Another interesting point-of-view is that customisation can be considered harmefull. Let me explain this point of view (to which I don't fully agree): My brother has a very tweaked interface (Fvwm2 scripted his own way down to the very core). I guess I can be considered as an advanced linux user (I understand roughly most of the mechanisme behind the distro specific glue and have already made my own bootable cd from scratch). I'm no expert but get along fine in the shell... However I cannot use my brother's computer at all. Extreme customisation brings: _Lack of consistency. You have to tweak every single app to behave the way you want them to... _Lack of adaptability to other computers. You become so used to your own way of using your computer that you can't use other computers (I'm using cua in emacs and hell, I can't even cut'n paste on other peoples's emacs) _Waist of time when reinstalling: It takes weeks to have everything back the way your used to. _Unfriendliness for newbies: If every single computer under Linux they use behaves differently they're never going to get familliar with the interaction. I believe sensible defaults should be thought to accomodate the wider range of users. Everyone from beginner to advanced hackers should be satisfied. The system also needs to be as consistent as possible so users devellop reflexes. As a last resort customisation should be easy. But I beleive that an in-your face pop-up at the start of the first session is very wrong. If you really want one it should more be like a tour of the system (if you want to do this the standard way to do it is this. If you're pissed by the way it is handled you can change it in that menu.). Emacs is the very example of a tweakable application. The defaults now don't make any sens (but they have to be kept becaus e they made sens some 20 years ago and emacs should stay consistent with older releases) but the can be changed. Changing them requires editting hidden files and sometimes doing some lips magic to tie all your mods together. As a result just about everyone in my class used emacs (It has a great mod for caml editting) but profoundly hatted it... Mine was tweaked to behave mire like other apps but I had waisted much time getting it prepped up and I couldn't get along on other accounts. Till (who thinks ubuntu does a great job taking away all this pesky jobs from the users but giving him the freedom to chosse if he wants to). P.S.: This can also be seen on a distro point of view: When you use packages they have already been compilled using specific libraries flags etc... If you want customisation go for gentoo or even Linux From Scratch. <div>On 9/1/05, Magnus Therning <<a href="mailto:magnus@therning.org">magnus@therning.org</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 11:46:35PM -0300, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On 29 Aug, 2005, at 8:50 PM, josuealcalde wrote: >>I think the default option should be the most used option by Ubuntu >>users. Of course, I don't know how to know such a thing. > >Personally, I think the default should be the option most >understandable to those who don't have the skills, confidence, or time >to configure their file manager at all. That's not going to happen for >Breezy, but I'm delighted Breezy's Nautilus is going to be much better >than Hoary's. I agree whole-heartedly. The defaults should make sense. It's hard to get a good balance between copy-what-other-systems-do and our-way-is-better. Familiarity seems to weigh in strongly in GUIs, which would imply copying from M$Win (even the bad things sometimes). I wouldn't mind seeing more copying from Apple though, since they seem to have a more profound understanding of GUIs than most companies. Also, don't forget that something that is superior in UI isn't always intuitive, and it sometimes requires investing time and effort in "changing your ways". >>Perhaps, Ubuntu needs an "one-time-configuration-tool" which would >>pop-up in the first user session and will adjust this kind of things. >>(KDE has something similar, hasn't it?) > >That wouldn't be consistent with Ubuntu's usual behavior of choosing >good defaults and then getting out of your way. Nautilus's browser mode >is a good default for people already using Linux, because for those >people, the delay caused by orienting themselves in folders that all >appear in exactly the same size and position is likely to be less than >the delay caused by closing multiple windows when they've finished. Not only that, but a configuration tool that pops up the first time is intimidating ("look how many things I need to configure before I can even start using Linux!"). I also don't think it's good to do simply because configuring your system needs some basic understanding (i.e. you should understand the implications of choosing one option over another) and that understanding isn't there the first time you boot. Reasonable defaults, trying to anticipate what new users can grasp or are used to from other systems and EASY access to changing settings (no, editing options in GConf isn't acceptable) is the road I'd like to see taken. Nubies will become experienced users at some time (otherwise Ubuntu isn't a success) and that transition should be supported by the system. /M -- Magnus Therning                    (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) <a href="mailto:magnus@therning.org">magnus@therning.org</a> <a href="http://therning.org/magnus">http://therning.org/magnus</a> Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for ;-)      -- Seen somewhere on the net -- ubuntu-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel">http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel </a> </blockquote></div>