Originally Posted by TuxSurfer
I would like to know why you are so down on Kubuntu and why you believe Slack is so superior when it seems everything worked for you out of the box with Kubuntu? I find your choice of words interesting and would just like to know what problems you had with Kubuntu.
Hello. I think you might be reading too much into my comments.
First and foremost, I'm a "end user." The type of guy who likes to change his own oil and maybe even adjust the valves, but when it comes to major engine work, I leave that to the professionals.
As mentioned I started with Slackware, but along the line have used Red Hat, OpenLinux (Caldera), Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and a few others that don't come to mind at the moment. I've found Slackware to be the most consistent. Slackware continues to use the basic Linux conventions and have not tried to change the file structure (which doesn't need to be changed) or hide the system from the user. It is simple and by that I mean there is nothing included that doesn't need to be included. It is stable. It is secure.
I have no way of accurately measuring "speed," but after one and a half to two years of running various versions of Kubuntu amd_64, I am certain 32 bit Slackware is faster. By faster I mean the time it takes to move (copy) files around, open applications, etc. Not being a Tech I can't give you an example of security, but from everything I've read on the subject, and what little I know, it would appear to this "end user" that Slackware has to be the more secure of the two when compared to Kubuntu.
Kubuntu is not a stable as Slackware and that opinion, is, again, based on daily use. There seems to be a movement by the K/Ubuntu developers to "hide" the system from the user. Sudo was driving me crazy.
The major event, so to speak, that change my opinion about Kubuntu was when version 8.10 was released and we, the users, were forced to use KDE 4.1.3. And, don't tell me we weren't forced. If you are a K/Ubuntu user and you want the latest versions of your favorite applications for K/Ubuntu, you have to make the "upgrade." The combination of 8.10 and KDE 4.1.3 wasn't as stable as MS-Windows 98, 2nd Edition.
I couldn't believe someone, i.e., a Linux distribution, would do that to their users. It seemed so very "microsoft" in attitude and I really don't want anything to do with a company that has such contempt for their customers.
After about 4 months of Kubuntu 8.10 and KDE 4.1.x they did finally release a "update" of 8.04 with KDE 3.5.10, saying,
"Kubuntu 8.04.2 Released
Submitted on Sat, 2009-02-21
The Kubuntu team is proud to announce the release of Kubuntu 8.04.2, the
second and final maintenance update to Kubuntu's 8.04 release. This release
includes updated desktop, and alternate installation CDs for the i386 and
amd64 architectures. This update is provided in recognition that the current Kubuntu release (8.10) with its cutting edge KDE 4 desktop is not yet appropriate for all users....
AND, it would appear they have learned their lesson and will be releasing
9.04, or at least a beta of 9.04, with KDE 3.5.10:
"Kubuntu Jaunty KDE 3 Remix Beta
Submitted on Thu, 2009-04-09
A remix of our Jaunty Beta has been made with KDE 3 packages. The main focus of this remix is to keep the mature, stable, and familiar KDE3.5 desktop environment available for easy installation and use. Along the way, various bugs have been fixed, and small enhancements added, see the release notes page for information and where to download."
Regardless, overall, in my personal opinion (and I'm sure you have yours
) Slackware is the better distribution. Not only will I be staying with Slackware and Slamd64, but I'll be staying with KDE 3.5.10. Just a couple of days of once again using 3.5.10, has made me realized just how much has yet to be done to KDE 4.x before it will be as functional as 3.5.10.