Browser choice in Linux Lite 2.2

[tek10]

I think it's important that LL comes with a full featured browser by default. New users and reviewers will form a better first impression with browser included. Firefox would be my choice with Midori the second. I always install Midori as my backup browser. In addition, couldn't the Web Browser Configuration tool still be included?

Don't worry about keeping LL to a CD size. Going to DVD size is a good idea since that opens up options to provide some additional useful apps. I personally have been using usb drives the past two years and my last build doesn't even have an optical drive.

[shaggytwodope]

I'm kinda leaning towards wanting to know exactly WHAT type of user would need a 700mb release. And what type of software they would need in general. I've considered the idea at one stage of compressing some of the packages for a POST install. But this would cripple a livecd experience. But possibly be a good middle ground for the users who simply need the install medium rather then the livecd experience.

This is purely a user of sorts thinking out loud, by no means official thinking here. But I think going for a main release targeted at a DVD size iso.. But with the understanding of only putting what is logical on. (So as to not become one of the distro's that toss 4,000 apps and they conflict or break the user experience.) And perhaps making a "community" slimmed down offering for the "lower end" users along the lines mentioned above.

[mandoran]

To me this looks like more choice, and simpler. As long as newcomers can't miss the option to install, it looks like a great idea.

[Wirezfree]

Some very useful comments and inputs...

I think this shows more than anything peoples own needs and perspectives on what they want.
I perceive the desire to keep it CD size is not really the issue, it's what the 1st experience is.?

For me when I started, when I did a live boot of any distro it was about,
Did it actually boot, did the graphics/screen look O.K, did it recognise my network/WiFi etc...
What was actually included/missing was kind of incidental to me. I could always install/remove it later.

Somebody coming from Windows will have either stuck with Internet Explorer or installed something else,
They may have installed MS Office or something else, or indeed never had a need for an Office package.

With this in mind, and possibly I maybe taking the "Lite" to extremes, and the implications for the Devs.?
The "Live Boot" experience, and apps could remain as is today.

Maybe when you actually come to do the install is when you make the choices of:
"Browser ~ Which One" , "Office Package ~ YES/NO" etc for the key "meaty/bulky packages"
You could take it to the extreme, and have the "Install Additional Software" options appear.?
(First thing I do after set-up, install Catfish, Skype, Webcam and Unrestricted extras)

Just my thoughts,

Whatever the outcome, Linux Lite will better for it...
Why.?
The Dev's are listening and the users are speaking, rather than moaning

Dave

[Coastie]

...
The Dev's are listening and the users are speaking, rather than moaning

Dave

Excellent point!  8)

[gold_finger]

Valtam,

I've been holding off commenting on this for two reasons:

1.  I'm a little confused by exactly what is being proposed.

Assuming you go with DVD sized ISO on LL 2.2, will a full-blown browser be available for use during live session?  Or will the "Lite Browser" be the only browser available during live session?

I think it would be a mistake not to have a full browser during live session.  Many/Most people will want to have a fully functional browser to play with during testing.  Some may not realize that Lite Browser is not meant to be the main browser and may judge the distro negatively based on that.

Will the offer for browser installation happen during or after installation?


2.  Because of how easy it is already to install/remove browsers to user's preferred choice, I personally don't see the need for setting up a special process to accomplish the same task.  But, I'm not a newbie so it could just be that I don't realize that it's not a simple thing to newcomers.  Probably best to pay more attention to opinions of newer Linux users on whether they think it's a good idea to have choice instead of a default installed browser.

[Monkeyman]

I'm not big on change (it's a mental defect, sue me) and I've been a faithful Firefox user since it came out.  I'd definitely want that on a new build.  However, I decided to try Chrome today.  Not bad, so far.  I think that also needs to be included.  I don't know that I'd ever switch completely to Chrome but it's a nice alternative and aren't alternatives what Linux is all about?

[sysdrum]

Right now I currently use LL as a windows xp replacement on 12 SFF OptiPlex GX520, I built a package deploy script that works along with update script that just pulls and installs any new files from a NFS mount as Google Chrome (once google-chrome stable is added it updates with just the update script) and Kingsoft WPS are required for daily work. So in that case having no default browser is better.
To bad you can't have that as a choice in the installer so if the user wants firefox or chrome it is grabbed and installed or both.
For size flexaiblity on the live cd firefox is the best choice. As chromium like chrome is a little heavy on the memory.
As for personal choice I like to have both Google Chrome(chromium) and firefox.
 

[Valtam]

Assuming you go with DVD sized ISO on LL 2.2, will a full-blown browser be available for use during live session?  Or will the "Lite Browser" be the only browser available during live session?

No browser will be available on the live image other than Lite Browser.

Will the offer for browser installation happen during or after installation?

At the moment it will be offered after installation.

[Valtam]

The feedback I have seen here to date is excellent, one of the best examples of community interaction I have seen on these Forums, superb!