data is fragmented on Linux it's usually 1-2%.

Are you talking about marketshare or data fragmentation?

No, I really mean Windows security mechanism is messed up. Some example:

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...ows-7s-uac.ars

Don't use an administrator account, problem solved. People who care about security will do the right thing and people who don't, won't. Same is true on Linux. MS did make a mistake in changing UAC behavior from Vista to 7.

It's funny you mentioned ACLs while it's also available on Linux.

They have to be explicitly enabled, no software is really designed to operate under the ACL model and the distributions do not set up system programs and files in accordance with an ACL model. So yes, they're there, but they might as well not be.

It seems your Mum uses computer just to play solitairy.

She's mostly on the web. She has learned not to download random things and she uses Firefox and Chrome instead of IE, which probably helps a lot.

The viruses are not social problem (keep in mind I'm not talking about trojans which are just programs you run yourself), but it's a Windows design problem.

And what's that design problem, exactly? It certainly isn't lack of a security model.

The problem traditionally was that Windows programs expected to run as administrator (actually, before there were even user accounts, the expectation was that they could do anything, anywhere). That is a social problem. Microsoft has had to compromise because of the existence of so many of these programs. As more and more programs are written that accept the NT security model, and as Microsoft closes more and more loopholes, this problem will slowly go away. NT has always had a solid security model, as good as, if not better than on Unix. The problem was always in the shell and in the installed defaults (e.g., admin account for regular users). UAC was a big step in the right direction. So was getting rid of the ability to log in as the actual admin account. In time, more of these doors will be closed. Keep in mind that Microsoft has a very difficult tightrope to walk. At the end of the day, people need their software to work, and users can't fix bad design in the software they use. It's in Microsoft's interest (as it should be) to make sure that users can run their software. This entails some degree of compromise. That's the way the real world works. In the Linux world, where most of the software is open source and thus patchable by the distributions, and where there's little need to make sure all users can run the software they want to run (it seems that a lot of Linux devs actively hate the userbase and continually make decisions that show that), Linux can afford to be a little tighter with shell security. When/if Linux gets to be a big player, you can bet there will be more compromises.

There's no windows like viruses on Linux and Mac, so it clearly shows it's a design problem.

Not true. There are fewer viruses, although Macs are starting to have more now that it's becoming a popular platform, thus reinforcing the truth that Linux users refuse to accept: malware is a function of popularity and value in the targets, and less about the security model.

Another proof of this is Windows XP viruses were working on Vista as well, so they probably "keep" design mistakes, because of some compatibility.

There's no reason to expect that XP viruses shouldn't run on Vista. It depends on what the virus does as to whether it keeps working or not. If it deals with a part of the system that hasn't changed much, or any, between releases, then it'll probably keep working. If it relies on user stupidity, it'll probably work on all versions of Windows. You're still assuming that there is a design mistake in the security system, instead of accepting that balancing security and usability will always result in holes. This is as true for Windows as it is for Linux and Mac.

In this case I'm with you. In my opinion they fear Kubuntu will become more popular then Ubuntu and they will loose control over it. Canonical wants tablet market and guess what? KDE which isn't backed by any company is there first. Unity is somehow broken, because it's probably only DE where you can't suspend compositions, so it makes games to work slower. Kubuntu was a part of some of the largest migrations to Linux (like Brazilian schools). I doubt if they switch to Ubuntu now. In my opinion one of the most sane distributions will be Mageia, because it has one year lifetime, it focuses on KDE and will use systemd.

There's also this:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/what-s-the-best-linux-desktop-environment--1045280?artc_pg=1

Review of the three most popular Linux desktops and community driven KDE is the winner.

Agreed.

[kraftman]

I would say that's more true of you. You just parrot these "facts" about fragmentation between the different filesystems without any understanding of it, or any facts, for that matter.

It seems you have no clue about the problem. The funny thing is Linux does defragmentation on the fly while Windows does not. That's a fact and the numbers I gave before are facts, too. I've never saw fragmentation higher than 2% in Linux while on Windows it's huge and takes hours to make things looks better.

Because you have to read and write a lot of data? This isn't hard. But your simplistic understanding prevents you from figuring out this very simple issue.

Why it has to read and write a lot of data? Because, unlike Linux it doesn't support defragmentation on the fly!

Are you talking about marketshare or data fragmentation?

If that wasn't obvious for you I was talking about fragmentation.

Don't use an administrator account, problem solved. People who care about security will do the right thing and people who don't, won't. Same is true on Linux. MS did make a mistake in changing UAC behavior from Vista to 7.

Don't use your computer, problem solved. People who care about security just don't use Windows or use it with software that makes it crawl in the end. MS did a design mistakes in Windows security mechanism.

They have to be explicitly enabled, no software is really designed to operate under the ACL model and the distributions do not set up system programs and files in accordance with an ACL model. So yes, they're there, but they might as well not be.

Simple is better and in Linux they have a choice.

She's mostly on the web. She has learned not to download random things and she uses Firefox and Chrome instead of IE, which probably helps a lot.

