people complain about choice, but that is what they want

[djbsteart1]

I find this very odd, there are a large number of people coming to Linux and realising that there are so many different versions to try, so they pick one, lets say Ubuntu, thinking that that will be it, then they have to choose between KDE Gnome or XFCE by default, then if they make it to the install, there are 4 different file systems to choose from. All of a sudden the environment that Windows provided is not too bad, they have almost what they need and they dont need to do anything other than click.
But then these same very people will do to a supermarket and spend hours deciding over what tv to buy and what carrots to eat. Something driven by capitalism, giving them choice. yet with computers, which through M$ embody what capitalism is, they dont want choice.
Now I'm not saying that Linux is capitalistic in the current sense of the word, but the choice offered here has come through people expressing what they want, and if it is not there, they make it, which is what capitalism should be, the freedom to choose.
So I find myself asking, why? as a society (America's, Europe, Britain....)drive capitalism forward, yet why do we not take it when it comes to computers?

[k2t0f12d]

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. What if the thing I select is wrong? What if the thing I pick is harder then the other choices, or doesn't do the thing I want to do. To say nothing of what I should do if I have no idea what it is I am choosing between.

But the cost of the mechanism-not-policy approach is that when the user can set policy, the user must set policy. Nontechnical end-users frequently find Unix's profusion of options and interface styles overwhelming and retreat to systems that at least pretend to offer them simplicity.

M$ drove the paradigm because what has been made available in Windows has shaped what people expect to do with their computer. Through the monopoly they could include anyone else's work and then claim innovation.

[Scarath]

Most people dont want to have to take their brain off autopilot.

[k2t0f12d]

Most people dont want to have to take their brain off autopilot.

It isn't just that their brains are on autopilot, they have been put on autopilot by the removal of language from computing. How many newbs come to the forum ask to have the console removed?

(Click the quote to view the video clip. 10min 42sec)


I was working at I.B.M. in 1979 and somebody asked me for an internal use only review of a thing called the LISA, which was Apple's then experimental attempt to bring Xerox Park technology into the Steve Jobs world. And the LISA was a pre-Macintosh kind of computer, and I wrote an internal appreciation about that computer in which I said this is a catastrophe. This is the end of language in relation to computers. This is the implementation of the "caveman" interface. You point and you grunt. And if we reduce the interaction between human beings and computers to pointing and grunting then we miss the role of language in the evolution of human mind and and human consciousness. Language is what makes our brains bigger. If we don't use languages to relate to computers neither their brains nor our brains will grow in the way that they are supposed to grow. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKxzK9xtSXM)

[Dngrsone]

There's choice, and there's too much to choose from.

You ever have to stand in line behind someone at one of those fast food places that has a menu the size of a small phone book and wait for them to decide on something; anything for lunch?

Same thing with Linux. You have your choice of front end, then the massive choice of sides... how many different text editors are there? Which is better? No one can say because everyone penguinhead says something different.

[Scarath]

There's choice, and there's too much to choose from.

You ever have to stand in line behind someone at one of those fast food places that has a menu the size of a small phone book and wait for them to decide on something; anything for lunch?

Same thing with Linux. You have your choice of front end, then the massive choice of sides... how many different text editors are there? Which is better? No one can say because everyone penguinhead says something different.

Well those people in the fastfood place should be considerate and step to one side while they choose, sadly many humans lack this ability.

As with Linux, if people can be bothered to research the many apps available then they should make informed decisions, if they cant be bothered to do the research then they should just stick with what they have.

I dont think Linux has too much choice at all. If you want to use Linux and not have to choose just install Ubu and away you go. If you want to use Linux as a hobby then the amount of stuff you have to test/mess with is great. If anything I think we need more of some things (more completely novel and innovative desktop environments for example).

@k2t0f12d - Point and Grunt, I like it :D

[Iceni]

I think the problem is not that people don't want the choice, I think the problem is that they have no base of experience to draw on. When I installed Ubuntu about 1 year ago I had absolutely no idea what I was getting into.

What is "Gnome"? What is "KDE?" "XFCE?" I thought I was gonna install "Linux"? And then you get the choice between 4 different Ubuntu's - how are you supposed to choose? I went with Gnome, but could just as easily have picked Kubuntu and probably stuck with that.

