On February 26, 2026 10:02:40 AM CST, Ian Eure <[email protected]> wrote:
>Eduardo Mercovich <[email protected]> writes:
...
>> 5. Contrasting with the previous, this last point is really a very
>> small one. The desktop environments chosen to be installed were Mate
>> (just a simple one to start if in trouble), i3 (the one I use) and
>> exwm (with the hope to try it). Mate didn't include by default any web
>> browser. I'd like to argue that since it is such a common and
>> fundamental tool for most people these days (we can debate if this is
>> good and/or desirable), if it is within our reach by default we should
>> provide one. Anyone would do, no matter how simple.
>
>The ask is reasonable, but this is difficult to do and dangerous; on balance,
>I think we shouldn’t.
>
>Since Guix is a rolling release distribution, and web browsers are full of
>vulnerabilities, installing a web browser during installation means installing
>a vulnerable one. It also means a new version will be downloaded on the first
>update.
>
>There’s also a boring technical issue, which is that web browsers belong in
>user profiles, not installed at the system level, and the installer has no
>facility for configuring a user profile.
Disclaimer I personally prefer cli > tui > gui and dislike "Welcome to our os"
first login dialogs so much that I exit them as soon as posible...
But this is an example of a use case for them. Since many applications that
might normally be installed as part of the last stage of the installer on other
os's shouldn't be installed at the system level, having a first run graphical
dialog that provides the user a chance to read help information, do an initial
sane home configuration, and opt-in to install expected gui apps (e.g. browser,
mail reader, office productivity applications) either in the user profile or as
containers would be useful to improve new user experience. It also could
provide groups of expected packages maintained by different teams to provide
initial customization for their use case.
Cheers,
W
