Bug#511287: debian-installer: Should have a task for installing KDE or XFCE instead of Gnome
> We may not have a task ATM, but the user *can* choose which desktop to
> install from the installer's boot menu (for i386/amd64). See:
> http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/i386/ch06s03.html.en#di-install-software
>
> Some CD images (businesscard, netinst and DVD) also allow selection
> of the desired desktop environment from the graphical boot menu.
> Select the “Advanced options” option in the main menu and look for
> “Alternative desktop environments”.
>
> This is not ideal, but a lot better than we had for Etch.
I agree, it's a lot better and I would like to go further.
With Lenny, the option exists but it's hidden in a menu.
> The rationale for that implementation can be found in this thread:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2008/12/msg00019.html
I'm quoting the main point behind the rationale:
[...]
[1] A bit of background info.
One could wonder why this is being done in the isolinux boot menu rather
than during the installation, e.g. in tasksel.
The simple reason is that Joey Hess, the lead developer for tasksel, has
always been opposed to doing it in tasksel with as main argument that
tasksel is mostly for new users who are probably not aware of what DEs
exist and thus would only be confused when having to choose between
meaningless names as GNOME, KDE, etc.
One could argue about the validity of that argument, or about implementing
it so that the option would only be available for "expert" users, but the
fact remains that tasksel currently does not support DE selection.
But users do regularly keep asking about it.
One reason I have chosen to "hide" DE selection in the "Advanced options"
menu instead of in the main boot menu is to honor Joey's feelings about
this: I think that this way it is buried deep enough not to confuse new
users, while still being easily enough available to users who go looking
for it.
Still, the option to support DE selection in the boot menu can be seen as
a workaround for the fact that it's missing in tasksel.
[...]
We should revisit Joey's argument.
The posted links about opensuse decision makes me think the argument
isn't valid.
Another distribution, more desktop oriented and probably more
"user-friendly" than us,
gives the choice in his installer. There's still a default value for
the new users who are
probably not aware of DEs existence. opensuse installer proves their OS can be
installed in less than 10 clicks and don't annoy newbies.
Aren't we the universal OS ? aren't we a distribution for all ?
The main desktops should be considered equal citizens and not give
privilege to one of them.
Maybe we should ask our users about it and let them express their opinions
(a feature tracking system like openFATE), instead of thinking for
them (user interaction).
It seems my link about seele's blog post is down.
Please found below a copy:
[...]
A recent LWN article (subscription required) on the openSUSE desktop
debate has an excellent quote from user Naheem Zaffar:
“Choice is only good if you are informed enough to exercise it.”
Those of you who may have read Barry Schwartz’ “The Paradox of Choice”
may already be familiar with the idea of choice paralysis though
information overload. One of the reasons I’ve stayed out of the
conversation is that I feel that openSUSE should not offer a choice at
all. Not supporting “freedom of choice” is a very controversial
position to take in a free software community, but many fail to
realise how much “choice” can hurt a user.
The current design places a burden on the user. Two options of
seemingly equal importance are presented and the user is asked to make
a choice. This choice requires the user to be knowledgeable enough
about each option to make a decision. Normally, defaults help guide
the user in making a decision. Having one selected by default is
helpful, but this “hint” is offset by the purposeful neutral presence
of an alternative. The list is in alphabetical order and not order of
importance and both options have the same visual treatment. How can
the user know that the selected option is the best option for them and
not simply the first item on the list? This isn’t very user friendly.
An argument might be made that this is a good opportunity for openSUSE
to help educate users about the technology choices. However, can that
really be done in a 150 word paragraph without screenshots or feature
lists? Is this something the user wants to do in the middle of an
installation process? Providing such a small amount of information
might actually increase the burden, because now the user may realise
how little they actually know about the choice they are about to make.
Additionally, there is evidence which shows that 2/3 of openSUSE’s
userbase are not using the current default. Possibly meaning that
during 2/3 of openSUSE installations, users must change the default.
This seems unnecessary and inefficient and induces an opportunity for
users to make a mistake. This doesn’t sound very usable.
What to do? I would remove the burden of choice altogether and provide
a single recommendation. A way to change the recommendation can still
be implemented for more knowledgeable users, but made unobtrusive to
users who do not search for it. I’ve heard a few concerns about the
usability of hiding such an option in an “Advanced” menu (a method
previously employed), but the method shouldn’t be discounted just
because it has been designed poorly in the past. Fix the problem,
don’t design around it.
Obviously, I would like to see KDE as the default desktop for
openSUSE. Ethically, I would rather see openSUSE — or any distribution
for that matter — fix their design to better support users, regardless
of which desktop environment makes the most sense to install by
default. In this case, there is evidence that 2/3 of openSUSE’s users
run KDE; — good reason for selecting KDE by default. Conversely, I
wouldn’t argue for KDE if the numbers were reversed to favor GNOME. I
just want to see good design.
openSUSE has a hard business decision to make. They can continue to
support “freedom of choice” and continue to burden the user. Or they
can assist users by making an informed choice for them.
I support freedom of choice — when it helps, not hurts. Limiting a
user’s autonomy by paralyzing them with choices doesn’t sound like a
very good user experience. Then again, if openSUSE chooses a default
which doesn’t support 2/3 of their user base, maybe they should just
stick with the bad design.
[...]
Reply to: