LWN: Comments on "LCA: The future of the Linux desktop"

casual contributions and Github

halla — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:55:45 +0000

Oh shit...

casual contributions and Github

JanC_ — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:10:50 +0000

http://www.hettes.nl/hettes-stopt

Apparently "Windows 8 laptops" can't be bought without an OS anymore, so they have to stop doing business...?

casual contributions and Github

JanC_ — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:06:36 +0000

I was rather disappointed by the original XPS13 (previous generation CPU & GPU compared to the rest of the market, low res display, etc.), but the new one seems to be a lot better (except it still doesn't allow any hardware customization).

Github

mathstuf — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 03:59:17 +0000

> I myself don't have a personal email that works for patches (using GMail with the 2-factor authentication). Finding a way to use git-send-email to submit patches to OpenWrt was a PITA. (I reckon my life would be a lot easier if they were hosting their project on Gitorious.)

I use gmail with 2-factor authentication and I use offlineimap/esmtp to do *all* of my email (I can't stand the web UI nor any phone UI that I've ever seen for email) just fine. Now if only I could lock down that the password that offlineimap is only good for reading over IMAP and esmtp's password could only access SMTP, it'd be better.

Github

fb — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:58:01 +0000

> There are others of us who prefer not to use github, and prefer free software and less centralised infrastructures. Mako argues well why this is important at http://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html.

I read your link, and I respectfully disagree with its conclusions.

I think the comparison with bitkeeper misses the point. BitKeeper was a proprietary tool. Git is FOSS, and migrating to and from another Git host would be trivial compared to a bitkeeper migration to anywhere else. At least for me, that distinction matters.

IMO if you really want to ease collaboration, you need to be where the "casual contributors" are. Right now, most are at Github.

BTW, I actually looked at Gitorious. I pay Github $5/month for hosting private projects without any collaborators [*]. Gitorious doesn't seem to offer anything like that for individual users.

[*] stuff like my own private LaTeX/text files, or my "etc" files.

> I am a fan of git and email, myself; works well, is clear, code review is integrated easily, and you don't need to sign up to anything (or certainly not a service with a terms of service / privacy policy to be wary of).

I think most people nowadays do not have an email account with direct IMAP/SMTP, or that would not mangle the text. It was not like that 15 years ago, but AFAICT it is the reality in 2013.

I myself don't have a personal email that works for patches (using GMail with the 2-factor authentication). Finding a way to use git-send-email to submit patches to OpenWrt was a PITA. (I reckon my life would be a lot easier if they were hosting their project on Gitorious.)

casual contributions and Github

achiang — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:53:38 +0000

Yeah, well, that's the best XPS13 you can get right now. And everything else about the config is quite nice. After having played with one for a bit, it's not as physically nice as a Mac Air, but compared to other laptop options out there, I would argue that an XPS13 *is* premium.

They announced a 1080p version at CES, not sure when it's shipping.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/06/dells-xps-13-getting-a...

casual contributions and Github

ThinkRob — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:40:10 +0000

> Top of the line Dell with Ubuntu pre-loaded. Not very configurable, but not low-end either.

A 1366x768 TN panel is "top of the line"?

Oh dear.

This kinda supports the parent posters point about the Linux options tending to have poor hardware...

Github

njwhite — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:45:18 +0000

> On a side note, I wish more FOSS projects would just move to GitHub.
On the sole grounds that loads of potential casual contributors (including me) already have a GitHub account and are used to work with it. It would remove yet another barrier to contributing.

There are others of us who prefer not to use github, and prefer free software and less centralised infrastructures. Mako argues well why this is important at http://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html. I am a fan of git and email, myself; works well, is clear, code review is integrated easily, and you don't need to sign up to anything (or certainly not a service with a terms of service / privacy policy to be wary of).

I agree strongly with the idea that collaboration should be made as easy as possible, though. Complex build systems can be a pretty big barrier to entry (and make for an unpleasant entry to a codebase).

casual contributions and Github

achiang — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:21:38 +0000

http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/xps-13-linux/pd.aspx

Top of the line Dell with Ubuntu pre-loaded. Not very configurable, but not low-end either.

Disclaimer: I work for Canonical.

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

pboddie — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:09:53 +0000

I think we agree that people do buy cheaper things that cost them more in the long run: that's the very nature of a false economy. Once the product is in the hands of the customer who then struggles with crapware (after all, there's a reason why it is known as crapware and it isn't because Armitage Shanks has put it there), the vendor's objectives are to minimise support costs (by hopefully building the product just good enough to not fail during the warranty period) and to encourage the customer to spend money with them again.

(These days, the way that people can be tricked into buying a new product to replace a broken old product and still be made to feel that they're treating themselves, when they should really be angry with the manufacturer and vow never to give money to them again, is perhaps one of the crowning achievements of those who have defined our "consumer culture".)

As for the revenue-generating opportunity, we definitely have our wires crossed: by "just another opportunity" I meant that it's yet another way for people to make money from a poorly made or optimised product, not that it has no other purpose or value for the vendor.

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

giraffedata — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:33:59 +0000

But I'm also referring to the non-financial cost: the frustration that people have with certain kinds of crapware like bundled anti-virus products and things that make the experience of using the computer worse.

OK, then you're looking at this differently than I do, because I believe that frustration is reducible to money and is therefore tantamount to a financial cost. But if you want to differentiate costs that way, then I'm sure you're right: HP doesn't care about the nature of the cost to the consumer, only the amount. I.e. if HP's leaders believe a customer isn't valuing that frustration highly enough and should pay more for a computer without crapware, they don't care -- they'll sell the customer the cheaper crapware-laden one anyway.

As for crapware being just another opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it, I can't believe that because the explanation Bdale gave sounds like a fully plausible additional purpose.
Oh, it most certainly is a revenue-generating opportunity. That's another aspect of the "financial acrobatics" basis of modern retailing.

We seem to have a language barrier here, because you're apparently refuting something I didn't say. You said at one point crapware is "just" an opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it," which means it has no other purpose. I don't think now that even you believe HP has no other purpose in putting the crapware on the machine.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

giraffedata — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:31:54 +0000

So that they have a ready answer when the press and/or consumers come complaining about the situation

You obviously believe having the public believe in your business plan is more valuable than I do. I think that if, when the press comes asking why it doesn't have Linux products, HP were to say, "no comment," its sales would be the same as if HP said, "because we've proven there is no demand for them."

Maybe you're also of the ilk that say things like, "the oil companies will probably use this development in the Middle East as an excuse to raise the price of gas." In my experience, oil companies never offer excuses for raising their asking price. Every time Shell has reason to believe a different price would generate more revenue, Shell just changes the board. And I don't think I've ever heard a driver say, "I'm going to buy more gas today, even though it costs more, because Shell needs the money."

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

pboddie — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:42:13 +0000

I don't see where your make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place idea comes from.

I'm being quoted there so I'll respond to that. By unattractive I mean offer a token product at the low-end (presumably because Linux users are cheapskates or poor or something) so that when people look at the specification and realise that it's not very attractive as a product - the screen isn't very big, or there's less memory, or the CPU has half the number of cores, or whatever, compared to the next model up in the range - they then mumble about it not meeting their needs or expectations and then go and buy the next (or next but one) model up, wipe the disk, and install Linux on it themselves. Result: one Windows sale, no Linux sale.

Why would a company offer something unattractive - an "economy" model - instead of something else? That's the interesting question. It's not necessarily the case that the more expensive computer costs more for them to put Linux onto it and roll it out as a separate product, so you can't claim that the token Linux product at the low-end is dipping a toe in the water whereas a token mid-range or high-end Linux product would be sticking their whole leg in the water, especially since some of these vendors ship Linux on their workstation and server offerings already.

Why would a company use the lack of a response from customers as justification of a lack of Linux products? I would imagine that there's a continuous stream of requests and enquiries on sites like Dell's IdeaStorm (or whatever it's called) as well as from random customers. Doing nothing doesn't look very good, and doing just a bit more than nothing is the next best thing and looks a whole lot better. Result: "people don't buy these things when we offer them, but we will continue to review demand going forward" plus business as usual.

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

pboddie — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:23:42 +0000

I think they probably do care about the cost to the customer and just know that cost better than you.

I would hope that they would know the difference in price and indeed what effect that would have on their sales. However, as we saw with HP's announced abandonment of personal computer manufacturing and sales, and the sudden subsequent U-turn around that decision, the big vendors have raced to the bottom in terms of pricing and margins (and thus costs and arguably product quality), and feel that the only way forward is to compete purely on price through whatever means (subsidising from crapware peddlers or the likes of Microsoft and Intel) or to get out of the game.

(Getting out of the game has a knock-on effect for HP because without a PC portfolio they won't get their foot in the door for various sales opportunities - people like to deal with a single vendor sometimes, which can also be an abdication of their responsibilities in certain sectors, but that's another story - and one would have thought that the CEO would have been better informed about such things before opening his mouth, but I guess corporate knowledge doesn't always reach where it needs to.)

I'm not sure I follow your math, but the fact is that the computer costs less because it has Windows plus crapware than if it had Linux (which implies no crapware). The question is would the customer rather pay more for Linux. Or for Windows without crapware, for that matter. I have no trouble believing the answer is no.

People will buy the thing that costs the least if there's no notable difference between that and the thing that costs more. But I'm also referring to the non-financial cost: the frustration that people have with certain kinds of crapware like bundled anti-virus products and things that make the experience of using the computer worse. If crapware were completely benign and even enhanced the experience, it would be a win-win-lose situation rather than a win-draw-lose (at best): the people who lose irrespective of the quality of the crapware are vendors of alternative products.

As for crapware being just another opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it, I can't believe that because the explanation Bdale gave sounds like a fully plausible additional purpose.

Oh, it most certainly is a revenue-generating opportunity. That's another aspect of the "financial acrobatics" basis of modern retailing.

You mention pricing transparency, but you seem to be describing something else. Transparency would be customers can see how the price of the computer got to be what it is (e.g. $200 for the OS minus $250 for crapware that runs only on that OS), whereas I think you're talking about flexibility (e.g. customer could decline the crapware for an extra $250 and take $250 from someone else for different crapware).

I want both! And once you have transparency, which is already mandatory for things like mobile phone plans in various places, the next question that people ask is about being able to unbundle products because it becomes clear that they are being sold a shopping list of products and not a single monolithic thing. It may seem absurd to some that someone would rather pay $50 extra for "the same product" and not be subjected to advertising, but that's actually a widely recognised business model in itself.

There are practical issues like how one might get, say, Ubuntu plus Amazon advertising specifically instead of Windows plus crapware advertising, or just plain Ubuntu or Windows, or even nothing at all, and this would obviously affect the supply chain of the big vendors who would rather have everything negotiated and installed before the computer leaves the factory, but I see that as a consequence of the inflexibility of the vendors fed by their own self-destructive behaviour. Apple managed to do pretty well with their margins even before they started to push their services into every corner and crevice of their products.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

khim — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:45:00 +0000

Have you actually read the article?

The crapware vendors and Microsoft put heavy pressure on them not to admit the truth.

Not even close. Crapware vendors pay them money. Nothing more, nothing less. Price of Windows+Crapware for major vendors is negative (that is: vendors actually receive more money from crapware vendors then they pay Microsoft) and for some strange reason Linux-lovers are unwilling to pay more for a system with Linux preinstalled to compensate for the loss.

If they were to offer Linux in a truly valuable way, of course their vendors would be very upset, and might even withdraw their support.

Crapware vendors don't care, but Microsoft is very aware and it makes it hard to sell computers with Linux (actually any OS other then Windows): Linux system must be separate entity, you can not offer dual-boot and you can not offer pick-your-OS-at-the-checkout-time service (not if you want to keep the discounts). This is well-known phenomenon, I don't see where your make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place idea comes from.

Hardware vendors do offer the best possible Linux support they realistically can, but well, they are businesses, to sell Linux systems with a loss to satisfy some strange ideas is not something publicly trading company can justify for long.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

raven667 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:02:26 +0000

I don't think that much thought is going into it, there is always some buzzing around Desktop Linux so vendors from time to time dip their toe in the water to gauge the response but they aren't exactly going to restructure the company around Desktop Linux without some demonstrated growth of paying customers. For the most part Linux works well enough on their existing models so there really isn't any reason to throw resources into it. It's like when VA Linux tried to be a better Dell, selling cheap x86 Linux boxes, it turns out the best Dell is Dell.

casual contributions and Github

halla — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:00:35 +0000

Thinkpads with Linux preloaded can be ordered from hettes (http://www.hettes.nl) -- my new go-to address for when I need new personal hardware.

casual contributions and Github

pkern — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:53:35 +0000

I'm not sure I'm into Thinkpad for "bragging rights". Fact is that they mostly run Linux well (the usual Intel wifi and graphics blowup aside) and the service addons are fine. That said: Dell is shipping Ubuntu pre-installed with OS images that have many base components patched. That means that I cannot just upgrade to the next stock Ubuntu version because there are custom HW patches that partly cannot be mainlined. (The infamous APLS touchpad patch that only Ubuntu carries is one bad example, even though it's in Ubuntu mainline. I cannot just install Debian without rolling out special kernels.) I'm not sure vendors are doing it right, I'd rather like them to upstream everything first, not pay $Company for special OEM images only.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

apoelstra — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:49:29 +0000

> Why do they want to show justification? How does this trick put the company ahead of where it would be if it simply never offered Linux at all? Or offered it in a way that it was truly valuable?

So that they have a ready answer when the press and/or consumers come complaining about the situation -- the crapware vendors and Microsoft put heavy pressure on them not to admit the truth. It saves them some bad PR and might even give some good PR, since they are, after all, offering a Linux product.

If they were to offer Linux in a truly valuable way, of course their vendors would be very upset, and might even withdraw their support.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

giraffedata — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:24:15 +0000

It's the oldest trick in the book: to show that there's "no demand" for something, make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place.

Why do they want to show justification? How does this trick put the company ahead of where it would be if it simply never offered Linux at all? Or offered it in a way that it was truly valuable?

casual contributions and Github

juliank — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:30:36 +0000

Why? Solidarity.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

juliank — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:29:19 +0000

This does not apply to Germany though, where OEM licenses are transferrable. Possibly other countries as well, although I don't know that. In Germany, IIRC, the OEM tranfer restrictions were considered illegal in court.

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

khim — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:52:10 +0000

No, computer is indeed faster, but you are likely not use old, obsolete and unsupported software and Wirth's law does the rest.

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

khim — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:50:17 +0000

Even Windows users would benefit from that, potentially, given that some of them are likely to have more licences than they can use and don't need another one foisted upon them, but scary noises about "piracy" are always made when this guaranteed revenue stream comes under threat.

Only people who bought Windows in a box have "more licences than they can use" - and these are scarce. OEM Licenses are non-transferable and Enterprise license is null and void without some other license (lookie here: A licensed, qualifying Windows operating system must already be installed on the device that will be assigned the Volume Licensing upgrade license).

Now, you may try to argue in court that all these restrictions are, in fact, illegal bundling, but I doubt you'll succeed: licensor can basicaly place any restrictions it want on the license - and it'll stay (see Apple vs PsyStar, etc).