People I know download random things and their Linux boxes are safe.

And what's that design problem, exactly? It certainly isn't lack of a security model.

Security model broken by design is worth nothing. Other problems probably lay in ancient bugs and holes that weren't fixed due to compatibility issues.

The problem traditionally was that Windows programs expected to run as administrator (actually, before there were even user accounts, the expectation was that they could do anything, anywhere). That is a social problem. Microsoft has had to compromise because of the existence of so many of these programs.

Great example of brokenness by design.

As more and more programs are written that accept the NT security model, and as Microsoft closes more and more loopholes, this problem will slowly go away.

No. You're talking about ten years old NT and the problems still didn't go away!

NT has always had a solid security model, as good as, if not better than on Unix.

If you have no clue about Linux/Unix then stop talking about it. Linux' security model proved to be better.

http://www.researchbooth.com/categories/computers/open_source/understanding_linux_security.php

The problem was always in the shell and in the installed defaults (e.g., admin account for regular users). UAC was a big step in the right direction. So was getting rid of the ability to log in as the actual admin account. In time, more of these doors will be closed.

UAC makes things more complicated and doesn't protects you same time.

Keep in mind that Microsoft has a very difficult tightrope to walk. At the end of the day, people need their software to work, and users can't fix bad design in the software they use. It's in Microsoft's interest (as it should be) to make sure that users can run their software. This entails some degree of compromise. That's the way the real world works.

So you're telling me Windows and it's applications must be broken to work? I completely agree and that's what I was talking before (there must be holes, because otherwise some software won't run). Wine developers know a lot about Windows bugs and they even said they had to "implement" those bugs to make software run. That's the way Windows world works. It has nothing to real world.

In the Linux world, where most of the software is open source and thus patchable by the distributions, and where there's little need to make sure all users can run the software they want to run (it seems that a lot of Linux devs actively hate the userbase and continually make decisions that show that), Linux can afford to be a little tighter with shell security. When/if Linux gets to be a big player, you can bet there will be more compromises.

I can assume you there won't be such compromises. You should got the point after reading article about Linux security I gave you.

Not true. There are fewer viruses, although Macs are starting to have more now that it's becoming a popular platform, thus reinforcing the truth that Linux users refuse to accept: malware is a function of popularity and value in the targets, and less about the security model.

No clue. I'm not talking about programs you have to run yourself. I'm talking about windows like viruses that use security holes and affects your system when you visit some site or simply connect to Internet. It can sometimes happen on Linux and Mac, but holes are fixed in hours and such 'virus' is dead.

There's no reason to expect that XP viruses shouldn't run on Vista. It depends on what the virus does as to whether it keeps working or not. If it deals with a part of the system that hasn't changed much, or any, between releases, then it'll probably keep working.

Like I said before that parts must have serious security holes or are badly designed.

If it relies on user stupidity, it'll probably work on all versions of Windows. You're still assuming that there is a design mistake in the security system, instead of accepting that balancing security and usability will always result in holes. This is as true for Windows as it is for Linux and Mac.

As Linux and Mac shows there's no need for such 'balance'.

[siride]

It seems you have no clue about the problem. The funny thing is Linux does defragmentation on the fly while Windows does not. That's a fact and the numbers I gave before are facts, too. I've never saw fragmentation higher than 2% in Linux while on Windows it's huge and takes hours to make things looks better.

My fragmentation on Windows is usually never that high. I haven't seen superhigh fragmentation on Linux either, except when the drive gets full.

Why it has to read and write a lot of data? Because, unlike Linux it doesn't support defragmentation on the fly!

Linux doesn't do defragmentation on the fly. If it did, that would be a massive performance loss as every file operation might result in reading and writing lots of data to restructure files on the disk.

If that wasn't obvious for you I was talking about fragmentation.

I know, and you were wrong.

Don't use your computer, problem solved. People who care about security just doesn't use Windows or use it with software that makes it crawl in the end. MS did a design mistakes in Windows security mechanism.

I care about security and I use Windows and Linux. Both have their pluses and minuses. I don't get viruses or trojans on either.

Simple is better and in Linux they have a choice.

ACLs degenerate to Unix permissions if you don't add a lot of special cases, so it's simple enough to get Unix style permissions in Windows. Usually, it's not a problem. But when it comes time for special cases, on Windows it's a cinch, while on Linux you have to enable ACLs and hope system software respects the ACLs. Not a great choice.

People I know download random things and their Linux boxes are safe.

That's because there are few viruses and trojans that target Linux. It's just not worth trying to target the 0.5% of the PC market that uses Linux. Your analysis is faulty.

Security model broken by design is worth nothing. Other problems probably lay in ancient bugs and holes that weren't fixed due to compatibility issues.

What's broken by design about the NT security model? I want specific things, not vague accusations about MS not fixing bugs (which they have) or having a weak security model (which they don't). You also fail to understand how difficult the problem is.

Great example of brokenness by design.

By design of 9x and before, but not NT. The shell, which is the user interface, had to make some compromises. The system doesn't. The NT security model is not broken by design, at least not any more than the Unix model.

