>Are people not happy with having the option to have a choice about how
>their computer looks?  Is everything either required or forbidden?  I think
>that your normal Joe Average User should be happy with the default look
>and feel of KDE, GNOME or whatever.  Then once they get a few clues
>under their belt, maybe they can play with the themes or other desktops.
>But they shouldn't be locked into using whatever they first see just on the
>off chance that they will never want to change it.  Give them a little
>credit.

Therein lies the rub.  How difficult will it be to tell people to just
click this and look at this to install software?   I have a big problem
with users (in a office environment) that want to tweak their colors, or
change this and that.   Next thing I know, it's a zoo trying to find what
they've done and how it works, and I really feel sorry for the poor soul
who has to sit down and use their PC next.   (Something like auto-hiding
the MS start bar at the left or top ? ? ? )   It's great to think about the
possibilities, but that's why MS has been so successful . . . everything
works and looks the same.   If you go use Word, it has the same toolbar and
operation of Excel.   Can anyone remember back to the Wordstar days?  Can
you imagine running between two different programs and trying to train
users like that again?   Ugh!   What about the good old "will it convert
from this" fears?   

-- Bradley Miller