kubuntu-council team mailing list archive

[Aaron Rainbolt <arraybolt3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is related to an email from Jon [1] suggesting that the all Ubuntu
flavors use the Ubuntu Desktop Installer. I discussed this some with
Jon in an off-list email chain, this is me bringing some of the
arguments I made from that thread and elsewhere into public so they can
be discussed more thoroughly. Based on my discussions with multiple
developers in the Lubuntu and Kubuntu development circles, I believe
both Lubuntu and Kubuntu are opposed to this change, and will try to
explain why here.

Lubuntu has, for the last thirteen cycles, been shipping the Calamares
installer as our default installation system. This is a very mature,
very well-established, lightweight, and functional installer that has
worked without severe issues for Lubuntu for many years now, save for
the last cycle where some unfortunate development practices resulted in
serious bugs very close to release (the details of which I won't go
into for privacy reasons). Kubuntu and Ubuntu Unity have also been
using this installer for the last three cycles, and at the time of
switch we were unaware of any pressure to select the Ubuntu Desktop
Installer instead of Calamares. Kubuntu analyzed both installers when
switching from Ubiquity and made an intentional design decision to
switch installers to Calamares. Canonical's request here is not a usual
system-wide change such as when Firefox was switched to being a Snap,
or the current plans to swap out GNU coreutils for uutils. The request
is to override an intentional, well-established and long-standing
design decision made by multiple flavors without Canonical's previous
expression of displeasure with this decision.

There are several problems with this request that make me opposed to it:

* The request fundamentally misunderstands what flavors need to
  maintain their identity and provide a desirable user experience.
* The speed with which Canonical is suggesting making the change is
  inconsiderate of the needs of flavors and those who depend on them, to
  the point of neglectful.
* The effort needed to fulfill this request will be a severe drain on
  the development resources of multiple flavors to replace something
  that isn't broken, against our will.
* While less problematic than the other points, I do not believe the
  "request" is being made in good faith, despite having intentionally
  assumed good intentions when initially going into the discussion.

I'll elaborate on these points below, copy-pasting each point before
backing it up.

To begin with, the request fundamentally misunderstands what flavors
need to maintain their identity and provide a desirable user experience.

One of the points brought up in the discussion between me and Jon in
our off-list discussion is:

> Regarding package support and archive presence: tools like Flatpak and
> Calamares are in **universe**, which, by design, includes a broad
> range of software that may not be core to Ubuntu’s identity. To be
> clear, I’m not suggesting removing Calamares from the archive—only
> that it shouldn’t be the default installer for an Ubuntu Flavour.  

This statement is problematic for the Ubuntu flavors, because it
confuses the identity of Ubuntu as a whole with the identity of the
individual Ubuntu flavors. Packages in `universe` may not be core to the
identity of Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server, but that is because
Ubuntu's policy is to only allow applications into Ubuntu Desktop and
Ubuntu Server if they are present in the `main` or `restricted`
repositories. Ubuntu flavors are not bound by this requirement (they
can't be, otherwise Canonical would have to maintain all of the
packages every single flavor uses), and as such they include a very
large amount of software from the `universe` archive, much of which is
extremely core to the identity of each individual flavor.

The best example of this is desktop environments - every flavor with the
exception of Edubuntu uses a desktop environment that is composed
primarily of packages from the `universe` archive. The vast majority of
these flavors (all of them except for Ubuntu Studio) are
desktop-environment-centric - Kubuntu is Ubuntu with the KDE desktop,
Lubuntu is Ubuntu with the LXQt desktop, etc. These desktop
environments aren't just important, they form the heart of each
flavor's identity inasmuch as those flavors are separate from Ubuntu
Desktop. If KDE and Plasma were to be removed from the archive, Kubuntu
would no longer exist. Even if the Kubuntu team were to pick some other
desktop environment, whatever they would end up with thereafter would
no longer be Kubuntu.

Most of the flavors are not particularly attached to their installer.
Lubuntu is different in this regard however - the installer has become
a part of our identity as a flavor. The Lubuntu team has put in an
immense amount of effort to make it work well for us, including
theming it, configuring it, writing extensions for it, contributing
new code upstream to Calamares where appropriate, and even
developing an entire set of tools that implement an OEM installation
mode similar to the OEM installation mode originally offered by
Ubiquity. The Calamares installer forms a core part of Lubuntu's
identity second only to LXQt itself. It has for years.