No. You're talking about ten years old NT and the problems still didn't go away!

But they did go away...Windows *is* more secure than it used to be.

If you have no clue about Linux/Unix then stop talking about it. Linux' security model proved to be better.

I don't think you understand either security model. Please explain to me what is better about Linux's security model. Once again, I ask you not to be vague. I want specific examples of how the Linux model is better than the Windows model.

http://www.researchbooth.com/categories/computers/open_source/understanding_linux_security.php

This article is full of misinformation and oversimplification. Windows has security baked in to the core of the system. Every kernel object, for example, has ACLs associated with it, as do all files and related filesystem objects. On both Linux and Windows, system files belong to a special administrative account, not the user. On both Linux and Windows, programs run as the user unless they elevate (setuid or sudo on Linux and UAC or Run As on Windows). Linux does have the executable bit, which Windows sorely lacks, but everything else is more or less the same. The running of programs is done by the shell on both systems, so it's a shell issue, not a kernel or core OS issue.

UAC makes things more complicated and doesn't protects you same time.

If you use a non-Admin account, it works fine. MS's only mistake is having the auto-elevate for admin accounts.

So you're telling me Windows and it's applications must be broken to work? I completely agree and that's what I was talking before (there must be holes, because otherwise some software won't run). Wine developers know a lot about Windows bugs and they even said they had to "implement" those bugs to make software run. That's the way Windows world works. It has nothing to real world.

I'm telling you that in the real world, 3rd party developers will produce garbage software and Windows needs to be able to run this software or the users get very upset. Microsoft both tries to get developers to use better coding and provides compatibility shims for specific applications to allow them to keep working, or special rules to keep general patterns working. Yes, it sucks, but that's the real world for you, the real world where people have to get work done and spend money on software and expect it to be able to run on the computer that they spent money on. In the Linux world, you can sit around and intellectually masturbate about the perfect API (which is never completed) or the perfect security model (which is never completed either) because nobody will rely on your work for anything serious.

All software has bugs, so when WINE has to reimplement Windows bugs, the same would be just as true making a sort of LINE to run Linux programs on Windows. There are always bugs and special behaviors and if you want to make a clone of an existing system, you have to copy all the buggy behavior too. This is not a Windows problem, this is a reality problem.

I can assume you there won't be such compromises. You should got the point after reading article about Linux security I gave you.

I did: the guy is a zealot and an idiot, much like you.

No clue. I'm not talking about programs you have to run yourself. I'm talking about windows like viruses that use security holes and affects your system when you visit some site or simply connect to Internet. It can sometimes happen on Linux and Mac, but holes are fixed in hours and such 'virus' is dead.

Are they fixed in hours? Are they all publicly discussed? No. There are closed mailing lists, there are fixes that languish. There are users who don't update (on either Linux or Windows). Linux has security holes too and they can be exploited. There have been a few examples of cross-platform exploits, in PDFs and web-browsers, for example. Again, most viruses are not targetted at Linux because it's not worth it for the virus writers. If Linux ever became more popular, it would see more viruses and more security holes. It's all there. If you think that Linux has no security holes, then you are an idiot. It's a provable fact about software that there will always be security holes and bugs.

Like I said before that parts must have serious security holes or are badly designed.

Just some parts of the shell. A lot of holes have been fixed. MS does fix the holes. But it's an arms race with the virus writers who spend just as much time coming up with new exploits. Remember, MS can't push an update that breaks a bunch of 3rd party software, or results in data loss for the users.

As Linux and Mac shows there's no need for such 'balance'.

You are correct, but not for the reasons you think. Mac just doesn't care about compatibility, but it's not used in the enterprise world like Windows is. Macs are mostly used by regular users, people who can afford to buy new versions of software when Apple decides to break the API/ABI every few years. Then again, despite Mac's popularity, it's still got a single-digit market share. Linux has no stable APIs and the developers make a game out of changing the APIs and ABIs on the system all the time. The core OS software is maintained, so long as there are volunteer maintainers around, but as soon as that stops, it doesn't take long before the software ceases to operate on Linux. Microsoft makes guarantees about availability and compatibility and puts a lot of work into it. Linux just doesn't bother, so it can get away without compromising. Not surprisingly, 3rd party software vendors generally won't touch Linux with a ten foot pole. Why bother when the ground is going to be ripped out from under your software with the new API/DE/kernel of the month?

[Luke_Wolf]

That's because there are few viruses and trojans that target Linux. It's just not worth trying to target the 0.5% of the PC market that uses Linux. Your analysis is faulty.

You're forgetting something very important here, Linux may be 8% or so on the desktop, however Linux dominates embedded and server applications. Linux is a huge target simply because so many businesses are running it for mission critical operations. Now it's true that it's not been worth targetting apple because they've got a tiny user population, but the Linux user base is huge.

[schnelle]

Kubuntu IS alive. Kubuntu IS Ubuntu killer.

Ubuntu/Unity crap WILL be blown away by next Kubuntu with KDE 4.8.

*uck Canonical and their ultra-retarded decisions.

Community will WIN.