Re: Proposal: switch default desktop to xfce
Steve McIntyre <steve <at> einval.com> writes:
> Pros:
>
> * CD#1 will work again without size worries
>
> * Smaller, simpler desktop
>
> * Works well/better on all supported kernels (?)
>
> * Does not depend on replacing init
>
> Cons:
> * <please fill in here>
IMHO you forgot the crucial part here - why is there a default at all: so
that people who don't have the information to make a choice don't have to.
The arguments that come up here are from people who *have* made a choice.
But if you have made a choice, you're not in the target group for the
default. Right? As I see it, when you install Debian you're either an
archetypical Debian hacker running some weirdo^Wperfect setup you've refined
over the years (or soon-to-be version of the same), or you just don't care.
For people who just don't care, are you doing them a favour by installing
xfce rather than GNOME?
I don't think so. Most of the things people hate about GNOME are things that
GNOME is doing to specifically target people who just don't care.
Are you doing the archetypical (perhaps still wannabe) Debian hacker a
favour by choosing xfce? Possibly - but I think it's wrong to confound these
two populations. Catering for the hackers is the same as saying that Debian
is for Debian hackers, don't-cares go home. IMHO.
Of course you can change the installer UI, etc., but when we're talking
about the default, that's the message.
Another side of the coin is momentum. Both GNOME and KDE have a lot of
momentum. They are drivers for the Linux application landscape. E.g. they
both are actively being ported to Wayland. IMHO a don't-care is in a much
better long-term position with GNOME or KDE on his computer than one of the
smaller environments.
Ole
Reply to: