I disagree with you. I think it's just a rabid subset of open source fanatics that carry the "Open source means compiling everything from scratch". If Linux wants to gain headway on the desktop, it needs to adopt a two-tier
approach - preconfigured and ready out of the box for most users, but with the ability to configure and replace whatever is wanted afterwards.
I don't have to be a programmer to use open-source software, and I don't need to know how it works.
I wasn't stating that they want to compile everything, only that they want choice.. defaults are great but seems to me you'll always be stepping on peoples toes.. if you subscribed your application via some sort of lightweight signing process - your
application is then listed as an option for whatever category it is.. users could rate the application etc so the list of choices lets you see the best user rated etc.
I'm not sure how complex the packages thing in ubuntu is now, but when I used it yonks ago it seemed like it could well evolve in that direction.. its a great way to get the community involved and offers new users the best choices without defaulting those choices..
My point again was purely that open source has always argued about choice, defaults aren't really choice for your most basic users.. interestingly I disagree with choice over defaults myself - I think defaults are the best approach, do as much as you can for
the user but give them reasonable powers of influence.