the importance of defaults ( was: Debian default desktop environment )
tl;dr go to 
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> My vote would be on GNOME 3 classic for now, but XFCE with sensible and
> visually appealing defaults would do it for me too.
You are all facing different experiences with end-users because
end-users are probably different. Some likes shiny, others like
useful, some are computer illiterate, others are experts, most are in
I had to leave gnome with gnome3 because it disrupted my workflow so
much i couldn't cope
In my case I like shiny but not at the cost of useful.
xfce4 felt like a less polished gnome2 but at least it didn't disrupt
Some numbers with my free interpretation from ubuntu popcon:
unity is installed in 605_209 machines, but its used regularly only by 46_210
Thats a very low number by all metrics for a default desktop .
People dislike it. People dislike disruptive
My point is that gnome3 is even more disruptive than unity. Do we want
to attract users or scare them away?
Those who like disruptive desktops will still be able to do it by
install it them. The next less disruptive thing after gnome2 is xfce.
I used ubuntu instead of debian to make my point because i think is
more representative for several reasons:
- their numbers are one order of magnitude bigger than debian's
- the user base is more average than debian's (its debatable what
average even means)
 Please watch this ted talk about the importance of defaults