Discussion in 'Pyra OS (Debian GNU/Linux)' started by Linux-SWAT, Sep 12, 2016.
only Chromium would be available for browsing, not google chrome (afaik it's not available for ARM)
Here we have a Linux user who is actually able to get into a noobs perspective - it warms my heart.
Imho the main reason for the missing success of Linux is, that although it's no rocket science anymore, a big part of the general Linux community still expects everyone to be on that tech level - effectively scaring off most people who aren't sitting in front of a PC so often.
I wondered about the whole discussion since it's so easy to install another desktop environment, why make the life of casuals more compicated than necessary by demanding another choice right at the start from them?
Just use XFCE as a standard like before and maybe put a little tutorial somewhere about how to switch desktop environments.
Could you please document that process in the wiki, just in case Ingolstadt gets nuked?
It's here :
I have my own customized version that installs more distros on more devices.
Use that script with caution, it makes some dangerous assumptions especially if you forget to give it a drive in the command line. I typically use aTc's images... which is just taking a raw rootfs and untaring another file with the kernel and modules.
This script revolves around downloading archives from the goldelico server and unpacking them onto the target partiion(s).
I've seen kernel sources on that server but I have a feeling that it would still be a lot of work to figure out exactly how all these archives are created.
After all, Oberhaching isn't that far away from Ingolstadt (ca. 100km), and if the latter gets nuked, I'd be worried that the former would still be affected by the fallout.
I don't think it's compilable on arm yet but the Pantheon desktop used in elementary os would be really slick
If I get this right, then it's essentially a window manager forked from mutter and the plank dock, started by a lightdm fork.
What would make it especially suited for the Pyra that justifies maintaining a whole new desktop by the Pyra community (it's not in Debian), instead of just using any other desktop already available in Debian and just adding a dock?
it's a whole user experience, from the login screen (lightdm?) to the desktop, dock and a set of basic applications, such as a notepad, music player, browser, you get the idea.
it's slick and sexy, and imo provides a great desktop UX
the people behind elementary os is very heavy on the UI and UX, I think alot of the UI does well on a tiny screen, ofcourse there might be other options available that would give you a similar interface and look and feel, but since I really enjoy the spirit behind elementary OS ofcourse I had to suggest it.
No, I don't get the idea. That might be because I'm usually not sexually aroused by the user interface my operating system presents.
To me Pantheon looks just like Gnome + Plank. Plank is available in Sid and last time I tried, building a backport for Jessie wasn't hard. However, if I were the maintainer of the Pyra desktop I still wouldn't want to go that route without a good reason - especially because there are other docks already available in Jessie.
So, maybe I should rephrase my question:
In which scenarios and why would the Pantheon desktop perform so much better than any other desktop that is already available in Debian, that it would be justified for the PyraOS maintainer to compile and maintain Pantheon instead of using another desktop and just relying on the Debian infrastructure?
I'd prefer an answer in writing that points out Pyra-specific problems other desktops have, that Pantheon doesn't have or that Pantheon just does better (with reasons). Although a screencast video would be ok too, if the audio track contained actual information instead of music.
It sounds like you didn't get the idea because you haven't used it. It is by far the easiest OS to use, bar none.
Not saying it makes sense from a maintainers point of view, but certainly it is more consistently novice-friendly than anything else.
It is not far removed technically from gnome3 with a dock, but it is crucially different in how it engages the user.
If those, subtle or not, details are lost on you, then consider yourself to be not in the targeted demographic.
You can install and use anything you like. No so for those not accustomed or quite as apt.
You're partly right. I only have it installed in a VM but I haven't done much in it. Also Gnome is not my favourite desktop, although I can see why some people prefer it. So I might not be able to appreciate subtle differences between Gnome + Plank and Pantheon.
Then I'll ask you too, to name actual scenarios on the Pyra, where and how the Pantheon desktop performs better than anything that's available in Debian right now!
Some cornerstones for those scenarios might be the small display, the touchscreen, or the bad keyboard (compared to a full-size desktop keyboard). So addresing these issues while highlighting Pantheons advantages might be vital.
