> >I'm not so sure about the idea of putting KDE on an install CD.  In any
> >case, it's worth keeping straight that KDE is *not* a window manager; twm
> >is a window manager.  KDE is a desktop; it happens to include a window
> >manager, as well as a suite of integrated tools and toys.
>
> You're right. In practice I favor the old, orginal FVWM, configured to look

I favor the older, more original, twm personally.  You don't even have to
dip into pkgsrc for that one, and it's *everywhere*.  Of course, I'm also
the type of guy who favors new users learning to use ed and the console
before moving into X with a mouse-driven editor...


> like motif, with 16 desktops. I do have KDE on my -current i386 box, but I
> figure that it's a good way to stress the system. :-)

I keep KDE around just to see how it's evolving.  Also, I have a brother
who is doing some independant software development under MS-WINDOWS.  If
kdevel ever appears for KDE2, and actually works (I never got it to
function fully under KDE 1), I could use it as a way to wean him off of
MS-WINDOWS...


> My suggestion of KDE was just a suggestion of a desktop that a lot of users
> know about.

Hm.  If we're picking something to bundle with the base system, they don't
have to know about it, do they?  (It's not like it takes much to figure
out a GUI.)

Perhaps a collection of window-manager configuration skeletons would be
better?  ``This is how I have twm set up; here are the main features...''
``This is how I set up FVWM; here are the main features...'' Something as
easy to install as pkgsrc would be nice.  (Though if the user is willing
to run their window manager as a generic client, rather than as the main
client, it's easy to swap most window managers while running.  Usuall you
can just exit the window manager and get an unmanaged server.
Regrettably, the GNOME doesn't catch onto this concept as I recall, and
goes out of its way to kill your X server when GNOME exits, whether or not
you want it to.  I really hate that...)


> >Providing things like the heretic2-demo might also be good.  (Is that
> >still available?  I heard that the company that ported it to GNU/LINUX is
> >no longer in business.  But if the binary can still be downloaded, it's a
 [...]
> Loki has gone down the tubes.

That's what I thought.  Is the binary package still out there?


> >I think that this would better be done with a kind of meta-package system.
> >Well, second-best.  *Best* is just to inform users about pkgsrc and let
> >them do what they like, IMHO.  (^&
>
> I guess we have to decide what kind of user we want to attract.

Perhaps part of it is that I tend to feel that what sets NetBSD apart is
that it doesn't do anything *just* to attract new users (that I know of).
What it does is done in order to make the system more reliable, secure,
etc.


> With Sun delaying Solaris 9 x86, there will be people looking for a new
> OS. There is a lot of Linux talk going on in alt.solaris.x86.

What do these users require?

Become more like them (e.g., you proposed KDE because it was something
that people already knew) is not serving NetBSD's interests, IMHO.
There's *already* a LINUX out there; let LINUX be LINUX and don't worry
about whether people who want LINUX don't want NetBSD.

That's not to say that good features should be rejected...


If those people leaving Solaris are thinking about LINUX, my question is:
Are they thinking that way because they don't know about NetBSD, or
because they really want LINUX?

If the former, simply presenting NetBSD would be a good idea.

If the latter...well, more power to them.  (^&


> >XFree86 configuration probably isn't going to be a major hurdle.  I don't
> >know if the auto-configuration is anywhere near reliable enough to count
> >on it from sysinst, but it certainly could make life easier for many
> >end-users.
>
> Yes. I have 4.1.0 on one of my systems and it was pretty easy to set up.
> The main hitch is if the aperture driver is needed.

I thought that you only need that if you disable the INSECURE kernel
option (which is, I think, enabled by default precisely so that X runs).

I've heard some people assert that turning off that kernel option and
getting the aperture driver provides some real security benefit.  I've
heard others assert that aperture literally re-introduces the exact same
security problems (at least in a theoretical sense) as the INSECURE option
presents---that XFree86 either needs to rethink its security, or else
running X is inherantly insecure on your system.


> >I don't care for the idea of tying KDE too closely to NetBSD.  I'd also be
> >leery of accidentally creating the impression that NetBSD endorses KDE, or
> >has integrated it, or that it is ``the'' way that people should use X on
> >NetBSD.
>
> Maybe something else like windowmaker?

Until KDE/GNOME appeared, I tended to think of windowmaker as a large
package, as I recall.

IMHO, if a *single* window manager is going to be favored out of the box,
it should be the one that ships with X anyway.  (I use it as virtually my
sole window manager.  The only time when I don't is when I periodically
login to my sandbox account to play with alternate window managers, or the
KDE/GNOME desktops.  It isn't as pretty as some of the alternatives, but
it does virtually everything that I expect and can be given a
decently-pleasing appearance.)


  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu