
Originally Posted by
Artemis3
Think of it. You are a regular user, say at the workplace, used to work with gnome2. You don't care about the desktop much, you just come and sit to work with a web browser and office suit (openoffice). Wheezy becomes stable and IT upgrades all machines from squeeze.
Which choice hurts users more when they go to work next day? Gnome3 or XFCE? Fitting the CD might be compelling enough, but there is a strong usability reason to switch from gnome2 to xfce.
Gnome developers (the few that remain) have already said they are not catering to the needs of former gnome2 users. For them, Gnome3 has nothing to do with gnome2 and are not targeting their former users (as silly as that sounds). It would have made much more sense to rename the project entirely to avoid confusion.
Thus, ignoring gnome3 idiocy, what is left for the IT deployer? You need to switch to the closest thing, that would be either xfce, mate or, baring the performance of running components from gnome3, cinnamon/nemo/mdm & friends.
For a distro which doesn't want to alienate its user base (unlike the remaining gnome devs), this was the logical choice.
This is one beauty of the free/open source ecosystem. When a core dev makes an absurd choice, the project forks and/or people switch to alternatives. Remember Xfree86? Or even libreoffice vs openoffice?. Distros are collection of packages for the convenience of users, that is why they switch default packages from time to time.