Take me as an example. I'm computer savy in the windows world - I know what FAT, FAT32 and NTFS is. I can partition a drive and know the difference between logical partitions. I even knew that Windows bootloader is evil. I still had no idea what ext3, ext2, reiserFS and god know what else type of file systems I could pick. I would be happy if someone had told me (the installer, preferably) that keeping my "home" directory on a different partition was a great idea.

A solution to this would be a more newbie-friendly installer. What about a mode where you simply answer a few questions - like would you like to format the drive or would you like to keep your data and windows, then instert your name and password, and then the installed would do the rest.

[p_quarles]

You ever have to stand in line behind someone at one of those fast food places that has a menu the size of a small phone book and wait for them to decide on something; anything for lunch?
Except you're not standing behind anyone, in this case.


You have your choice of front end, then the massive choice of sides... how many different text editors are there? Which is better?
Vim.

[forrestcupp]

It's just the way people have been trained in computing. People aren't like that in every area. Think about buying a car. How many choices do you have? People don't complain about all of the different kinds of vehicles to choose from and worry about choosing the wrong one. They usually either go by other people's testimonies or they study it out before they make a big move like that. People don't worry about which fast food place to choose for lunch or that there are too many cell phone companies to choose from.

We have to make choices every day, and in most cases we are wise enough to be able to figure out how to make a good choice.

The truth is that when you finally choose a distro and install it, most of them come with a default setup, and you're usually not going to go wrong with it no matter what it is.

[aysiu]

I find this very odd, there are a large number of people coming to Linux and realising that there are so many different versions to try, so they pick one, lets say Ubuntu, thinking that that will be it, then they have to choose between KDE Gnome or XFCE by default, then if they make it to the install, there are 4 different file systems to choose from. All of a sudden the environment that Windows provided is not too bad, they have almost what they need and they dont need to do anything other than click. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think it'd apply more aptly to other Linux distributions that actually do have you make choices. Ubuntu does not make you pick between KDE, Gnome, and Xfce. If all you hear is Try Ubuntu, you will use Gnome. You will come across Kubuntu or Xubuntu only if you do further investigation, and you may not even realize they're related to Ubuntu. Likewise, you do not have 4 filesystems to choose from. I'm pretty sure Ubuntu defaults to Ext3. Ubuntu also installs by default only one application per task.


But then these same very people will do to a supermarket and spend hours deciding over what tv to buy and what carrots to eat. Something driven by capitalism, giving them choice. yet with computers, which through M$ embody what capitalism is, they dont want choice.
Now I'm not saying that Linux is capitalistic in the current sense of the word, but the choice offered here has come through people expressing what they want, and if it is not there, they make it, which is what capitalism should be, the freedom to choose.
So I find myself asking, why? as a society (America's, Europe, Britain....)drive capitalism forward, yet why do we not take it when it comes to computers? It's not a matter of computers v. supermarket. It's a matter of familiarity and informed choice versus meaningless choice. If you say to someone, "Would you rather have a Robinson's or a Ribena?" she'd probably be able to pick one. If, however, you said, "Would you rather have KDE or Gnome?" she'd probably say, "What?!" People know Robinson's and Ribena. If you say "KDE or Gnome," you might as well be saying "Blah or BlahBlah."

That's why I have a page explaining a little bit about the differences between KDE and Gnome (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome). That's why there's a Linux distribution chooser quiz (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/). If people are able to make an informed choice or have a quiz point them in a direction, they don't mind choice. It's being presented with meaningless choices that confuses and frustrates people. It's like when I was first employed and presented with HMO and PPO before anyone explained to me the difference between the two.

[toupeiro]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think it'd apply more aptly to other Linux distributions that actually do have you make choices. Ubuntu does not make you pick between KDE, Gnome, and Xfce. If all you hear is Try Ubuntu, you will use Gnome. You will come across Kubuntu or Xubuntu only if you do further investigation, and you may not even realize they're related to Ubuntu. Likewise, you do not have 4 filesystems to choose from. I'm pretty sure Ubuntu defaults to Ext3. Ubuntu also installs by default only one application per task.

It's not a matter of computers v. supermarket. It's a matter of familiarity and informed choice versus meaningless choice. If you say to someone, "Would you rather have a Robinson's or a Ribena?" she'd probably be able to pick one. If, however, you said, "Would you rather have KDE or Gnome?" she'd probably say, "What?!" People know Robinson's and Ribena. If you say "KDE or Gnome," you might as well be saying "Blah or BlahBlah."

