Adam Williamson wrote: > We're circling. I already said that even if it doesn't really matter > which option you pick, making someone make a decision they don't > understand frustrates them. That's the problem, not the 'danger' that > they might pick the 'wrong choice'. Eh eh, the discussion is about giving a user the choice to select the desktop he wants. The GNOME desktop tries to avoid user choices. The KDE desktop tries to encourage user choices. And the decision on allowing a desktop choice divides people in two camps: 1) those that think the user should not choose 2) those that think the user should have to choose I'd bet people in 1) are GNOME users and people in 2) are KDE users. I'm in 2) and I'm a KDE user, I'd guess you instead use GNOME ;-) It is not a cliche, it is really a different way to approach things, and it is showing at the choice-about-choice level too. The no-choice position is intrinsically stronger, because it is in some way recursive: - no choice - no choice about having choices - no choice about the choice of having choices ... On the other way, the other approach is more aligned to the freedom ideal that Fedora wants to inspire. IMHO. :-) Best regards. -- Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
