My 2 cents:

• the Ubuntu font has a lot more personality than Noto
• design wise it may down to preference, but nonetheless I think Ubuntu is not quite a top-tier font (but is better than Noto)
• the Ubuntu font really is thicker, which makes it a bit more legible
• Noto has crazy script support, beats Ubuntu in this category
• 11pt is great for laptops that need a scaling factor of 1.1 or 1.2, but represents a negative change for desktop machines
• the question of how well Plasma and the Ubuntu font fit together is worth asking, although we may just not be used to the two being paired
• it's also important to guarantee that upstream will not mess sth up, but anecdotally speaking, I don't think I've ever had a problem with this, and I always non-default fonts.

We cannot modify the firefox desktop file.

Are upstream changes being looked at likely for plasma 5.15?

I know it's a store.kde.org package and not a distro package, but is there any way we can ship with it anyway? Do we have some facility for automatically installing store.kde.org content?

In T10230#171174, @ngraham wrote:

Sure, here are some screenshots.

We already had the 11pt discussion, and decided against. It just makes the things bigger and more clownish looking (as if a 3 year old with bad eyesight had designed it), and bumps the UI scaling in ways that hurt on older hardware with lower size/res screens.

Ubuntu 11 pt looks a lot better
I'm gonna hold back the pitchforks/torches if you manage to make it 11 pt :D

Sure, here are some screenshots. I agree that a lot of this comes down to aesthetic preferences, but to me Ubuntu really does look better than Noto. The line weights are slightly thicker, which I think results in clearer, more readable text and less blurriness, especially at the standard size of 10 which is quite small. At this size Noto can be quite blurry.

Ubuntu is a really excellent font and looks much better than Noto. And we're an Ubuntu-based distro; we should use the same font as our parent distro to preserve a bit of that continuity.

I'm against this as well since I think we should use the Noto font since we are a KDE distribution. So I'm -1 on this one.

screenshots?

Wasn't this raised some time ago during the transition from Ubuntu fonts to Noto? Of course, I cannot find it, but IIRC, the dispositive factor was not the visual appeal of the font but the broadest possible coverage. Apparently, Noto fonts together cover all the scripts encoded in the Unicode standard. Certainly at the time, Ubuntu did not.

I have always thought the Ubuntu font looks quite 'unamazing' on KDE, but that is a very subjective, personal and likely hardware and setup dependant thing.

In T7928#170247, @michaeltunnell wrote:

In T7928#170246, @clel wrote:

Do you have a source that the goal of Plasma default is to resemble the Windows look and feel?

Look at it. It looks like a modified Windows 10 in many ways, it has a bottom panel, start menu on the left and system tray on the right of the panel . . . like Windows. It doesn't matter if they intended it to or not, it does. However, yes I can give multiple examples. KDE has pretty much always mimic'd Windows in a way.

Thanks for this info Nate, FireFox 64 looks a lot better and more useful on Plasma :)

In T10189#170238, @scachemaille wrote:

I just tried on manjaro linux.
Effectively FF will use native KDE dialogs, BUT it does not pre-fill the file name where to save.. then it lost the name given by the website.
Is it because I miss a setting or something else?

In T7928#170246, @clel wrote:

Do you have a source that the goal of Plasma default is to resemble the Windows look and feel?

In T7928#170236, @michaeltunnell wrote:

There is a metric to use. Plasma default resembles Windows in look and feel. Windows uses double-click by default . . . millions of people expect it to be double.

I just tried on manjaro linux.
Effectively FF will use native KDE dialogs, BUT it does not pre-fill the file name where to save.. then it lost the name given by the website.
Is it because I miss a setting or something else?

In T7928#170232, @clel wrote:

Google Drive uses double click in their web app, probably because they think users are used to double click in file management context. They seem to be alone with that approch, though.

FWIW just to mention ist: single-click is consistent with the webpage/app behaviour and webapp/pages get more and more common.

Marking as high priority since KDE users have wanted this for, like, decades, and I think we would get some good press if we were the first to support it out of the box.

FWIW, Ubuntu MATE (and it looks like Ubuntu Kylin) includes exfat-fuse (from fuse-exfat) and exfat-utils.

I think this is a good idea overall but I would like to point out that by switching to Calamares the minimal install option would be lost. I think a lot of people are fans of that feature so if it can be reimplemented in Calamares prior to official switch I think that would be a good idea.

@tsimonq2 is going to document, based on lubuntu's switch, what we would need to do. Once we have that then we can make an informed assessment on whether this can be targeted for 19.04.

With the change in title, +1.

I'm in favor as well :)

I'm in favor, though I'm afraid I won't be of much help technically with the conversion process.

So, we didn't move to Cala for Cosmic. Shall we do so for Disco? I think now is the time to discuss and decide. @rikmill, @tsimonq2 @ngraham What say you?

Thank you very much for the feedbacks, packages are being copied to the regular backports PPA right now.

2 laptops and a desktop tested with fw 5.52. All working as expected. Nice job, greatly appreciated.

IrcsomeBot <DarinMiller> 2 machines tested tested here.... fw 5.52 working well. Testing a 3rd box shortly... 00:21

Can easily make a test exfat volume to mount in virtualbox, so should be simple to test. Similar code to install samba via packagekit exists in kdenetwork-filesharing source, so this should be possible.

In T9965#165914, @ngraham wrote:

In T9965#165913, @michaeltunnell wrote:

If not, then another option could be to make the warning message in Dolphin not so absurdly technical and instead explain what packages need to be installed for it to work.

That's something we should do anyway. Can you file a bug on bugs.kde.org and preferably attach a screenshot depicting the current error message? I'm semi-familiar with the code in question and may be able to offer up a quick fix.

In T9965#165913, @michaeltunnell wrote:

If not, then another option could be to make the warning message in Dolphin not so absurdly technical and instead explain what packages need to be installed for it to work.

Due to Microsoft joining the OIN it might be possible for exfat support to be included in a future release. Once Canonical Legal addresses this then I think it would be good to add.

Ok. Could be doable. My initial comment stands though. I would want a legal OK from higher up.

$ seeded-in-ubuntu fuse-exfat
fuse-exfat's binaries are not seeded.

Bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/exfat-utils/+bug/1649537 links to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/mtl/exfat-licensing.aspx which explicitly states:

Doubt we can do this unless this can be shown to be wrong AND it gets ok'd by Ubuntu/Canonical legally.