"default" desktop environments, etc.

[saturnian]

I thought maybe I should post this in a new thread, although it's sort of in reply to what was being discussed in another thread (http://forums.scotsn...showtopic=94392).

 

With any Linux distro, users can, of course, add any DE or WM that's desired, post-install. But you don't always get a choice at installation time, and many distros have one "default" DE that really takes center stage, so to speak.

 

I can see where that's probably good for folks who are brand new to Linux. Some examples: MEPIS, you'd get only KDE. Now with MX Linux, you get Xfce. Ubuntu, it was GNOME2, then it was Unity, now it'll be GNOME3. Mint, it's Cinnamon, but I guess you could also choose MATE (or maybe you have to download a completely different iso for that). And so forth. Seems that this is generally how things go for distros that try to cater to "new" users.

 

And I guess that approach kinda turns me off, turns me away from those types of distros. I'm okay with a distro having a "default" DE, but when I start an installer, I like to see something like, "Choose your desktop environment," with a list of options. Or something to that effect, like what I see when I'm installing Debian, or Antergos, for example. Or like with Arch, which doesn't have that type of installer, but the user decides which DE (or WM) to install.

 

I wish that something like this had been offered in Ubuntu all along. Would it really make things all that difficult for "new" users if something like the following was presented during the installation process?

 

Choose your desktop environment:

GNOME (default)
KDE
Xfce
LXDE
Cinnamon
(...)

 

I understand that some of the "smaller" distros (I mean, distros with smaller dev teams) might not have the resources to offer more than one DE. Yet, some still do. Antergos does. antiX, as I recall, offers various WMs.

 

I think that most "new" users, if given a choice, would start out by going with the "default," naturally. But I also think that they'd appreciate knowing, up front, that they do have other choices. Linux is supposed to be about choice -- that's what we always say, right?

 

I think that if Ubuntu had been doing something like this all along, nobody would have felt like something was being "forced" on them when Ubuntu switched to Unity, and much of the ensuing outcry would have been avoided.

 

I can't think of any distro which caters to "new" Linux users that has even tried this approach, but perhaps I'm forgetting something.

 

Thoughts?

[Dr. J]

I definitely prefer having the option to choose my DE during the install too. That way I can keep one image of, say Debian for example, handy on a USB, and if I'm doing a fresh install for any reason, I'm free to choose whatever I feel like without having to go and download another image... great for me because my choice of DE tends to be a spur of the moment impulse rather than a well thought out decision.

 

For the non-technical user who just wants something that works for them, the common approach doesn't seem to bad, although I think Antergos had a great idea in that respect, showing screenshots of the DEs and giving a brief description within the installer. I've done a quick check, and to no great surprise the first distribution turned up by most common search engines searching for "Linux" is Ubuntu. I'd say something like the Antergos DE selection would be a nice idea in Ubuntu, just so new users are aware of the choices they have.

[raymac46]

Well let's remember that in earlier times we didn't have DVDs, or thumbdrives with the capacity to hold a bunch of DEs - and / or the bandwidth to netinstall whatever we wanted. If we knew what we wanted.

So having a single DE to get you going made sense. Ubuntu went with multiple distros and to some extent that is what LM has done. You can get an Xfce and MATE version as well as the default (Cinnamon) distro.

Add to that the fact that for the flagship new user distros, the look and feel of the default desktop has become part of that distro's vision and branding and hence it makes sense to offer a one and only DE to get you started.

More enthusiasts-oriented or experienced user distros adopt the DE agnostic viewpoint of that sort of user and let her/him make an informed choice. New users coming from Mac or Windows where things are locked down probably expect to have the DE defined for them. At the very least they expect to get something that works.

Edited May 12, 2017 by raymac46

[ebrke]

As I recall, SuSE has always given you options during the install for DE. KDE and Gnome were most obvious choices--you have to dig a little to find xfce or ice but they're there.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Slackware offers KDE or Xfce at installation time. Install the libs for both, and you can switch back and forth anytime you want by editing xinitrc. I run Xfce, but I have all the KDE libs/apps installed, also, so that I can utilize apps such as k3B, Konqueror/Dolphin, and AmaroK.

[ebrke]

I always wind up with all the Gnome libs, although I've never used the DE, because I install GnuCash.

[abarbarian]

I thought maybe I should post this in a new thread, although it's sort of in reply to what was being discussed in another thread (http://forums.scotsn...showtopic=94392).

 

With any Linux distro, users can, of course, add any DE or WM that's desired, post-install. But you don't always get a choice at installation time, and many distros have one "default" DE that really takes center stage, so to speak.

 

I can see where that's probably good for folks who are brand new to Linux. Some examples: MEPIS, you'd get only KDE. Now with MX Linux, you get Xfce. Ubuntu, it was GNOME2, then it was Unity, now it'll be GNOME3. Mint, it's Cinnamon, but I guess you could also choose MATE (or maybe you have to download a completely different iso for that). And so forth. Seems that this is generally how things go for distros that try to cater to "new" users.

