Linux, what are our objectives?

[markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org (markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org)]

I just downloaded and installed Kubuntu 8.10 with KDE 4.10. I have to say,
yes it is slick, yes it may have a few issues, nice eye candy, cool,
albeit wasteful, transition effects. On the whole, it is what consumers
expect too see from a P.C.

They got rid of desktop icons ? more or less. They are no longer files or
directories in your desktop folder, but something different. Does it
bother anyone that they did this? One of the things I like about the
historical UNIX model is that things that seem similar, are similar. The
notion that icons on the desktop are different than icons on the file
browser troubles me. It seems like a divergence from a coherent model to a
more complicated and confusing one.

The panel is slicker, but less customizable. Kubuntu has fewer programs,
and the new OpenGL desktop can't handle multiple displays well. I got my
nVidia dual monitor setup working using ?twinview? in the xorg.conf file.

I showed my son the new Kubuntu, and he said, in that snarky voice that
only a late teenager can manage to create, ?Yea, it looks like Vista.?
(He's a Mac snob).

So the question I have is this: is [K]ubuntu really the direction in which
we as a community wish to see Linux go? Is it like the republican party,
where they've given up so many of their core values, that their actual
constituency feels like they didn't leave the party, the party left them?
Do we want to just be a clone of Vista? Prior to this upgrade, I was using
7.10, and it was different enough from both Mac and Windows to feel like
Linux was on a separate trajectory. I had high hopes that I'd see some
innovation in the newest release, but all I see is lost innovation and
mere acquiescence to Microsoft's style guidelines. Isn't Linux better than
Windows?