That's why I have a page explaining a little bit about the differences between KDE and Gnome (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome). That's why there's a Linux distribution chooser quiz (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/). If people are able to make an informed choice or have a quiz point them in a direction, they don't mind choice. It's being presented with meaningless choices that confuses and frustrates people. It's like when I was first employed and presented with HMO and PPO before anyone explained to me the difference between the two.

/signed and +'ed Great example.

[djbsteart1]

U guess I could have been slightly more specific, and these replies also beg te question, we use our cars about the same as we do our computers, but why do we not research what we use on computers? Yes we dont like straying from the norm, but organic food is becoming popular, people dont wants as many SUVs and such, so maybe the computer is next. I guess that what you said about files ystems is true, but it only takes 2 seconds of being inquisitive at any point in the install, and you end up in someplace that is very very new. I guess this is good, well for me it was as I am inquisitive but for someone who wants the point and grunt computer this is a nightmare. Which comes round to where the installer plays such an important role, if this could be made so that there was an advanced and simple method, i think that there would be far more people using Linux nd not whining about how "unfriendly" it is. A bad install experience makes anything bad seem hugely worse. To paraphrase Aiysu from anothere post, 'Ubuntu becoming popular due to people hearing that its windows but free or easy to use is the issue' if a screen before install said read anyone of the many excellent posts about what linux actually is, then things would be simpler, the choices would be informed, and not blind.

[DrMega]

I think its more about uninformed choice than anything else. When I first took an interest in Linux, I hadn't even heard of KDE, Gnome or Xfce. When I did first hear of them I then thought that apps for one would not run on another, so choosing the right one was paramount. Some distros websites do nothing to dispell those misunderstandings, instead choosing to report in their latest news that they feature the latest all singing all dancing version of KDE or Gnome.

It is sometimes easy forget that what one person takes for granted is an entirely alien concept for someone else.

[aysiu]

U guess I could have been slightly more specific, and these replies also beg te question, we use our cars about the same as we do our computers, but why do we not research what we use on computers? I don't understand how your comparison works. Most people don't research what software they use on their cars--they research the cars. They think of cars as total products and not a collection of parts. The only time that changes is when a part is broken and needs to be replaced. Likewise, they think of computers as whole products. Many people do not think of Windows as an operating system or even know what an operating system is. They think, "This is a Sony Vaio. This is a Dell Inspiron. This is a Macbook. This is a Lenovo Thinkpad." They take it for granted that any computer that is not a Mac is "a PC" (meaning "a Windows PC"--Linux does not even fit into the picture). Replacing an operating system is the last thing on their minds.

Most people do not install and configure operating systems. They buy computers with operating systems preinstalled.

[djbsteart1]

I don't understand how your comparison works. Most people don't research what software they use on their cars--they research the cars. They think of cars as total products and not a collection of parts. The only time that changes is when a part is broken and needs to be replaced. Likewise, they think of computers as whole products. Many people do not think of Windows as an operating system or even know what an operating system is. They think, "This is a Sony Vaio. This is a Dell Inspiron. This is a Macbook. This is a Lenovo Thinkpad." Replacing an operating system is the last thing on their minds.

Most people do not install and configure operating systems. They buy computers with operating systems preinstalled.

People research what they want in a car, but not in a computer. They spend time getting just what they want, they will choose options like air con and what not, but with computers it is as you say, they operating system is the layer below what they are concerned with. Of late (thanks vista) people seem more concerned with hardware and that i becoming more noticeable. You used to buy a laptop from dell, now there are options on memory and processor and many other features. And sticking with Dell, they are bringing Ubuntu into the same thing as a sub surface thing with the preinstalled software, as are system 76. I cant decide if this is good or bad, but at least it shows Linux in a vary friendly manner, that can be built o to whatever goal is required.

[saulgoode]

It isn't just that their brains are on autopilot, they have been put on autopilot by the removal of language from computing. How many newbs come to the forum ask to have the console removed?

(Click the quote to view the video clip. 10min 42sec)

YouTube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKxzK9xtSXM)


And for those who choose to watch the video in a non-patent-encumbered, open format, an OGG Theora version is available at Linux.com (http://www.linux.com/articles/114303)

[aysiu]

People research what they want in a car, but not in a computer. They spend time getting just what they want, they will choose options like air con and what not, but with computers it is as you say, they operating system is the layer below what they are concerned with. And what I'm saying is that you're not making a direct comparison. Cars have computers in them, too, but almost no one cares what operating system runs on their cars. They do care about air conditioning and sunroofs and such, but likewise people care about how much RAM is in their computers, how fast the hard drive is, whether it comes with a web cam or not.