Jon argues that Calamares shouldn't be the default installer for an
Ubuntu Flavor. From the perspective of Lubuntu, this is as far "out of
left field" as saying that LXQt shouldn't be the default desktop for an
Ubuntu flavor. We would obviously be opposed to such a suggestion
because it would be threatening the core of what Lubuntu as a flavor
is. Suggesting the removal of Calamares is an equally alarming request
and something we are all but entirely unwilling to do, to my awareness.

In addition to the above, Canonical has been starting to show a trend
of requesting flavors to stop shipping particular packages in
`universe` that they have some opposition to for some reason or
another. This is not something I believe the flavors should have to or
sustainably can keep doing every time Canonical asks for it. We pick
packages from the `universe` archive to become part of our flavors as
needed to deliver the features we believe our users will want. Those
packages, while not core to Ubuntu Desktop/Server's identity, are still
a part of the Ubuntu operating system, and to our awareness we as the
flavors are free to pick and choose from them to provide the features
we need. Every time Canonical requests us to drop packages, it means
lost work and overridden design decisions. If Canonical doesn't want a
package to be part of the Ubuntu flavors, it should not be part of the
Ubuntu operating system. If it is part of the Ubuntu operating system,
Canonical shouldn't be telling flavors to drop those packages unless
Canonical also intends on having the packages dropped from the Ubuntu
archive (after proper discussion with the involved flavors).

My second complaint with this request is that the speed with which
Canonical is suggesting making the change is inconsiderate of the needs
of flavors and those who depend on them, to the point of neglectful.

The Ubuntu flavors have communities, projects, and businesses
(including system OEMs) depending on the feature set those flavors
provide. Incremental changes are to be expected, but massive changes
such as an installer or desktop environment transition requires advance
planning, consultation with the community, and a long transition period
as the community requires (within reason). This is how Lubuntu switched
from LXDE to LXQt years ago. It is how Ubuntu Desktop switched from
Ubiquity to the Ubuntu Desktop Installer. It's not how some of the
other flavors have switched installers (and indeed, Kubuntu's switch
from Ubiquity to Calamares was rather abrupt), but at the time of those
transitions the respective flavors did not have community members
sufficiently dependent upon them to warrant a slower transition.

Kubuntu currently has a vital community member, Kubuntu Focus, who has
been signally strongly that they would be affected very negatively by
an abrupt installer change, even if they were allowed to keep the
Calamares installer for 26.04 LTS as suggested by Jon. Kubuntu's
transition to Calamares was intended to be permanent until such a time
as Calamares was no longer suitable for use as an installer for Linux
distributions (i.e., if it were abandoned upstream). Kubuntu Focus
invested well over 100 hours of work into transitioning their
documentation, processes, and software to the Calamares installer
as a result, after being advised that it would be *the* new Kubuntu
installer.

To be considerate of the flavors, Canonical should not have attempted
to force the flavors to switch installers in a single development
cycle with the option of maintaining two separate images for two cycles
if needed. This change should have been brought up *well* before the
intended transition date, with the understanding that flavors would
likely have a substantial amount of pushback which would need to be
taken into account, potentially resulting in the installer transition
being NACK'd. To bring it up not even a whole six months before the
desired transition date and only provide a year for dependent OEMs to
switch as needed is inconsiderate and neglectful for Canonical to do,
especially considering that there was no possible way for any flavor to
know Canonical would request them to switch away from Calamares.

My third complaint with this request is that the effort needed to
fulfill it will be a severe drain on the development resources of
multiple flavors to replace something that isn't broken, against our
will.

Calamares, as I explained earlier, is very mature and has been working
well for Lubuntu for years (and for Kubuntu for a year). While the
25.04 release cycle did have some substantial issues with Calamares,
this was because of a Lubuntu-specific plugin that was developed by a
trusted developer in an inconsiderate and neglectful manner. Lubuntu
has done a postmortem of this incident and believes we will be able to
prevent it from happening again through a combination of more thorough
testing well in advance of the release. Given that the Calamares
issues in 25.04 were an anomaly and not reflective of Calamares'
stability and usability, there is no reason for Kubuntu or Lubuntu to
switch.

