<div class="gmail_quote">2009/4/27 Arthur Pemberton <<a href="mailto:pemboa@gmail.com">pemboa@gmail.com</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 2009/4/27 Christoph Höger <<a href="mailto:choeger@cs.tu-berlin.de">choeger@cs.tu-berlin.de</a>>: <div class="im">> This is a free distribution. > > If you don't like _any_ default choice, feel free to make your own > spin ;) > > That said: I think, a default desktop is needed as well as a default > color sheme or a default name: You need something that helps people to > recognize fedora. That's all. </div>You're going to have to back that up with some reason as who why a default desktop is needed. </blockquote></div> A distribution is more than just a collection of packages stored in a semi convenient location. New users also need to be given informed choices. The extreme to not choosing sensible defaults is to present the user with a list of all the packages, none clicked and ask them to choose exactly what they want. I am sure the users will thank Fedora for that... Choice is only good when its informed choice. A person can only truly choose if he/she knows what the choices entail - a new user will not know what DE is better suited by him/her before trying them all, so forcing a choice to decide on one is just an illusion of choice. When Fedora has defaults, to me it means that someone has put some thought into this, into making it all coherent. And that is a good thing. If I disagree with any default, I can then try to work around it, but that would only be a 1% change decision in most cases instead of forcing the end user to choose 100% of the components.