On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2009/4/27 Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> 2009/4/27 Christoph Höger <choeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > This is a free distribution. >> > >> > If you don't like _any_ default choice, feel free to make your own >> > spin ;) >> > >> > That said: I think, a default desktop is needed as well as a default >> > color sheme or a default name: You need something that helps people to >> > recognize fedora. That's all. >> >> >> You're going to have to back that up with some reason as who why a >> default desktop is needed. > > A distribution is more than just a collection of packages stored in a semi > convenient location. New users also need to be given informed choices. > > The extreme to not choosing sensible defaults is to present the user with a > list of all the packages, none clicked and ask them to choose exactly what > they want. I am sure the users will thank Fedora for that... > > Choice is only good when its informed choice. A person can only truly choose > if he/she knows what the choices entail - a new user will not know what DE > is better suited by him/her before trying them all, so forcing a choice to > decide on one is just an illusion of choice. > > When Fedora has defaults, to me it means that someone has put some thought > into this, into making it all coherent. And that is a good thing. If I > disagree with any default, I can then try to work around it, but that would > only be a 1% change decision in most cases instead of forcing the end user > to choose 100% of the components. What's the criteria being used to decide the default desktop? -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