Price may also affect how much research people put in. In the US (where I live), cars run anywhere from $16,000 to $50,000 (or more, if you're super-fancy) for a new purchase. Home computers, on the other hand, generally cost $200 to $2000 (again, it can be more if you're super-fancy), and so require some research but not as much, as it is not as much of an investment.

[pedrotuga]

A subject that hasn't really been touched in here is the complexity of the technology you have power over when you buy buy a computer.

In the old days, if you would be driving your car and t would stop working for some reason, there would be big chances that pretty much every driver would have some knowledge that would allow him/her to understand what was going on, what went wrong.
A computer, and electronics in general as very complex, if something breaks, the cause is not usually visible/understandable by the user.

Most of the users will then feel more comfortable with something that's working out of the box and that they are used to.

Using an aggressive marketing strategy allied to end user simplicity microsoft manage to get to the less ambitious users. They got used to their products and they don't feel like climbing more learning curves. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, i think this distribution in particular is making a very good job bringing linux to the masses. You put the CD, you click a few times in "next" or whatever, and there you go... you ubuntu installation is rocking!

People wants simplicity, that includes a common pattern among a big population slice.

If we pay attention on windows desktop, when you want to turn of your computer you actually have to click on "start". Nobody really complains on that because everybody is so used to it that it just makes sense... when in fact it does not make any sense at all.
Knowing this and how tricky using a computer can be if you never seen one, you can easily that choice represents "again all that trouble of learning".

[sicofante]

I would say the OP is mixing concepts here. The "Linux is about choice" mantra doesn't understand choice is not always good. At different levels of the production chain, choice has different values. Standards are there to avoid too much choice at the low level. End customer options are there to provide choice at the highest level. Linux lacks platform status because choice is put everywhere, even in the wrong place (i.e. at the lowest level). Choice at the lowest level is good for experimenting or research, is good for computer science but it's THE reason Linux is not coming to the masses or seducing ISVs.

Ubuntu is seen by many Linux radicals as a "monopoly", but in a world where the so called community doesn't seem able to reach an agreement, only de-facto standards can prevail and I guess Ubuntu will become that (I certainly hope so). That doesn't mean other distros won't exist (as long as anyone wants to create one, they will), it does mean end users and ISVs can focus on one way of doing things to improve from there (that's a platform). And that will bring real choice to the table. The real choice that's to be found in the high level: applications, themes, hardware options, etc. Only when the basics are decided and no choice is to be made there, we have a platform and we can threat other systems in place (Mac and Windows).

[djbsteart1]

And what I'm saying is that you're not making a direct comparison. Cars have computers in them, too, but almost no one cares what operating system runs on their cars. They do care about air conditioning and sunroofs and such, but likewise people care about how much RAM is in their computers, how fast the hard drive is, whether it comes with a web cam or not.

Price may also affect how much research people put in. In the US (where I live), cars run anywhere from $16,000 to $50,000 (or more, if you're super-fancy) for a new purchase. Home computers, on the other hand, generally cost $200 to $2000 (again, it can be more if you're super-fancy), and so require some research but not as much, as it is not as much of an investment.

Sorry my bad, I see what your getting at now, this is true, but people also want to add things that are to do with software to cars, sat nav for instance. This "added bonus" has spilt into the world of computers as well, with things becoming very graphical and full of eye candy. At this level of software people want choice. But yes when it comes down to the internals of computers/cars things go very wrong. When something breaks it goes to the shop. I feel that i am above average when it comes to computer maintainance, I will only clean stuff and upgrade components, if something went wrong I wouldn't have any idea where too look.

I would say the OP is mixing concepts here. The "Linux is about choice" mantra doesn't understand choice is not always good. At different levels of the production chain, choice has different values. Standards are there to avoid too much choice at the low level. End customer options are there to provide choice at the highest level. Linux lacks platform status because choice is put everywhere, even in the wrong place (i.e. at the lowest level). Choice at the lowest level is good for experimenting or research, is good for computer science but it's THE reason Linux is not coming to the masses or seducing ISVs.

This is true and I agree that the level o choice in Linux at lower levels is what will hold in back, however, this as you said does give a huge range of development options, which I feel is very good. Yes contradiction, but we are talking about computers. I fully understand the ;Linux is about choice' mantra, that was why i didn't list any low level choices, just things like kde and gnome. (file systems can ft in both)

[sicofante]

that was why i didn't list any low level choices, just things like kde and gnome. (file systems can ft in both)
See? KDE and Gnome are low level choices and one -if not the main- thing keeping Linux from being a platform with unique APIs to develop for, like Windows or Mac, and bringing to the user an inconsistent experience when forced to use apps designed for the other DE.

Ubuntu has made a choice (and Redhat and Novell, don't forget it). It's Gnome. Maybe KDE was better. For the "Linux is about choice" followers the fight is far from over and will continue endlessly. As a user I don't care any more which one is better (I have my opinion, but that's not important). As a user I only want someone to make a decision on that and Ubuntu has done it. Hurrah! Now that Gnome is the DE of choice, we can start tweaking it and making it better, ISVs can develop apps for it and making it a real option before Windows and Mac. Even those devs who are in love with Qt MUST take care of how their apps will look and behave in Gnome if they want them to succeed. That's VERY good, not bad.

Think about the HD-DVD vs BluRay war. Was it good to have a choice? Wasn't it the reason why HD content was being so slowly adopted? Weren't the features of each contender equally valuable? All I know is HD content is going to rocket now people don't have to make technical decisions on which format they like best. Now they can buy a movie in BluRay and feel safe.

This super-choice idea is holding Linux back from making any real dent in the other players' share. I only hope Ubuntu keeps "monopolizing" the Linux sphere and users and ISVs feel safer to jump into Linux because of that. Because someone made the right choices at the right level for them.

[djbsteart1]

See? KDE and Gnome are low level choices and one -if not the main- thing keeping Linux from being a platform with unique APIs to develop for, like Windows or Mac, and bringing to the user an inconsistent experience when forced to use apps designed for the other DE.

Ubuntu has made a choice (and Redhat and Novell, don't forget it). It's Gnome. Maybe KDE was better. For the "Linux is about choice" followers the fight is far from over and will continue endlessly. As a user I don't care any more which one is better (I have my opinion, but that's not important). As a user I only want someone to make a decision on that and Ubuntu has done it. Hurrah! Now that Gnome is the DE of choice, we can start tweaking it and making it better, ISVs can develop apps for it and making it a real option before Windows and Mac. Even those devs who are in love with Qt MUST take care of how their apps will look and behave in Gnome if they want them to succeed. That's VERY good, not bad.

Think about the HD-DVD vs BluRay war. Was it good to have a choice? Wasn't it the reason why HD content was being so slowly adopted? Weren't the features of each contender equally valuable? All I know is HD content is going to rocket now people don't have to make technical decisions on which format they like best. Now they can buy a movie in BluRay and feel safe.

This super-choice idea is holding Linux back from making any real dent in the other players' share. I only hope Ubuntu keeps "monopolizing" the Linux sphere and users and ISVs feel safer to jump into Linux because of that. Because someone made the right choices at the right level for them.

As I have said before I fully agree with what you say that Linux needs more direction. However i should say that I was meaning kde and gnome as high level choices in the fact that they affect everyday choices on computing. And even though they do stuff deep inside the OS they are also what interacts with the user, not say some feature of the kernel. What you say about blue ray is true, but the availability of two may have drive the development forward, without competition, nothing would ever be developed, so if all of the Linux development was pushed in one direction, say gnome, then possibly some of the innovations would be lost, but then again the greater availability of software would also drive the development forward.

(please forgive grammar/syntax, quite drunk)

[pedrotuga]

No offense, but i find te comparison with the blue ray vs hd war not valit.
Linux is distributed for free. Projects like gnome or KDE are not dependent on sales success, nor need to be thrown on the marked with a competetive price/feature ratio.
They rather focus on more pure technical goals adn they will have popularity for as long as those goals are realistic as they are free (as in free beer in this case).
Besides, it does not cost you extra money to have both kde and gnome if you want.

[djbsteart1]

I guess that the driving force behind the open source movement has been technical achievement, so I was wrong to say that the competition will drive the DE's forward. I guess that that i one of the advantages of everything bing open, ideas advance together.

[aysiu]

No offense, but i find te comparison with the blue ray vs hd war not valit.
Linux is distributed for free. Projects like gnome or KDE are not dependent on sales success, nor need to be thrown on the marked with a competetive price/feature ratio.
They rather focus on more pure technical goals adn they will have popularity for as long as those goals are realistic as they are free (as in free beer in this case).
Besides, it does not cost you extra money to have both kde and gnome if you want.
Although money does play a factor in people's waiting for the "format war" to be decided, it mainly has to do with (surprise, surprise) formats. People don't want to buy an HD-DVD player only to find out that Blu-Ray won out and that their $600 purchase can't play any high-definition DVDs.

That doesn't apply to Gnome and KDE, though, as you can use KDE applications in Gnome and vice versa. If you choose the "wrong" desktop environment, you can easily switch to the other one... or even just use the other one's applications in the non-native environment.

I think with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, it mainly has to do with people's assumptions (which turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy) that there has to be (as with VHS and Beta) a format "winner." After all, people have no qualms about there being XBox 360 games, PS3 games, and Wii games, and gaming companies often have to put out versions of their games for all three platforms. If you want to play Halo, you can't do it on the Wii. If you want to play Super Mario Galaxy, you can't do it on the PS3. People also understand that there are some Windows-only programs that won't work on Mac and Linux and vice versa (hey, Safari and Evolution on Windows are a little buggy right now).

For some reason, though, with movies, people won't buy into formats until a "format war" has been won.

[djbsteart1]

The format war with videos also has to do with the fact that the video that they buy is a material possession, and something that they are likely to keep for a long time, where as some software is replaceable and you cant 'hold' it.
With the games consoles, they are not seen as computers, but as different pieces of technology, where as computers do not have this luxury. They are one and everything has to work on all of them.

[sicofante]

I was meaning kde and gnome as high level choices in the fact that they affect everyday choices on computing.
You mean they affect choices when you choose the applications you will use? Then they are low level. You mean they affect choices by being themselves an end-user choice? Then we can discuss if that's good or bad. I'm saying a desktop environment should not be a choice for the user, but already made as part of the distributor's offer. I understand Ubuntu has already made that choice (for Gnome) and I sustain this is part (only part but an important one) of its success.


No offense, but i find te comparison with the blue ray vs hd war not valit.
Linux is distributed for free. Projects like gnome or KDE are not dependent on sales success, nor need to be thrown on the marked with a competetive price/feature ratio.
They rather focus on more pure technical goals adn they will have popularity for as long as those goals are realistic as they are free (as in free beer in this case).
Besides, it does not cost you extra money to have both kde and gnome if you want.
We can consider open source and Linux itself like a huge experiment with thousands of alternatives. As such, it's quite a success and for those who don't want anything else, we're done with our policies design. But then there are people, like myself or Mike Shuttleworth himself, who want Linux to become succesful IN THE MARKET, meaning taking share away from Microsoft and Apple. In that case, you better understand what the end user is demanding and how sales and marketing work, even if you're giving your goods for free.


I guess that the driving force behind the open source movement has been technical achievement

Again, we must first reach an agreement on what are we talking about here. If it's just "technical achievement", the FLOSS model is already a success and there's absolutely no reason to talk about what ordinary users want and need. BUT if we want Linux to spread beyond geeks and become an alternative for those who are not interested in computing but just in using a computer, then you have to start changing your mindset. In that other scenario, not only Linux is currently a phenomenal failure, but all its technical achievements mean very little when less than 1% of the users are interested.

The good thing is one model doesn't preclude the other's existence. Open source can't be closed and isn't stoppable. Even if 60% of the computers worldwide used Gnome inside an "Ubuntu-compatible" (TM :-)) OS, KDE wouldn't die. As a matter of fact the current situation is much much worse for both DEs and not only are they quite alive, but another dozen more window managers are out there, happy to exist. KDE will never be killed no matter what Redhat, Novell and Canonical have chosen, but if Gnome becomes a de-facto standard (as it is already happening) the general public (NO MATTER WHAT GEEKS THINK) will expect Qt apps, usually designed for KDE, to behave properly in their computer.


Most of these debates come from conceptual confusions. Catering for the general public with arguments that only geeks take into account, is one of that conceptual confusions.


That doesn't apply to Gnome and KDE, though, as you can use KDE applications in Gnome and vice versa. If you choose the "wrong" desktop environment, you can easily switch to the other one... or even just use the other one's applications in the non-native environment.
(EDIT: Everybody agreed that universal HD-DVD/BD players were not the solution. Why? Because they wouldn't stop the confusion, besides being more expensive.)

