KopenSUSE? :/

You are asking why some applications are not changing their names even their are default running in KDE and gnome likewise ubuntu they change their name in the sense that the user can easily identify what is the main features of an Ubuntu Distro.

Kubuntu = Kde
Ubuntu = Gnome
Edubuntu = for Education, for teachers and pre-schoolers
Xubuntu = Xfce Desktop Environment

Ubuntu for humanity, For me it means, one shot understandable Linux System

To my understanding, Kubuntu, et al, are official derivatives of Ubuntu, ie, they are allowed to use the Ubuntu name and branding, but are separate distributions. Although, presumably, many of the same developers work on them as on Ubuntu, though I don't know. Admittedly, it's a bit of a subtle distinction. But, for example, when Shuttleworth at Canonical talks of making Ubuntu matching or exceeding Apple for usability, he is referring pretty much only to Ubuntu, with GNOME. Another example of this process is the potentially upcoming Lubuntu, with the LXDE desktop. The project is currently working to get official collaboration with Canonical. http://blog.lxde.org/?p=208

Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu, but much further removed than Kubuntu, or Xubuntu. It is not an official derivative, as it were, but a very separate distribution, and would not even be allowed to use the Ubuntu name. They have their own tools, many of their own packages, etc.

Because of the freedom inherent in linux, there will always be a hundred and one different projects springing up and dying out at any given time, and there will probably never be this united front where someone can say, "Here is the linux operating system." (And I would personally argue there shouldn't be.) Better perhaps to view each distro as an individual linux-based system, and judge them accordingly, rather than this amorphous thing called GNU/Linux. Which seems to be where Ubuntu is going, anyway, where they are building a very strong brand identity, to the point where I have heard it said, "Should I install linux or ubuntu?"

Honestly, I don't particularly care if linux becomes the desktop of choice among the masses. I only want a large enough user-base that all the major vendors give us as much support as they do Apple, so I can flash my BIOS without using FreeDos, or watch friggin' abc.com.

But as far as it goes, I don't think GNU/Linux will ever get mass adoption until it becomes common place in schools. The only reason people find linux troublesome is unfamiliarity. If you used linux in grade school, and were able to buy linux preinstalled on computers, there would be no more trouble than with Apple or Microsoft. Probably quite a bit less than with Windows, since you wouldn't spend so much time fighting off malware.

Also, the more "user-friendliness" is pushed, the more the integral flexibility and power of the system is compromised. Looking at Macs for an example, you have a Unix-based system that is utterly locked down. Yes, you have a nice user interface, but I couldn't stand the rigidity. Also look at some of the dumbed-down netbook distros like Linpus Lite, where access to the command line and package manager are disabled by default. I suppose from the perspective of Acer as a company, it makes sense - if you have those enabled, it becomes very easy for the novice user to break their machine. In the desktop OS sphere, it's a very delicate balance between maintaining the flexibility and power that so many of us love, and having a clear, easy interface with which to interact with the system.

As far as being able to walk into a store and have a huge linux section...well, distro-wise, that will probably never be the case, since broadband internet is becoming so ubiquitous and it's free to download almost any distro, but walk into any good bookstore, and there is often a pretty significant section dedicated to linux and unix, and the magazine stand usually has at least half a dozen linux mags, with discs included.