Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The constructiveness if for KDE SIG and individuals to accept that
his
claim of "perfect integration" is silly when there are many gaps to
address.
Those gaps are not integration issues. They're just features which GNOME
happens to have.
I have no problems with that except for the concern that users who
are
completely new to Linux don't understand jargon like GNOME or KDE. It
means nothing and I think download page isn't going to the right place
to do it. I would like to see a good proposal, perhaps a mockup showing
us how it can be done instead of voting in FESCo.
Just link to an info page for each.
Why single out desktop environments? Is the justifications for all
of
our defaults documented anywhere? Shouldn't it be?
Default apps are basically implied by the desktop environment (we ship apps
designed for the respective spin's desktop environment).
I think, the amount of resources within Fedora directed at one
desktop
environment is a big factor and it does make a significant difference in
the end user experience when new technologies developed within Fedora.
And I think the amount of resources directed towards KDE is sufficient
(though as I wrote repeatedly, more help would be perfectly welcome).
> And, the answers to these questions will only get more important
over
> time, it seems, as more and more viable alternatives arise (within
> Fedora), like sugar, XFCE, LXDE, etc...
.. and this makes it even more important to make the right decision.
Would it be right to provide a long list of desktop environments and
live cd's associated within the download page or upfront within the
installer?
Yes.
How do you even describe the differences appropriately?
Just link to info pages.
Kevin Kofler