 

And I guess that approach kinda turns me off, turns me away from those types of distros. I'm okay with a distro having a "default" DE, but when I start an installer, I like to see something like, "Choose your desktop environment," with a list of options. Or something to that effect, like what I see when I'm installing Debian, or Antergos, for example. Or like with Arch, which doesn't have that type of installer, but the user decides which DE (or WM) to install.

 

I wish that something like this had been offered in Ubuntu all along. Would it really make things all that difficult for "new" users if something like the following was presented during the installation process?

 

Choose your desktop environment:

GNOME (default)
KDE
Xfce
LXDE
Cinnamon
(...)

 

I understand that some of the "smaller" distros (I mean, distros with smaller dev teams) might not have the resources to offer more than one DE. Yet, some still do. Antergos does. antiX, as I recall, offers various WMs.

 

I think that most "new" users, if given a choice, would start out by going with the "default," naturally. But I also think that they'd appreciate knowing, up front, that they do have other choices. Linux is supposed to be about choice -- that's what we always say, right?

 

I think that if Ubuntu had been doing something like this all along, nobody would have felt like something was being "forced" on them when Ubuntu switched to Unity, and much of the ensuing outcry would have been avoided.

 

I can't think of any distro which caters to "new" Linux users that has even tried this approach, but perhaps I'm forgetting something.

 

Thoughts?

 

Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of ?

 

The Linux AIO project: All of a distro's desktops in one ISO

 

 

there was also "hybryde" but it looks orphaned now.

 

http://distrowatch.com/index.php?distribution=hybryde&release=all&month=all&year=all

 

 

There was also a distro that had eleven, I think, of those minimalistic DE's or WM's included. Can not think of the right term at the moment. The sort of thing Josh uses,

 

 

[securitybreach]

There was also a distro that had eleven, I think, of those minimalistic DE's or WM's included. Can not think of the right term at the moment. The sort of thing Josh uses,

 

 

 

I use i3wm

[Hedon James]

Cool thread! That Hybryde distro looks interesting to me....the sort of thing I would load up in a VM and take for a spin, if it weren't orphaned. I'll still check it out...cool find & thanks for sharing!

[V.T. Eric Layton]

They're ALL cool threads here, man! Where've you been?

[securitybreach]

They're ALL cool threads here, man! Where've you been?

 

Indeed

[abarbarian]

Beats me why there are threads like this when there is really only one desktop environment worth bothering with. Elegant and so simple to configure to your own tastes and using minimal cpu cycles along with it being keyboard friendly. Why would you waste valuable time bothering with anything else.

 

Window Maker for folk who value time.

 

https://windowmaker.org/

 

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Window_Maker

 

https://sourceforge.net/projects/wmlive/

 

Window Maker so popular forums even have threads dedicated to it.

 

http://forums.scotsnewsletter.com/index.php?showtopic=56171&hl=

 

Window Maker as relevant today as the day it was created way back in 1997.

 

I guess folk have lost sight of the KISS principle. Keep it simple suckers.

 

[securitybreach]

Beats me why there are threads like this when there is really only one desktop environment worth bothering with. Elegant and so simple to configure to your own tastes and using minimal cpu cycles along with it being keyboard friendly. Why would you waste valuable time bothering with anything else.

 

Why would you waste time using a mouse when you can run i3wm?

[Hedon James]

They're ALL cool threads here, man! Where've you been?

 

Touche and true dat! But desktop environments are one of my favorite linux topics of interest, so this thread is cooler than most, IMO. In the words of Spinal Tap "...but this one goes to 11!"

[abarbarian]

Beats me why there are threads like this when there is really only one desktop environment worth bothering with. Elegant and so simple to configure to your own tastes and using minimal cpu cycles along with it being keyboard friendly. Why would you waste valuable time bothering with anything else.

 

Why would you waste time using a mouse when you can run i3wm?

 

Well I think I am dyslexic or I have smoked too much as I frequently transpose letters when I type. This makes for endless corrections, plus me spelling seems to be getting worse. An I have a touch of arthritis and stiffness in a couple of damaged fingers. Plus I have loads of spare time . Oh yeah an I think Window Maker is prettier than any other desktop thingy

[saturnian]

Window Maker for folk who value time.

 

I had Window Maker installed here for quite a while, and I liked it. I like Openbox better, though.

 

New users coming from Mac or Windows where things are locked down probably expect to have the DE defined for them.

 

Maybe so. But maybe it depends on the user. I think that I would have liked to have seen other DE options right from the beginning, but it's kinda hard now for me to remember what my exact mindset was when I first tried Linux. But I was trying other desktops as soon as I found out that I could do so, even though I was still quite new to Linux at that point.