A default desktop for openSUSE?

The choice of a Linux desktop environment, typically between the "big two": GNOME and KDE, is one that inspires enthusiastic advocacy—some might even say religious fervor—among the supporters of each choice. So, it should come as no surprise that a distribution's default choice of desktop—the one that most new users will end up running—can be contentious, as the supporters of each desktop jockey for recognition of their choice. That battle is currently playing out for openSUSE after a proposal to make KDE the default desktop was made in the openFATE feature tracker; since then, a number of rather lengthy threads on the opensuse-project mailing list, as well as postings on various web logs, have made for a lively debate.

The first argument for choosing a default desktop generally centers around new users. Most seasoned Linux users will have already chosen a desktop suited to their needs; as long as that desktop is supported, they should have no trouble installing the distribution. New users, on the other hand, are generally not even aware that there is a choice of desktops for Linux. By choosing a default desktop, a distribution can ease the path for a new Linux user.

Unlike most of the major distributions, openSUSE has no default desktop, so users are presented with the choice of GNOME or KDE as part of the installation process. The other major distributions default to GNOME—with the exception of Mandriva—but support KDE users with a separate distribution of some kind (e.g. Kubuntu or the Fedora KDE spin).

The lack of a default for openSUSE is, to some extent, a historical artifact. When Novell bought SuSE Linux a few months after it bought Ximian, there was a bit of a culture clash. SuSE was KDE-based, but Ximian was a sponsor of GNOME (and Mono) development. According to a blog posting by KDE's Sebastian Kügler, Novell wanted to move both enterprise and desktop distributions to a GNOME default—or perhaps remove KDE entirely—but eventually decided to only do that for the enterprise releases; for desktops, there would be no default.

For a while, KDE was listed ahead of GNOME in the openSUSE installation dialog, but at some point, the order of the two desktops in the installation dialog was reversed. That makes sense, at least alphabetically, but, to some, it still felt like a KDE demotion. That dialog has a short blurb associated with each desktop choice, but neither is selected, so the user must choose.

The openSUSE community is largely made up of KDE users; something like two-thirds of users run either KDE 3.5 or KDE 4 according to the openSUSE 11.0 user survey [PDF]. That leads some, especially KDE fans, to suggest that openSUSE default to the desktop used by a significant majority of its users. The proposal was quickly voted as the highest rated feature request in openFATE, with roughly 90% approval, according to openSUSE board chair Michael Löffler's blog posting.

KDE-default advocates note that in addition to its potential to reduce confusion for new users, making KDE the default would raise openSUSE's profile within the KDE community, which might well lead to more users, developers, and packagers for the distribution. Part of the argument is that openSUSE makes default decisions for most kinds of applications (web browsers, email readers, etc.), but leaves the desktop choice to the user, so, instead, openSUSE should make a default decision there as well. By putting KDE on an equal footing with GNOME, openSUSE is actually treating KDE as a second-class citizen. As KDE and SUSE developer Lubos Lunak puts it:

There is also a political subtext to making KDE the default. For much of its history, openSUSE was completely controlled by Novell, but more recently it has been opening up to become more of a community-led distribution—following a similar path to that taken by Fedora a few years earlier. To some, changing to a KDE default is seen as a way to show that openSUSE has moved out from under Novell's thumb. In some ways, openSUSE has been tainted by the patent deal that Novell made with Microsoft—at least to some—so, some distancing from Novell would be welcome as Will Stephenson points out: "This would go a long way to undoing the 'Novell is evil' smell that we can't shake off."

Community manager Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier is sympathetic to the idea that openSUSE show that it can "make decisions independent of Novell", but doesn't agree that changing to a KDE default is the right choice for the project. He is concerned that elevating KDE to a position above GNOME might alienate users and developers of the latter, while not providing much in the way of a boost to the numbers of openSUSE KDE folks:

Lunak suggests that there be guidelines to help determine what default choices openSUSE will make. As he has noted several times in the threads, there aren't choices for text editor or web browser, so why is the desktop treated differently? He also points out that the current default web browser—firefox for both GNOME and KDE—might need to change at some point:

Some guidelines, at least for the desktop case, have been proposed by former openSUSE board chair Andreas Jaeger. In his proposal—which seems to be gaining some support—he suggests that desktops be listed in alphabetical order and that the most popular be selected by default. He also suggests that the desktop choice screen should "explain that both GNOME and KDE are first class desktops and the default is based on popularity". How ties or near-ties would be broken is not specified, but there would have to be a fairly sizable shift in the openSUSE community for that to be a problem—GNOME users account for roughly 26% of those surveyed.

This is not the first time distributions have struggled with this problem; Fedora went through a similar exercise back in April. The initial suggestion, made by Jóhann Guðmundsson, was to change references to "default desktop" or "Fedora desktop" to "GNOME desktop", so that the desktop choice made by the project was clear. His point was not change the default, but just to call it out so that other desktops and their users would be on an equal footing.

That led to a lengthy thread—sound familiar?—discussing how to handle desktop choices at installation time (among other things). The problem is that there is no "right" decision that a distribution can make. Forcing the user to choose is bad for new users; as Naheem Zaffar put it: "Choice is only good if you are informed enough to exercise it." Distributions are expected to make these choices, and, in the end, they have to. When booting a Live CD of some distribution, the last thing a potential new Linux user wants to do is make an uninformed decision about which desktop to use.

As an aside, it is interesting to note a complaint made by Josephine Tannhäuser who was unhappy to see that KDE 4.3 will be coming to Fedora 10 and 11, without a similar upgrade for GNOME (to 2.26) in Fedora 10. The stability required for GNOME as the default desktop may be part of the resistance to a major GNOME upgrade for a distribution that is getting towards the end of its lifecycle. There may be other reasons as well—the GNOME 2.26 upgrade may be more intrusive than KDE 4.2.4 to 4.3 for example—but it is likely that non-default desktops are afforded more flexibility.

Clearly, some in the KDE community would like to see there be a high-profile distribution that defaults to that desktop. There are undoubtedly some who are still smarting from the perceived—or real—slight when SUSE moved from KDE to GNOME/neutral after the Novell acquisition. At some level, openSUSE seems like a good candidate for that distribution, but it could conflict with the stated goal to be "the distribution with the best GNOME desktop and the best KDE desktop", as Jaeger described.

With two full-featured desktop solutions—as well as more minimal choices for those who want them—Linux can certainly meet the needs of most users. There is a hurdle to get over, though, one that the proprietary alternatives don't require. The best long-term solution is likely to involve raising the profile of the desktop choice to new users, so that they can make a reasonably informed decision—similar to the distribution choice they already have to make. How they get that information is an open question, but that question once existed for the various distributions as well. It would seem that the desktop projects may need to get better at educating users—and potential users—about the strengths of their solution. If that happens, the default desktop choice will likely become less politicized and lead to fewer lengthy mailing list threads.