This thread is about which desktops should be included in the default PyraOS image.
The way I got it, PyraOS is supposed to be as close to the official Debian repositories as possible. At least that approach would make sense, to minimize maintenance overhead. So I'd think the maintainers POV is crucial in this case and that anything that increases the complexity of that task would need very good reasons.
I've asked Gizmo to depict those reasons for Pantheon in a reproducible way. Up to now he only delivered a colorful PR video with little facts. So I'm asking you too, to bring more concrete information.
Please elaborate on that "crucially"!
This is not about me, it's about the contents of the default image. If it shipped plain Gnome I'd still not be the target demographic.But I'd understand why it's there, because 1. Gnome is Debian's default desktop and 2. Gnome seems to work quite well on touch screens.
I'm just trying to understand here, why Pantheon would be a better choice (or at least on par) for the default image.
Pantheon is a bit too mac-like for my taste.
Aesthetics aside, isn't XFCE way more active? I always thought that Pantheon was rather niche.
The active development outweighs the subjective aesthetics by far in my not so humble opinion.
Close to nobody is even suggesting GNOME3, and for good reasons why not, pantheon does things differently.
The visuals are consistent, the shortcuts make sense, it gets out of your way. It does things in expected mannners, making it all seem tangible to even the most modest of black-arts userskill levels.
The more you load the user with inconsistency, context and information, the less users you will have.
A good visual design, logo, manual, language, is all crucial to how not what users you have, but what users you do not.
We can either try to forge users in our ways, which will apply to those alike, and likely take the rest to the IRC-room to ask questions that are better solved elsewhere, at best. What elementary figured out is that the current linux-users have good options, and that those options are not as good for anyone else. They target the MacOS and Windows users, that is not the same as a linux user. It is only a description of involvement with computers.
Of the people that are already linux-users, you are looking at not a whole lot of people, and those that are, can easily find ways around how people that aren't can be brought in.
Openbox, lxqt, plasma, all interesting and/or workable, but not without giving up on new and novice users.
Xfce isn't super active, they sort of found their balance, it is what it is, and it works. A very good compromise, which is why you will see it enjoys the most votes.
I only brought up pantheon as a, if not xfce, then what is there left to improve on. Touch-screen friendly without going full unity or sailfish, and not being sugarOS seems a fitting adaptation.
Hang on, do we have to get approval from Sulu as to what our favourite desktop environment would be? When did this happen?
It is not only planned but work in progress and some pieces have already been mainlined.
Yet, you still don't name any concrete examples for what Patheon does so much better than any other desktop that's already available in Debian.
"consistent visuals", "shortcuts that make sense", "gets out of your way" and "expected manners" is all just fluffy marketing speech. Please point out three concrete examples for things Pantheon does right and all others do wrong!
Nobody is trying to do that, so this is a straw man argument.
I think you know the answer.
This thread is not about anybody's favourite DE, it's about the default contents of the standard PyraOS image, and for that you need to find a balance between "user friendliness"* and "maintainer friendliness"**. Pantheon as it is puts a heavy burden on the maintainer's side. To balance this it would have to come with very strong arguments on the user's side.
So far I haven't read a single argument that could even stand up to a critical judgment because due to lack of hard facts there is nothing to judge.
btw, just in case this isn't clear: I wouldn't even have started this discussion if Pantheon was available in the official Debian repo, so this is not about me not liking the DE.
*) which is marketing speech on its own, so it would have to be defined exactly before discussing it in a technical context
**) as in: avoid unnecessary work
There are no three main attractions other than visual design, service design, and their philosophy. If you dont get why the package deal makes a lot of sense, look for three things you miss out on. For pantheon its technical purity, arm-packaging, and perhaps some speed.
All desktop environments are similar, pantheon happens to be user-usable.
And by that i mean all people. That scope makes any vestige of desktop environment users small, pantheon included. But they are gaining users.
Xfce, which im using now typing this, is more traditional, not touchscreen-esque, clunkier and uglier, but it can be mended, and it works really well.
But why is it so important that you are given the reasons for people's choices?
Because I'm the one who's asking. Feel free to ignore me!
Separate names with a comma.