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

giraffedata — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:26:05 +0000

Another point that really matters to users is inefficiency. When users get a faster computer, they expect their applications to run faster, although this often doesn't turn out to be true in practice.

I don't follow this. If I get a computer that is twice as fast, won't my inefficient programs run twice as fast, with the same inefficiency? Is this supposed to be some kind of statement about bottlenecks? (I.e. the computer isn't really faster overall).

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

giraffedata — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:14:37 +0000

the companies bundling this stuff obviously don't care about the cost to the customer of having a bunch of advertisers "sponsoring" the Microsoft licences,

I think they probably do care about the cost to the customer and just know that cost better than you. I'm not sure I follow your math, but the fact is that the computer costs less because it has Windows plus crapware than if it had Linux (which implies no crapware). The question is would the customer rather pay more for Linux. Or for Windows without crapware, for that matter. I have no trouble believing the answer is no.

As for crapware being just another opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it, I can't believe that because the explanation Bdale gave sounds like a fully plausible additional purpose.

You mention pricing transparency, but you seem to be describing something else. Transparency would be customers can see how the price of the computer got to be what it is (e.g. $200 for the OS minus $250 for crapware that runs only on that OS), whereas I think you're talking about flexibility (e.g. customer could decline the crapware for an extra $250 and take $250 from someone else for different crapware).

Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products

pboddie — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:09:19 +0000

It's the oldest trick in the book: to show that there's "no demand" for something, make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place.

It is, however, actually possible to get Thinkpads with some GNU/Linux distributions pre-installed, but not necessarily direct from Lenovo as a "consumer": instead, retailers seem to be able to obtain them from the distribution channel and do the necessary bundling, and this is quite evident when one considers the frequency with which Thinkpads appear amongst the vendors that do bundle GNU/Linux.

Really, one should be able to buy the bare hardware. Even Windows users would benefit from that, potentially, given that some of them are likely to have more licences than they can use and don't need another one foisted upon them, but scary noises about "piracy" are always made when this guaranteed revenue stream comes under threat.

casual contributions and Github

zlynx — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:49:13 +0000

I don't think it is bizarre that Linux users reject Linux laptops.

I do it myself. Why would I want to purchase a laptop that has worse screen resolution, no SSD and no customization options?

There are Linux users who are cheap and would want such a low-end laptop. I am not one of them. I want the extras.

So far the only laptops I really like are Thinkpads, Samsung Series 9, and Apples.

As for existing Linux users buying Linux preloaded...why would they? They've obviously already managed to install Linux themselves or they wouldn't be Linux users. Doing a fresh OS install holds no fear for them.

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

kleptog — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:07:33 +0000

That developers of a mail client won't admit to using it themselves is fairly tragic. That can't end well. I guess they must see it as their job to maintain it or something?

casual contributions and Github

anselm — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:09:37 +0000

Nobody bought [HP's machines with pre-installed Linux]. So HP stopped selling them.

When I bought my HP 8440p laptop the other year the only model that HP actually offered with pre-installed Linux – at least here in Germany – was the lowest-spec one with the slowest CPU, the least memory and the crummiest display and graphics chip.

So forgive me for getting the top-end model instead and putting Linux on it in place of the pre-installed Windows 7. It's a great little laptop and I would buy it again any time, thank you very much. I suppose if HP had offered machines that one would actually want to purchase they might have seen different results – but then again these results might have been a little bit uncomfortable.

casual contributions and Github

iabervon — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:46:11 +0000

I personally bought my laptop from linuxcertified, which enabled me to verify that all of the devices had linux support and what the necessary drivers were before I replaced the pre-installed system with Gentoo. Of course, considering that I had no intention to run any system that I could get pre-installed, and wouldn't actually want to run something I didn't know how to install, getting a computer with Linux actually already installed, rather than a computer that has identical hardware to one that the vendor would support Linux on, hardly matters to me.

casual contributions and Github

drag — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:31:55 +0000

> Isn't the question about: "when will I be able to go to hp.com and just buy a laptop of choice with Linux pre-installed?" (in which case, the likely answer IMO should be "not in the foreseeable future").

