I couldn't even stand to boot up into gnome until 2.4 but now, it's the only thing I install. But then, I understand the power of selective perception. People like different things and for no apparent reason other than they say so.

I installed Kubuntu on my father's machine.. Looks promising, but there were one or two problems with KDE 3.4 which have already been documented and brought to the attention of the developers..

So I installed Gnome, and - Wow! Ubuntu is a terrific distro - it's already come a long way from Warty... everything just works nicely, and the Gnome set up is great. And I've not tended to like Gnome in the past..

If this distro continues to improve as it has been to date, its future going to be very, very bright. I reckon the next Kubuntu will be great.

I forgot to mention one important reason I love Ubuntu, the fglrx video drivers for my ATI 9600 card installed and run beautifully with one click in synaptic. This after 4 months of building modules, struggling and praying the card would work every time I compiled a kernel in Slackware(not that I'm dissing Slackware).

It's a big deal for me, I can play Quake 2 again :}

So what are these problems with KDE. Are they Kubuntu specific because I run KDE on Slack and have not had any show stoppers.

i stil prefer kubuntu over ubuntu be it any comparioson in any area
also i have got all the packages of ubuntu installed on kubuntu itself
so i have both desktops

regards

My nickel's worth
 

I installed ubuntu and added the kde desktop using sudo. My experience so far has been with Fedora 3. After OS install, the bootloader recognized my windows partition and fedora partition and gives a very reassuring msg that all 3 OS will be fine. I let it install a new MBR. Bad move on my part. ubuntu was fine, windows xp was fine, fedora 3's root filesystem was very damaged and not bootable. It took hours to sort out. All that said, I found the gnome desktop worked quite well and kde was very buggy in several areas, which has already been pointed out. I know many of these issues get resolved in time so we must understand the ubuntu/kubuntu distros are still fairly new. Any linux distro will require some time to customerize to our taste and desired uses. For now, I find my needs are met best by Fedora 3 -- so far the only distro that has detected and properly configured my USB SB Audigy 2 NX sound card, ATI radeon 9200 video card/Samsung 710 LCD monitor. Many thanks for all the hard work all the Linux developers do to provide us fantastic OS's for no charge!

No show stoppers here even on 3.4. There is the occasional KDE crash, and its not as solidly integrated as Gnome and Ubuntu, but it's nothing that would turn me away.

Yes, regarding the 'problems' I mentioned, nothing serious really - Konqueror has a habit of crashing with the sidebar enabled; a temporary fix has been proposed which works (check the Kubuntu forums for details). I've also noticed Konqueror crashing on exit, but again it isn't serious - I'm in broad agreement with Ghight really.

The KDE integration isn't as good as with Gnome - it doesn't feel as tight.

I installed KDE on regular ubuntu, it works great.

After experimenting with Ubuntu, I tried Kubuntu, and I've stuck with the latter. It feels as if KDE allows me more control over the system. Yes, it's not as fully integrated as GNOME. I can't stand Kynaptic; I don't like not being able to see the installation process of packages through the terminal. So I installed Synaptic, and the problem is solved. Yes, it's not very appealing. But I use apt-get primarily, so I'm not even using the program that much. I've also installed GIMP because I'm expecting a digital SLR soon, but right now it's not an issue. I'm really looking forward to Kubuntu 5.10's further integration of KDE (although I'm not psyched at all about the corporate leanings of Ubuntu), but right now it's fine.

To each his own.

If you want your gtk apps like synaptic, gaim, gimp etc to look like native KDE apps, then install gtkqt theme engine.

I just prefer kde, easier to configure, very pretty, works nicely with dual monitors (gnome in warty had some issues with that) and I don't mind it not being as well integrated, when things are running smoothly it dosn't matter. I love konqueror, all that, my only gripe is that it dosn't seaperate my "file browser" bookmarks from my "web" bookmarks, so Its like an awkward combination of the os 10.3 file browser sidebar with my several hundred bookmarks.

that said, I use gnome when I need the best integration. my install is actualy ubuntu with kubuntu-desktop added on. And lets not forget fluxbox too!

Well, I installed Kubuntu, but after a few glitches with KDE 3.4, decided to give Gnome a whirl. I've definitely been very much more of a KDE fan than Gnome in the past, but I've got to say, after a week or so with Gnome, I'm really warming to it. KDE is certainly more 'configurable' and there's lots more to play with, but Gnome is subtle - the power is there if you look for it. The lack of 'up front' config options is beginning to make sense to me - I'm starting to like the simple ease of use... and it's certainly quicker than KDE, although the difference is small. The only thing I really miss is the lack of a decent integrated file manager / web browser like Konqueror, which I rated very highly, and I also thought that Kontact was a fine application. Obviously, I could run both of these from within Gnome, but that kind of misses the point..

I think the kubuntu was a good idea, it's nice, I like KDE, but with new releases of gnome, I'm starting to migrate to gnome.

The thing is, if you get ubuntu, or kubuntu, it's VERY easy in fact to use apt to get gnome, or kde, so in kubuntu, you can download gnome and use both, and in ubuntu you can get and use kde as well.

that is the reason i prefer my distro with

kubuntu+ubuntu

regards