Same confusion again and again. First of all: you can't "easily switch" from one desktop to another if you're not interested in computing and you're only interested in using a computer. THAT's the whole point. And of course you can use apps designed for KDE inside Gnome but you will immediately notice the difference with "native" apps (look and feel, UI design, button placement, etc., etc., etc.). The same that happens when you run GTK apps in Windows or X11 apps in Mac OSX (or Java apps anywhere ;-)). The more "weird" apps you're forced to use, the less polished (i.e. serious, professional, finished, etc.) your computer will look like.

Let me insist that having a heavily directed distro like Ubuntu doesn't kill all the rest. Linux accounts for less than 1% of the market and every Linux user couldn't care less about that. (Do you know any really unhappy Linux user?) If Linux has been able to flourish with such a small user base, nobody should be worried about its future no-matter-what.

BUT if someone ever decided to make a Linux distro that would entice non-technical people and become widespread in households and offices, then s/he should make a lot of decisions for the user. Ubuntu has done that and Ubuntu is, as of now, the only distro with any chance to become a popular OS for the masses. The more they make design decisions for the user (like going for Gnome instead of KDE), the more chances they'll have to enter the "Relevant Figures Zone". Please remember the market share of Linux as a whole is irrelevant today and Ubuntu has only a third of that irrelevant figures. And please, also remember, history of computing is fast. Apple has been in serious trouble not so long ago and now they're the third biggest computer vendor in the world...

Linus Torvalds said in one interview that people don't move away from Windows because they're lazy to change their habits. The Apple Macs have shown Linus how dumb this was. Give the user a solid alternative where s/he doesn't have to become a computer savvy person in order to use the computer, where low level choices have been made for him/her as part of the design process and you'll have people switching like crazy.

EDIT: The HD format wars comparison was only trying to show how choice is not always good when it comes to the general public and the basics of technology. It wasn't intended to be a perfect parallelism between KDE and Gnome. That should be obvious.

Maybe before discussing, we should decide if we consider the user interaction model a matter of decision by the distro maker, not the end user, or the opposite. My position, I hope, is clear.

[djbsteart1]

I understand Ubuntu has already made that choice (for Gnome) and I sustain this is part (only part but an important one) of its success.

I feel I should also state that this is the case with all of the "user friendly" distro's. However, when I said that the DE was a high level choice it was meant in that the end user sees that. Yes it is a very low level choice, but to most people this is transparent.
But I am with you when you say that there needs to be a more laid out choice. Mint did start this as it has many things chosen, like the codecs and other non free software, however, they do offer so many different version now, the debian based and kde gnome and xfce. Although, after this the choices are more limited, there is still choice there, the same is true of ubuntu and fedora, the offer both gnome and kde, in ubuntu even more. But yes you can say that ubuntu chooses gnome for you. but switching os is something curious so you will always look around, and there you find k/x/go/edu/buntu, so it cannot be said that ubuntu has laid down a chosen path yet. mandriva on the other hand has. They have the free, one, powerpack and flash. but they all have kde, and a large amount of software preconfigured that abuntu does not have (wireless, mplayer plugin, nvidia drivers, compiz) and yes I know this isnt ubuntu ethos, but if that is the case why is there gobuntu.


But back to the point of whither or not the choice is good. and at what level the choice should be available at. I feel that the choice needs to stay available but the websites for distribution's need to be clearer about what kde and gnome as well as all of the other DE's are.


I saw a little quiz about which Linux is for you, it got everything right, but that was only because I know what I like in Linux. If someone who had never tried it before, would have been overwhelmed, but things like this quiz are what is needed. People need to be educated about the possible choices and changes before diving straight in. From this I guess my conclusion is that choice should be hidden when it is at a low level, and slowly discovered as you progress in knowledge. when you start your Linux career, the choices available really should only be what distribution you use, with maybe some small difference on the specific distro.


When I first tried I was thrown in very deep. XP had just eaten itself, and I needed somewhere to go, So a very experienced fedora user gave my DSL, I got it installed ok, and was stunned by its speed, but I couldn't install anything, didnt know what or where to look for what I wanted and went screaming back to windows. 2 years later I cant look at XP, only if I had been shown something like ubuntu or mandriva, and told that things were very different, I would have been a Linux user since then.