On Monday 04 May 2009 11:50:47 pm Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 23:15 -0400, Trever Fischer wrote:
> I'm confused. Is this thread about bashing other desktop design
> philosophies now? I thought this was all originally a thread to introduce
> a way to put the major desktop environments on even footing.
My point is putting GNOME and KDE on "even footing" is not advantageous
to our overall ease of use. Yes, I'm disagreeing with the OP.
> I think you two should take a step
> back here and look at what we're trying to accomplish.
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but IMHO ease of use is
far more advantageous to the distribution's overall health than
political neutrality that no one but a bunch of nerds cares about.
Mainly, I'm trying to stop this thread from going on too much longer. Its
getting to be another one of those pulseaudio, or c-a-b threads.
> Let's just put a big
> 'ole 3-way radio button in the installer with "GNOME",
"KDE", and
> "Other/None" in the DVD installer and be done with it. I realize that
> picking a desktop environment probably isn't something a new Linux user
> is familiar with. But that doesn't mean we can't put some link on the
> download page explaining the term and the differences between the two.
And as Joel's essay points out, no amount of explaining or lecturing is
going to make the user care. You can't make them care. They will never
care. They want Firefox. They've heard of Firefox. They don't want GNOME
or KDE, they don't want Epiphany, they don't want Konqueror, they want
Firefox, they want their Myspace, and they want their webmail.
Its a fact of life
that there is more than one desktop environment in linux.
Linux is about choice. If our target audience doesn't want choice, why are
they using linux then? You're making this a lot bigger than it really is.
Choosing a desktop environment is but one choice out of millions that a user
makes. Let's suppose they chose to buy a copy of Windows Vista. Barring the
exorbitant pricing, which Vista do they buy?
Consider this as well: Does Aunt Tilly go out and actually buy a copy of
Vista? No, she just buys a new computer and uses what it comes with. It tends
to be the more advanced and knowledgeable users who do the research on what
"edition" they want. Aunt Tilly doesn't care what browser she uses, or why
free software is superior. She just uses her computer. Chances are, she'll
never hear about Fedora or even Linux unless her nephew or niece comes over
and shows her Ubuntu.
I don't think our target audience is really Aunt Tilly. Its nice to keep
telling ourselves it is, but our target audience is really more along the
lines of "people who are fed up with choices being made for them because
someone else thinks its better" AKA Microsoft, Cannocal[1], or Apple. If
there's a reason to switch to Fedora, thats a popular one. Its 100% true we
can't make the user care. So why is preventing the majority of people who /do/
care to have a choice from having a choice a good thing? If the user doesn't
care, they'll pick the first one just so they can speed through the installer.
If we want to target people who don't care, we can advertise a "I don't care
what software I use, just give me a web browser" spin that contains ratpoison
and a fullscreen firefox.
It really isn't a huge decision here. The user is asked to slow down and
consider what kind of experience they want, or they can just keep clicking
next and hope for the best. GNOME users seem satisfied with the lack of
customization compared to KDE (not bashing, as I myself rarely twiddle with
the trillions of options available to me), so if a new user is happy with
defaults even though there is a choice, they'll pick the first option in the
list.
I'd like to relate all this to the first time I tried Linux when I installed
Fedora Core 3. I clicked through the installer and when it got to the package
selection screen, I was astonished by the sheer volume of choices. GNOME was
checked as the desktop environment, so I just clicked next and hoped for the
best. If I had never played around with the KDE3 desktop on Knoppix, I might
just be a GNOME hacker today. I later installed Fedora Core 4 on another
desktop and I was happy to be able to pick between GNOME and KDE. Today, I'm
disappointed that I have to tell my KDE friends to dig through the fedora
website to find the KDE LiveCD. I'm also disappointed that there are so few KDE
developers actively involved with Fedora to get all these new features like
the *Kits and pulseaudio up to par with the GNOME suite. That just makes it
look like nobody in Fedora likes KDE.
> The only way I see this being resolved is with:
>
> A) We cave in and give the user a choice, which is something few other
> distros with a graphical installer do (only suse comes to mind), or
> B) We remain a stick in the mud, staying with the tried and true GNOME
> desktop.
>
> Picking A will almost certainly bring in more KDE users and help make KDE
> less of a second class citizen in Fedora. Picking B will make one less
> decision for linux newbies to make when they install Fedora.
>
> I believe option A will benefit fedora in the longer run.
And I disagree. B is better.
So that makes one for A, and one for B. Obviously we
must fight to the death :)
[1] I'm not saying they are as evil, but I'm not a fan of the default ubuntu
settings for some things...
--
Trever Fischer (tdfischer)
Fedora Ambassador, KDE Hacker
http://wm161.net
GPG: C40F2998
hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net