On 04/19/2017 07:17 AM, James Mason wrote:
On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 16:11 +0200, Tomas Chvatal wrote:
I would like to propose the following:
"Desktop selection dialogue won't have preselected any default value."
I strongly support your proposal, and I appreciate you donning a flameproof jacket and bringing it forward :D
If one thing is clear from the prior discussions, it's that we are a plural desktop community, and we should reflect that was well as we can.
On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 16:26 +0200, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
only achieves one thing: Make installing openSUSE for users new to Linux, and it's concept of different Desktops, harder :-)
I don't see how clicking a box makes installation harder - accepting the disk config is a much more demanding choice for new users. (One could argue, snarkily, that putting a new user in front of KDE is making things harder on a new user, but I won't :P )
If its your first time using Linux ever, without spending 15 minutes googling how do you know which of KDE or Gnome is the right choice? This is where it is hard and where the installer needs to do better (for leap users anyway)
I tried to raise this as part of the pull request over the redesigned desktop selection screen in YaST (and was shot down there too); I'd suggest we go a step further and feature more of our community- supported desktops (for which we have a number of high quality, well maintained options) that are currently relegated to a 2nd-tier choice.
I'd like to hear a good argument for not giving our XFCE, LXDE, MATE, Cinnamon, Pantheon, Enlightenment, Trinity, etc. communities equal treatment when it comes to desktop selection.
Let's define a process for presenting each desktop fairly, and let the communities who are up for it contribute the necessary content. We could document well the requirements for being a "Tier 1" package, at
For Leap I think its important that we provide 1-3 choices that are best for new users again to get them setup with something reasonable without overwhelming them with choice, then treating everything else in a equal way (similar to what we have now). For tumbleweed, i think you could make a case for just treating all of them the same, but you could also make a counter case that its better to keep the installer between the 2 approximately the same to make documentation and stuff like openQA more constant. the moment the requirements for "Tier 2" is simply that there is an associated pattern in the main repo. If we wanted to provide a process for something like this, we should also look at a process for defining which "leaf" packages make it onto the DVD in the first place, but thats probably another discussion for another day. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B