HP did have Linux desktops and laptops you could buy.

Nobody bought them. So HP stopped selling them.

It's easier for HP to just have systems that they test with Linux and if large customers want a Linux laptop HP can tailor it to suit that customer.

One of the most bizarre things I've noticed with Linux users is that they tend to reject any system being sold with Linux on it and rather go out and buy a Apple product that runs Linux like shit, a Thinkpad because of the bragging rights, or the Windows version of the Linux laptop because a few options are not available for the Linux version (invariably because they don't work well with Linux) or that the Windows version is slightly cheaper.

There is simply no reason for OEMs to market Linux systems when even existing Linux users won't be their customers.

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

bdale — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:18:46 +0000

I didn't realize the commit hadn't been followed by an upload... sigh.

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

pboddie — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:13:12 +0000

Also the explanation for the crapware presence on bundled Windows, straight from the horses mouth, was illuminating.

It's nice to have this confirmed by someone who worked at one of these companies. It's also interesting to see that the companies bundling this stuff obviously don't care about the cost to the customer of having a bunch of advertisers "sponsoring" the Microsoft licences, presumably pitching it to the ignorant deal-seeking mindset as "company X has picked up the tab and covered the cost of Windows for you" and letting them think that they're getting a great deal (they're not paying an arbitrary price on top of the base cost of the system), when in fact everyone concerned is depriving the purchaser of choice and weighing the system down with potentially undesirable software.

Indeed, crapware is just another opportunity to generate after-sales revenue by offering services to remove it. Perhaps the only beneficial effect it has had has been to compromise Microsoft's vision of the Windows user experience so much that people would rather consider something else, even if that means people have been driven to buying a Mac instead. But what we should really have is complete pricing transparency. Then, if someone wants to sponsor the cost of a system - say, Yahoo wants to put their site as the default browser start page, or Amazon wants their products in the user's search results - then those companies can offer such stuff openly, and it need not even be tied to a particular operating system.

Then again, I'm sure a transparent and voluntary system of sponsorship, advertising and even crapware would be a threat to Microsoft and, under threat of sanctions, will therefore never emerge from a major vendor or retailer.

casual contributions and Github

fb — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:52:44 +0000

IMO He does have a point with regards to casual contributions and easy access to projects internals. I recently submitted patches to OpenWrt. I really have little spare time, and was only able to do that because it was so straight forward to get the whole thing running.

On a side note, I wish more FOSS projects would just move to GitHub.
On the sole grounds that loads of potential casual contributors (including me) already have a GitHub account and are used to work with it. It would remove yet another barrier to contributing.

[...]

Does he really answer the (frequent?) question "when will HP start shipping Linux on desktop systems?" with "a whole bunch of years ago"?

Isn't the question about: "when will I be able to go to hp.com and just buy a laptop of choice with Linux pre-installed?" (in which case, the likely answer IMO should be "not in the foreseeable future").

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

hadess — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:58:01 +0000

Indeed, as per:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tasksel/tasksel.git;a...

Oh, the irony.

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

pabs — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:53:23 +0000

Just shows how powerful the tech media is at shaping opinions, events and the "truth".

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

eru — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:40:12 +0000

That sounded likea very good talk. Realistic without being downbeat. I found myself agreeing with most of it. Also the explanation for the crapware presence on bundled Windows, straight from the horses mouth, was illuminating.

> he is not so interested in compositing and other "bling" graphics features that tend to be expensive in terms of CPU load and energy consumption.

Funny thing is, the effects also seems to be going out of style in the Windows world.

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

mbiebl — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:17:45 +0000

> Recently, Debian changed its default desktop for the Wheezy release.

This is not correct. GNOME is still the default in Debian Wheezy. I'm surprised this myth is still circulating.