To go further, switching to the Ubuntu Desktop Installer would actually
degrade the experience of Lubuntu and Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu
Desktop Installer's design and user interface simply does not fit with
the user experience offered by Lubuntu and Kubuntu. It uses a
combination of theming, style, and UI toolkit that makes it look
starkly different than literally every other app on both Kubuntu and
Lubuntu, with the exception of the firmware updater snap. The installer
will also be the first thing or almost the first thing the user sees
when booting a live ISO of the distro, so this will immediately give
users a sense of inconsistency and "half-baked-ness", negatively
affecting the flavors' perception and reputation.

Calmares works, and it works well. The Ubuntu Desktop Installer
provides *nothing* that Kubuntu or Lubuntu need, want, or are even
interested in. It's about as useful to us as GNOME Text Editor (i.e.,
we have an application that serves the purpose already and the
alternative would be quite inferior in the context of our desktops).

Lubuntu and Kubuntu have plenty of things we are trying to develop as
it is, such as Wayland support (Lubuntu has yet to get a Wayland
session working, though we very much want to have one and have been
working towards that goal with others). An installer transition would
take time away from those more critical development tasks and allocate
it to a task we find essentially useless.

My final complaint with this request is that I do not believe the
"request" is being made in good faith, despite having intentionally
assumed good intentions when initially going into the discussion.

In the original email to the Technical Board, Jon wrote:

> I intend to ask all of the flavours to transition to the new Ubuntu
> Desktop installer by 26.04 LTS. Now that it's stable for Ubuntu
> Desktop, and we have evidence from the flavours who've already
> adopted it, I'm confident that this goal is achievable within the
> timeframe.

Later in the off-list discussion however, Jon wrote:

> You mentioned that you'd like to see a document defining what
> constitutes an Ubuntu Flavour. This is being actively worked on and
> while it's not yet mature enough to share, the document will state
> that to be an Ubuntu Flavour, the Flavour must use the Ubuntu
> Installer. The Community Team is leading on this definition, and will
> circulate something soon.

And also:

> To summarise:
>
> - We’re finalising a document to define what constitutes an Ubuntu
> Flavour, and will share it soon.
> - Lubuntu should adopt the new installer starting with the next
> release.
> - Kubuntu should adopt the new installer _by default_ starting with
> the next release, but may also ship an alternate edition using
> Calamares for **25.10** and **26.04**.

I am aware that the first quote has since been amended to say that "the
document would likely state that flavours must use the Ubuntu
Installer." However, my point still stands - Jon initially portrayed
this as an ask, which I take to mean that the flavors could reasonably
say "no" if fulfilling the request would cause severe damage or was
otherwise undesirable (as I am arguing for here). The follow-up emails
indicate strongly however that this is not a request, but rather a
command. The time frame in which Lubuntu and Kubuntu are supposed to
transition to the installer was furthermore shortened by an entire
release cycle, making an already difficult request much harder to
fulfill.

I initially entered this conversation assuming good intentions, since I
believe that is what is best for the Ubuntu project. From the resulting
conversation however, I believe my assumption of good faith was
incorrect and that the flavors affected by this discussion are being
coerced into switching installers despite indicating a strong desire to
not switch, with rationale to back up that desire. I do not believe I
need to elaborate on why I consider this to be a problem, and I very
much hope I am simply misunderstanding things here. I'm happy to
privately forward the email chain to members of the Technical Board if
desired (I do not want to send them publicly because of a confidential
detail related to the Community Council discussed briefly in those
emails).

I'm happy to discuss any of these issues further as needed. Thanks for
taking the time to read this, and I hope your day is going well!

[1]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2025-May/003016.html

--
Aaron Rainbolt
Lubuntu Developer
https://github.com/ArrayBolt3
https://launchpad.net/~arraybolt3
@arraybolt3:matrix.org on Matrix, arraybolt3 on irc.libera.chat

Attachment: pgpZVYGWWkmdI.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature