|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tomek_
5288 days ago
|
|
|
1) think the differences between those shells are much bigger than between Luna and classic in XP 2) that it's a different shell, not a fully different desktop environment isn't really that important, for a normal user it will already cause confusion (maybe even more as it requires additional explanation what's the difference between the two). Don't get me wrong: the thing that you have a choice is one of the virtues of Linux, but at the same time what it causes is that: a) Linux is doomed to fail on a mainstream desktop market b) none of the available choices is and probably will never be as polished as commercial competitors (and fragmentation is one of the reasons of that) |
|
|
2) Sticking with Windows comparisons: Moving from 98 to XP was different in quite some ways, to Vista and beyond was another change in lots of things.
We agree that choice is good. We disagree about whether there's too much choice right now. I see only two technical choices, KDE or Gnome, with the Gnome-Shell/Unity variants for the latter. No idea if this fork will prevail and be part of the list in the future.
The average user, the "grandma" that often comes up during these discussions, doesn't care. My gut feeling says that she'll end up with Ubuntu or Kubuntu installed (Maybe Mint. Maybe Fedora) and use what is available.
And quite frankly, what _is_ available is ready for every casual/average home user, in my opinion.