Browser choice in Linux Lite 2.2

[rokytnji]

I saw so many replies yesterday. I kinda ignored this thread figuring Valtam had plenty of feedback.
Reading the title I figured it was just about what Browser Linux-Lite would ship with next which
does not effect me.

After reading from back of thread to the front. I like your idea Valtam in your original post in the beginning of this thread.
Puppy Linux does the same on some of it's releases/puplets also. It is a good system.

Code: [Select]

If someone has a computer too old to use one of those methods, they should buy some new floppy disks and reinstall Windows 3.1.
  Alrighty then. Coming from a guy that can run Linux on a 128MB partition with a browser and full desktop environment
on a SD card to IDE adapter on something maybe older than you. But off topic from this thread>>>>Guilty, ME! 

I try and keep/support  CD sized Linux releases. Slitaz, MX-14, AntiX, just to name a few. I can add Linux-lite to that list now.
It is a wonderment to see.

Just my 2 pesos.

[gra_ulv]

I have no problem graduating up to DVD size. Lite Browser sounds like a good idea to cover the Help Manual.

I personally use Firefox. Having said that I could care less which browser comes with a distro. Easy enough to remove one and install another. There are always at least a couple of apps I either remove or install. It just isn't a big deal. I really like your browser configure app. Looking good so far. 

[Coastie]

As a new (regular) Linux user since January 2014 coming from Mac OS X and XP, I agree with the other comments that Firefox should be available on the live DVD.* I would want my test drive of any distro to include using Firefox on the internet. A choice of uninstalling or installing browsers could be offered during or after install.


* Still don't get this live CD option. Linux Lite 1.0.6, 1.0.8, and 2.0 never fit on a CD for me. They alway were on DVD's.

[Monkeyman]

Assuming that one of the main objectives of LL is  to win over ex XP Windowsfraternity who by nature will have older hardware, a  live CD is the most backwardly compatible option.  Not all "old" computers have a USB boot up bios option.

Fixed that for ya.  I think it's more ex-Windows users rather than just ex-XP users.  Personally, I haven't used XP since Win7 came out (I skipped Vista).  Linux Lite is also good for those that have tried other Linux distros before but have been unsuccessful due to the complexities of early Linux (more commands/less point-n-shoot GUI).  I tried a few different Linux distros starting a few years ago and never felt comfortable as 1) there were more commands than I could get used to and 2) I'm lazy.

Regarding the USB boot option.  There are more than just a USB install option.  There's also a CD (looking like DVD in 2.2) install option.  If someone has a computer too old to use one of those methods, they should buy some new floppy disks and reinstall Windows 3.1.

[newtusmaximus]

 As a  linux newbie, still acclimatising, might i pitch in.

Assuming that one of the main objectives of LL is  to win over ex XP fraternity who by nature will have older hardware, a  live CD is the most backwardly compatible option.  Not all "old" computers have a USB boot up bios option.

The compatibility issue with their hardware, and peipherals, i.e. setup, is the main hurdle that newbies have to encounter - in a completely strange environment.  Hence the kernel (linux drivers)  is the key, and any other "tricks" that help maintain the OS from becoming bloated during use - i.e cleaner, etc. 

There is a vast amount of older hardware, which would otherwise be scrapped, out there that can be given a second life and perform sufficently well for most "everyday" needs.

[sysdrum]

So in LL 2.2 there will be first time bootup setup that will allow setup options?

[frank4360]

I certainly don't think that restricting size to a CD is important - the smaller systems such as Netbooks don't have optical readers anyway, so USB sticks are necessary for installation.

I agree with others that a fully-featured browser is important during the pre-installation, testing phase which most potential escapees from Windows will want, therefore it must be part of the release.

I use both Firefox and Chromium, and while only one is actually required to allow the potential user to experiment with Linux, since size is not a problem I would suggest both are shipped.

Incidentally, I also agree with an earlier suggestion that if size were a real problem, then an obvious candidate for removing from the release media would be LibreOffice, not a browser!

[bitsnpcs]

Is it possible a link from the browser choice that opens the "Install Additional Software" or an "Install Your browser" GUI ?

If it is a separate GUI things related to, or reliant upon, specific browsers such as Netflix and plugins could go below each browser on the list. Can horizontal rule/dividers be used in the GUI to separate things this way ?
It would also allow for additional browsers to be added at a future time to the list.

It could free up space on the Install Additional Software List, for other additional software options at a future time. 

[Monkeyman]

As long as there is a quick option to install Firefox, Chrome and Chromium (and maybe Opera?) in the initial start up options, it's all good.  I think most would like to just check a box and install their choice of browsers.  If they have to go online to install, it will take away from the simplicity.

[Jerry]

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

At the moment it will be offered after installation.

Would it be possible to include the 3 or 4 major browser choices in the live DVD for testing, then offer choice of one of those to be installed during the installation?  Or is something like that too difficult (or impossible) to do?

Certainly possible but a lot of work, what we seek is a simple solution.

[gold_finger]

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

At the moment it will be offered after installation.

Would it be possible to include the 3 or 4 major browser choices in the live DVD for testing, then offer choice of one of those to be installed during the installation?  Or is something like that too difficult (or impossible) to do?

[Jerry]

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!

[Jerry]

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.

[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.
 

[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?