Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:02:45 -0600
- From: Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Debian Stretch new user report (vs Linux Mint)
Arturo Borrero Gonzalez dijo [Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:15:04PM +0100]:
> >> It would have been best for him to download the ISO with non-free
> >> firmware embedded, do you know how he made the decision to download
> >> the ISO without non-free firmware?
> What others say is true. It's not easy to find the download link, even
> for me as DD.
> But this is something that we have already detected: our main website
> needs work.
> We just need someone doing the work.
Yes, but... this is an issue often brought up and discussed since I am
aware of, that is, for over 15 years. It's _hard_ work to properly
structure a web site as information-rich as ours, with as many
different user types as its targets. Even more, with moving targets,
as Web design styles rise and fade continuously.
And I am _not_ implying that not enough work has been done; the Debian
website has vastly improved since I know it. But properly organizing
it is something... VERY hard to get right.
> > udisks2 already recommends ntfs-3g. Most major desktops should use and
> > install udisks2. Which desktop environment did your user install and did
> > he maybe choose to not install recommends?
> I don't really know, I would say gnome.
> We would have to check every desktop stack and review how things are
> for both NTFS and HFS+.
I think GNOME is a safe bet, as it is the "most defaultest" of all
desktops (even given "there is no default" ☺)
> Other thing is the branding topic. I would like to promote usage of
> Debian testing for standard desktop/laptop users in personal
> environments (not for business machines)
> but the 'testing' word scares people. I don't have a valid candidate :-(
> But we should really point to stable to specific users rather than all
> by default.
This is something that does not seem to draw consensus. I am of the
opposite camp. Regular users should have stable, as they don't want
huge updates or regularly broken systems, missing pieces and so on. A
regular user should be fine with upgrading their desktop every two
years, if anything! I mean... Look over the fence. How long did it
take for Windows XP to disappear? Before that, how long was Windows 98
king? How many users still cling to Windows 7? They don't need the
newest, shiniest software. They want something stable that works, and
that _they know_ how to make work. The same should be valid for most
users over here.