Ubuntu or Kubuntu?

Des_Zac

Des_Zac

Member
Can someone (or more than one person) tell me what the main differences are, why they are two separate OSs, and whats the main reason people choose one over the other?
 
I dont know all that much when it comes to Linux,But Kubuntu uses the K Desktop environment (KDE), and Ubuntu uses the GNOME desktop environment.

I prefer KDE..i like the look better.
 
Kubuntu comes with KDE, but the new Ubuntu has Unity instead of Gnome for desktop. There isn't many reasons to pick one over the other, it usually comes down to looks. Both have the same software available to them, and both have more or less same functionality. Unity/Gnome tend to be more simplistic/minimalistic and try to cater for portables as well, while KDE is more full-featured and behaves a little more "Windowsy" than the other two.
 
Lol thanks. Hackapelite I just started laughing because your "Ancient Machine" is almost exactly what I just build out of some old parts I got.
 
From what I have read online gnome or Unity depending on which version of Ubuntu you decide to use runs better on more systems then Kubuntu with the KDE desktop will. I personally I have never had good luck with KDE, it always seeems so glitchy for me.
 
What it really boils down to is the feel of the desktop (besides the desktop environment, as the previous posters have pointed out). Ubuntu and Kubuntu feel very different at first, but they're very much alike. I personally like Kubuntu because of the way it feels. If you're debating whether to install one or another, I say take a look around and see which one attracts your attention more, because they function similarly in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I am working on a crap 98/2000ish computer (Very similar to the "ancient computer" in hackapelite's sig) for practice as my first computer I've built... would Kubuntu even run on it or is Ubuntu my only option. (Until I get to ordering all the parts for my new main comp)
 
I'm not an expert on Ubuntu/Kubuntu, so don't take my word for it, but according to what I have read in some sites, Kubuntu should be able to run with 256MB RAM. From personal experience, Kubuntu tends to lag at first, but after logging in a second time, it should be working fine. Don't worry if that happens to you when you first install it. I'm currently running Kubuntu on 512MB RAM and it works fine.
 
Des_Zac said:
I am working on a crap 98/2000ish computer (Very similar to the "ancient computer" in hackapelite's sig) for practice as my first computer I've built... would Kubuntu even run on it or is Ubuntu my only option. (Until I get to ordering all the parts for my new main comp)
Click to expand...
I doubt either would run very well on it at all, Ubuntu tends to be a bit 'bloated'... I think 8.04 was the last version that was usable on my ancient machine. Really, for a heavier "ready-made" distro like Ubuntu you'd really need at least 1GB of RAM for it to run smoothly, and extra CPU power wouldn't hurt either. For a computer that old you'd really need to be looking at something really lightweight or something where you start with a base system and you essentially build the system yourself - the latter might be too much for someone with little or no experience in Linux.

If you only have 256MB of RAM or so, you might as well abandon the idea of using Ubuntu or any "heavy" distro (Mint, Fedora, OpenSUSE...). However, if you have half a gigabyte or more, you might want to try Lubuntu, a version of Ubuntu with LXDE environment desktop (Ancient Machine has LXDE and the idle memory usage after login is around 90MB).
 
Des_Zac said:
I am working on a crap 98/2000ish computer (Very similar to the "ancient computer" in hackapelite's sig) for practice as my first computer I've built... would Kubuntu even run on it or is Ubuntu my only option. (Until I get to ordering all the parts for my new main comp)
Click to expand...

Lubuntu or peppermintOne (per hackapelite's suggestion) or SwiftLinux would be more functional on such a machine as yours, as my suggestion.
 
Well, I would, but I'm ordering the 5-pack of ubuntu and am only running (internet wise) at 60kbps... so I can't download anything until comcast gets all set up.
 
In all honesty, there is no "real" difference. Yeah, they come with different window managers. So? You can install any window manager you want, and can have as many as you want. I guess it just makes life a little bit easier since the one you prefer is already setup.

As far as performance, Ubuntu is the wrong way to go. Too much bloat these days. KDE and Gnome and Unity are all "high performance" window managers. Use something with LXDE/XFCE/openbox/etc. Look up the wiki on window managers for more choices.

As far as distros, Peppermint one is a great choice. Crunchbang would be another, but it it requires a tad bit more experience with a linux OS then someone who uses Ubuntu and doesn't know the OS well. There's also Lbuntu (or something like that) which is Ubuntu with the LXDE WM i believe. So i understand you have a slow connection, but with many of these distros, there not exactly large anyway. You could easily get them, even on a dial up connection. Dunno. Just throwing some stuff out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top