Re: default desktop: availability on all arches
On 11/09/14 19:26, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:11:22PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> Fair enough if a Debian desktop doesn't want to support "toy
>> architectures" (I don't mind use of this term).
>
> So you call all but two[1] of Debian architectures (14+9) "toys"[2]? Where
> has the "universal operating system" gone?
Well, Christian made reference the term in his mail, and it's something
some people might use as a derogative. But I'm actually quite fond of
the term. Toys still serve a purpose, perhaps an educational one, and
making toys would also be a cool hobby. But anyway...
> XFCE has none of Gnome3's problems, and were it not a last-minute entry, I'd
> suggest going with Mate. Mate has the upside of having been the default for
> every but one releases that had tasksel.
*If* most users do have modern amd64 hardware, lots of bandwidth and
suitable 3D graphics, maybe it would be okay to recommend GNOME in that
case? It may deliver the best possible experience on their computer.
I've no problem with something like that being Debian's foremost
product, even if it isn't right for everyone.
But in other situations I don't think it is sensible; even suggesting
it as the default seems unhelpful there. If someone uses other install
media, I think a better default ought to be "whatever we were able to
fit on this disc" or otherwise "whatever is quickest to download and
most likely work, and have Internet access".
>> Is that what we're *really* deciding with the process here?
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDesktop/Requalification/Jessie
>
> I'd say that being available on most architectures warrants at least a row
> in that table.
I think each row in that table is something the desktops should be
looking to compete on and try to improve, as long as it fits with their
goals. So I think it deserves a mention there...
> So what I'm suggesting is to add the "availability" or "portability" row to
> the table.
What team within Debian would be the best judge of those criteria?
> [1]. armhf machines typically rely on their GPUs to have any reasonable
> graphics performance, trying to emulate opengl in software isn't going to
> work.
I think the same will be true of old armel, and present-day mipsel
systems for example. My Lemote Yeeloong can run a very productive XFCE
desktop, but barely 15fps of full-screen video so I don't imagine it
could handle GNOME.
So it may turn out that *most* of Debian's architectures/ports can't run
GNOME very well, and something more lightweight makes sense for them.
But most of Debian's new users, and visitors to the website frontpage,
might get a better overall experience with GNOME.
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
steven@pyro.eu.org
Reply to: