I cannot help noticing: the Fedora Project is monumentally unfriendly to KDE these days.
Look at their Product offerings: Cloud, Server, Workstation. And as far as Fedora's officials are concerned, Workstation = GNOME. GNOME now and GNOME forever. GNOME, all GNOME, and nothing but GNOME.
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
But what happens with F22? Will they Shanghai all us KDE users and force us to switch to GNOME, or else get out of the Fedora community?
Where is the option to specify KDE as a Product?
I chose KDE for a reason: GNOME is just plain too confusing when it comes to "switching a user." For that reason, and a whole host of pleasant discoveries of how well KDE replicates another environment with which I am familiar, I chose KDE beginning with F12. And I never looked back.
But now...!
Temlakos
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:17:59PM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
I think you're projecting. Command line options do not hold grudges.
But what happens with F22? Will they Shanghai all us KDE users and force us to switch to GNOME, or else get out of the Fedora community?
No. Why on earth would we want either of those things?
Where is the option to specify KDE as a Product?
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next#What_makes_a_.22product.22.3F
and, older,
http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-updat...
As for upgrading, there's no particular _reason_ to need a KDE-specific option at this point, but if in the future the KDE SIG would like to increase differentiation from the defaults in a way that would make it useful, an option could be added.
I chose KDE for a reason: GNOME is just plain too confusing when it comes to "switching a user." For that reason, and a whole host of pleasant discoveries of how well KDE replicates another environment with which I am familiar, I chose KDE beginning with F12. And I never looked back.
Cool. KDE is great, the Fedora KDE community is awesome, and the Fedora KDE spin is top-notch.
On 12/09/2014 01:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:17:59PM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
I think you're projecting. Command line options do not hold grudges.
But designers of command-line programs do.
But what happens with F22? Will they Shanghai all us KDE users and force us to switch to GNOME, or else get out of the Fedora community?
No. Why on earth would we want either of those things?
To rid yourselves of what you might consider a needless complication.
Where is the option to specify KDE as a Product?
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next#What_makes_a_.22product.22.3F
and, older,
http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-updat...
As for upgrading, there's no particular _reason_ to need a KDE-specific option at this point, but if in the future the KDE SIG would like to increase differentiation from the defaults in a way that would make it useful, an option could be added.
By the way: the link I found to spins.fedoraproject.org/ still has the links for the old F20 spin torrents. Is that an oversight on someone's part?
Indeed: I read and understand what you wrote on those pages. I even read what you wrote about a discussion either to create a specific Plasma product, /or/ to invite the "KDE Sig" to take active roles in the development of the Workstation project. I read what you wrote, but it's not happening. What /is/ happening is a monumental disdain for any desktop other than GNOME.
I chose KDE for a reason: GNOME is just plain too confusing when it comes to "switching a user." For that reason, and a whole host of pleasant discoveries of how well KDE replicates another environment with which I am familiar, I chose KDE beginning with F12. And I never looked back.
Cool. KDE is great, the Fedora KDE community is awesome, and the Fedora KDE spin is top-notch.
I agree. I just want to make sure the KDE spin is in no danger of discontinuance.
Temlakos
Hello, long time lurker here. I understand how you feel. I felt the same way with all this talk of The Fedora Workstation with GNOME and such. I think all that is just release hype. While it is true that a lot of people believe that Fedora = GNOME, I think those people also believe that customizing GNOME = customizing your distro.
Thing is, compared to everywhere else, KDE is treated pretty well in the Fedora community. I've been using KDE on Fedora for a while and the updates are delivered in a timely fashion, the community is nice, the default "group install" gives you a very nice KDE experience and there isn't too much modification to the DE anyway. Compared to things like Kubuntu and such, where you don't get updates quickly and if you're using one DE, be it KDE or XFCE or what have you, you're pretty much stuck to it. KDE on Fedora has given me the fewest problems of any distro out there. Even on Debian Testing, KDE often crashes or becomes unresponsive at times but on Fedora KDE has been a lot more stable for me.
So while I understand how you feel, I don't think Fedora will be "ditching" KDE any time soon.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Temlakos temlakos@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2014 01:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:17:59PM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
I think you're projecting. Command line options do not hold grudges.
But designers of command-line programs do.
But what happens with F22? Will they Shanghai all us KDE users and force us to switch to GNOME, or else get out of the Fedora community?
No. Why on earth would we want either of those things?
To rid yourselves of what you might consider a needless complication.
Where is the option to specify KDE as a Product?
See:http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next#What_makes_a_.22product.22.3F
and, older, http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-updat...
As for upgrading, there's no particular _reason_ to need a KDE-specific option at this point, but if in the future the KDE SIG would like to increase differentiation from the defaults in a way that would make it useful, an option could be added.
By the way: the link I found to spins.fedoraproject.org/ still has the links for the old F20 spin torrents. Is that an oversight on someone's part?
Indeed: I read and understand what you wrote on those pages. I even read what you wrote about a discussion either to create a specific Plasma product, *or* to invite the "KDE Sig" to take active roles in the development of the Workstation project. I read what you wrote, but it's not happening. What *is* happening is a monumental disdain for any desktop other than GNOME.
I chose KDE for a reason: GNOME is just plain too confusing when it comes to "switching a user." For that reason, and a whole host of pleasant discoveries of how well KDE replicates another environment with which I am familiar, I chose KDE beginning with F12. And I never looked back.
Cool. KDE is great, the Fedora KDE community is awesome, and the Fedora KDE spin is top-notch.
I agree. I just want to make sure the KDE spin is in no danger of discontinuance.
Temlakos
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:11:07PM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
I think you're projecting. Command line options do not hold grudges.
But designers of command-line programs do.
Well, I assure you that the designers of this one certainly do not in this case.
community?
No. Why on earth would we want either of those things?
To rid yourselves of what you might consider a needless complication.
I'm happy to have an inclusive Fedora. As long as people are interested, willing, and available to work on everything that needs to be done, the complication is worth it.
By the way: the link I found to spins.fedoraproject.org/ still has the links for the old F20 spin torrents. Is that an oversight on someone's part?
Probably. I actually went to look and noticed that the web team is working on it right now.
but it's not happening. What /is/ happening is a monumental disdain for any desktop other than GNOME.
"Distain" is definitely not the official position, the collective one, or, I don't think, even a significant minority view. I'm sure one can find instances of individuals being distainful, or of KDE SIG members being distainful of GNOME. Neither attitude is really welcome in the Fedora project overall. Build cool stuff, share it, advance free and open software together.
Cool. KDE is great, the Fedora KDE community is awesome, and the Fedora KDE spin is top-notch.
I agree. I just want to make sure the KDE spin is in no danger of discontinuance.
Don't worry. Well, plenty of things to worry about in the world today, but not this one. :)
Matthew Miller wrote:
I'm happy to have an inclusive Fedora.
The problem is that the way the new getfedora page fails to offer KDE is NOT inclusive: * The only 2 links to the Spins page containing it are: - in a plain text paragraph that appears below the unscrolled screen even with a resolution of (unusually high in these wide-screen days) 1028×1024, and - a mention in the site map in the page footer even below and even smaller that doesn't really count. * There is also no mention of what can be expected on the Spins page, in particular that KDE is one of the Spins offered. * Nor is it made clear that "Workstation" is GNOME-only. The page retains all the bad properties of the previous get-fedora (as opposed to get-fedora-all, which should always have been the default, but was instead killed entirely) page and makes the situation even worse.
Nor is the decision by the EMEA Ambassadors to replace the Multi-Desktop DVDs with "Workstation"-only ones (https://eischmann.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/getting-ready-for-fedora-21/) inclusive.
And this uninclusiveness is not even a mistake, but a deliberate decision, as evidenced by the "Fedora is now more focused" slogan on the getfedora front page. How do you expect us to NOT feel left out by that "Fedora Next" nonsense?
Kevin Kofler
Matthew Miller wrote:
I'm happy to have an inclusive Fedora.
The problem is that the way the new getfedora page fails to offer KDE is NOT inclusive:
- The only 2 links to the Spins page containing it are:
- in a plain text paragraph that appears below the unscrolled screen even with a resolution of (unusually high in these wide-screen days) 1028×1024, and
- a mention in the site map in the page footer even below and even
smaller that doesn't really count.
- There is also no mention of what can be expected on the Spins page, in particular that KDE is one of the Spins offered.
- Nor is it made clear that "Workstation" is GNOME-only.
The page retains all the bad properties of the previous get-fedora (as opposed to get-fedora-all, which should always have been the default, but was instead killed entirely) page and makes the situation even worse.
Nor is the decision by the EMEA Ambassadors to replace the Multi-Desktop DVDs with "Workstation"-only ones (https://eischmann.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/getting-ready-for-fedora-21/) inclusive.
I agree here, I think the removal of the all purpose Fedora DVD is a terrible idea. I've sold a lot of people on Fedora simply because of the DVD. The options it gives you comes in very handy in the long run and its removal does indicate a bias towards GNOME in Fedora.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:47:14AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
And this uninclusiveness is not even a mistake, but a deliberate decision, as evidenced by the "Fedora is now more focused" slogan on the getfedora front page. How do you expect us to NOT feel left out by that "Fedora Next" nonsense?
The Fedora Workstation/Cloud/Server aspect of Fedora.next is orthogonal to desktop environments, and the new Get Fedora site reflects that. I know you don't like that whole idea, but... other people do, and I think it's going to be very successful for the spread and growth of Fedora, and that benefits us all.
Desktop spins in general are about compiling and showcasing upstream technology. (See for example the KDE SIG mission statement.) The different flavors we're promoting are something different: taking that technology and doing something specific with it.
I agree that the link to the spins on that page could be a little more shiny. It's the first cut and a lot of work (and compromise) went into it. We can improve it for the future (although dismissing the whole thing as nonsense doesn't leave us much to work with).
Additionally, I talked to our web team, and redeveloping the spins page itself is _already_ the next top priority. Particularly, we're interested in elevating stand-out spins like KDE from the long list, many of which don't even really work. (The ARM images may fall under this same kind of situation -- they're also not really part of the current getfedora story yet are incredibly important to the project overall.)
There is also kde.fedoraproject.org. The KDE SIG has (or can easily get) direct commit access to that and you can make it as awesome as you like.
2014-12-10 10:35 GMT-06:00 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org:
I agree that the link to the spins on that page could be a little more shiny. It's the first cut and a lot of work (and compromise) went into it. We can improve it for the future (although dismissing the whole thing as nonsense doesn't leave us much to work with).
Additionally, I talked to our web team, and redeveloping the spins page itself is _already_ the next top priority. Particularly, we're interested in elevating stand-out spins like KDE from the long list, many of which don't even really work. (The ARM images may fall under this same kind of situation -- they're also not really part of the current getfedora story yet are incredibly important to the project overall.)
It'd be awesome if the whole getfedora story would be tell with a lot of HTML5 and angular.js || backbone.js || JQuery.js or/and Ruby on Rails. At first this kind of idea (to try to make to shine the face of product, instead of the product itself); but then I realize that the product already shines, and compared with other distros, we've being left behind in that aspect (specially the spins webpages!). So I second the idea of a refreshment to the face and I'd like to have the enough knowledge of JavaScript for such work.
-Isaac C.
Isaac Cortés González wrote:
It'd be awesome if the whole getfedora story would be tell with a lot of HTML5 and angular.js || backbone.js || JQuery.js or/and Ruby on Rails.
Please NO! The page is already bad enough as it is, turning it into bloatware that works only in the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome and that distracts from the actual content is one of the few ways you can make it worse.
Kevin Kofler
On 12/10/2014 10:35 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I agree that the link to the spins on that page could be a little more shiny. It's the first cut and a lot of work (and compromise) went into it. We can improve it for the future (although dismissing the whole thing as nonsense doesn't leave us much to work with).
Additionally, I talked to our web team, and redeveloping the spins page itself is _already_ the next top priority. Particularly, we're interested in elevating stand-out spins like KDE from the long list, many of which don't even really work.
Agreed that it could be made more prominent. On the other hand, I had little difficulty finding and installing it on two different machines today. As a long-time KDE user (since 1.0), I think Fedora's spin is quite nice.
Matthew Miller wrote:
Desktop spins in general are about compiling and showcasing upstream technology. (See for example the KDE SIG mission statement.) The different flavors we're promoting are something different: taking that technology and doing something specific with it.
The "Workstation Product" is a desktop spin like all the others, only the arbitrary and unfair distinction between Products and Spins makes it "different".
Kevin Kofler
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:17:59PM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
I think you're projecting. Command line options do not hold grudges.
But what happens with F22? Will they Shanghai all us KDE users and force us to switch to GNOME, or else get out of the Fedora community?
No. Why on earth would we want either of those things?
Where is the option to specify KDE as a Product?
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next#What_makes_a_.22product.22.3F
and, older,
http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-updat...
As for upgrading, there's no particular _reason_ to need a KDE-specific option at this point, but if in the future the KDE SIG would like to increase differentiation from the defaults in a way that would make it useful, an option could be added.
I chose KDE for a reason: GNOME is just plain too confusing when it comes to "switching a user." For that reason, and a whole host of pleasant discoveries of how well KDE replicates another environment with which I am familiar, I chose KDE beginning with F12. And I never looked back.
Cool. KDE is great, the Fedora KDE community is awesome, and the Fedora KDE spin is top-notch.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
2014-12-09 12:17 GMT-06:00 Temlakos temlakos@gmail.com:
I cannot help noticing: the Fedora Project is monumentally unfriendly to KDE these days.
Well from my POV that is very far from reality, and it says so an average Fedora user and a full-time user since the 14th edition. The reason why I downloaded Fedora 10 (the first Fedora that I have downloaded in my life) was because of KDE.
Look at their Product offerings: Cloud, Server, Workstation. And as far as Fedora's officials are concerned, Workstation = GNOME. GNOME now and GNOME forever. GNOME, all GNOME, and nothing but GNOME.
Again, maybe it's the hype of the release, and let's be realistic: few people choose Fedora because of KDE. I don't hink that this is due because of hostile policies against any particular DE or in general, you may think it like a type of tradition, like any other stigma around the free software from the outside
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
But what happens with F22? Will they Shanghai all us KDE users and force us to switch to GNOME, or else get out of the Fedora community?
You will still allowed to do it as you do with the 21 edition?
Where is the option to specify KDE as a Product?
From my stand side to name KDE a whole product apart from the other three
is an useless marketing exercise. The Workstation product isn't just the GNOME desktop, or that isn't its only feature; but a KDE product will just focus in the fact the default DE would be KDE, and, again, the DE isn't the main part of an OS, and not the only tool on it, or shouldn't be.
-Isaac C.
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:17:59PM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
I cannot help noticing: the Fedora Project is monumentally unfriendly to KDE these days.
Look at their Product offerings: Cloud, Server, Workstation. And as far as Fedora's officials are concerned, Workstation = GNOME. GNOME now and GNOME forever. GNOME, all GNOME, and nothing but GNOME.
With the F21 release, they grudgingly let you upgrade with the "nonproduct" option.
I was thinking the same, but who will suffer most by the product nonsense? Server or Gnome users who accidentally fedup to product=server or workstation. If I understand it correctly this will make complete havoc of their configuration, installing packages someone else thought are important for them and potentially creating security issues on servers and conflicts with already installed packages (screwing alternatives).
So I think KDE is lucky it wasn't included in that set.
I am however rather unhappy with the new command line option names of fedup, you don't want to have people google for "fedup product". Also instead of "nonproduct" it should be "good-old" or something like that.
Richard
--- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers
Richard Z wrote:
Also instead of "nonproduct" it should be "good-old" or something like that.
It should be "standard" as it originally was. But of course we can't have a name that implies that the non-Product option is the first-class citizen (which it actually is, nonproduct is the real Fedora, everything else is a derivative of it), it has to be called something that makes it a second- class citizen, which "nonproduct" clearly does. :-(
Kevin Kofler
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
It should be "standard" as it originally was. But of course we can't have a name that implies that the non-Product option is the first-class citizen (which it actually is, nonproduct is the real Fedora, everything else is a derivative of it), it has to be called something that makes it a second- class citizen, which "nonproduct" clearly does. :-(
Yup... "nonproduct" should be changed, it really has a negative connotation (maybe that was the purpose to discourage usage). I can understand how "standard" would not want to be used. "Standard" to me implies that it should be the default for everyone. How about "allproducts" - which is really what it is. If that gives people heartburn, how about "customproduct" or just "custom".
Going back to the subject of the thread, I really don't believe Fedora is trying to "expel KDE"; but it's obvious that Fedora considers it the stepchild - in a state of benign neglect. The way KDE has been handled, maybe it should just be called "Snow".
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:20:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
name that implies that the non-Product option is the first-class citizen (which it actually is, nonproduct is the real Fedora, everything else is a derivative of it), it has to be called something that makes it a second- class citizen, which "nonproduct" clearly does. :-(
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support. :)
Am 11.12.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:20:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
name that implies that the non-Product option is the first-class citizen (which it actually is, nonproduct is the real Fedora, everything else is a derivative of it), it has to be called something that makes it a second- class citizen, which "nonproduct" clearly does. :-(
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support. :)
well, because it's only natural for IT people :-)
"customized" would be what it really is
"non" in a "product name" is in fact a no-go because it says what it is not and has a negative association anyways
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:22:55PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.12.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:20:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
name that implies that the non-Product option is the first-class citizen (which it actually is, nonproduct is the real Fedora, everything else is a derivative of it), it has to be called something that makes it a second- class citizen, which "nonproduct" clearly does. :-(
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support. :)
well, because it's only natural for IT people :-)
"customized" would be what it really is
+1
Richard
--- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 01:14:39 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support.
I like 'base' better. Workstation is anyways a customized offering out of Fedora.
Just because Workstation, server, cloud are being called products people have already started spreading FUD that spins are somewhat less of Fedora than the products.
Fedora KDE is the best KDE desktop distribution in all respects. It would be a shame if media and users starts overlooking it because of the second-class connotation.
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 17:43 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 01:14:39 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support.
I like 'base' better. Workstation is anyways a customized offering out of Fedora.
Just because Workstation, server, cloud are being called products people have already started spreading FUD that spins are somewhat less of Fedora than the products.
Fedora KDE is the best KDE desktop distribution in all respects. It would be a shame if media and users starts overlooking it because of the second-class connotation.
+1
I personally would prefer "product=Workstation, desktop=KDE" (or whatever).
IOW make the specific desktop orthogonal to the selection of Workstation. The default can keep being Gnome if it makes some people happy.
Clearly either of these means more work for someone.
poc
On Friday 12 December 2014 16:43:09 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 17:43 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 01:14:39 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support.
I like 'base' better. Workstation is anyways a customized offering out of Fedora.
Just because Workstation, server, cloud are being called products people have already started spreading FUD that spins are somewhat less of Fedora than the products.
Fedora KDE is the best KDE desktop distribution in all respects. It would be a shame if media and users starts overlooking it because of the second-class connotation.
+1
I personally would prefer "product=Workstation, desktop=KDE" (or whatever).
Personally I would prefer:
"product=Fedora"
Labeling the installation media, Desktop, Server, etc. Just confuse a noob into thinking that they install one thing and they would be limited like they would be if they installed a Microsoft product (ie: Server, Home Editon, Professional Edition, Ultimate Edition.)
It's one of the things that I can't stand about Windows and love about Linux. With Windows the build denotes limitations of one kind of another. With Linux, I get a distro and I can build from it what I want. I want a desktop, I get a desktop.... What desktop... my choice.. Gnome, Kde, etc. I choose KDE :). I want a server, I install servers. Want both, go ahead. You are installing Linux you can do what you want. The "product" is Fedora's Distribution of Linux.
I know that nobody will agree... But thats OK... Thats just my 2 cents worth.
IOW make the specific desktop orthogonal to the selection of Workstation. The default can keep being Gnome if it makes some people happy.
Clearly either of these means more work for someone.
poc
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
Eli Wapniarski wrote:
Personally I would prefer:
"product=Fedora"
+1
Labeling the installation media, Desktop, Server, etc. Just confuse a noob into thinking that they install one thing and they would be limited like they would be if they installed a Microsoft product (ie: Server, Home Editon, Professional Edition, Ultimate Edition.)
That's indeed a legitimate concern.
I'm more unhappy about what the effect is on all those Spins that did not get the privilege of being a "product" (or "flavor" or whatever the term of the day is now). We are now being degraded to second-class citizens, when there's NO technical difference between a Spin and a Product, it's a purely artificial distinction.
Sure, Products now have per-Product configuration, but there's nothing technically preventing us from having per-Spin configuration as well, and we have been told per-Spin configuration for KDE would probably be accepted if we ask for it. It's a pure policy decision (and IMHO, a bad one, the per- Product configurations are causing more problems than they solve) that is not technically dependent on the Spin/Product distinction.
But your concern is also an important point. These "products" are fragmenting Fedora for no good reason, and actually confusing users.
It's one of the things that I can't stand about Windows and love about Linux. With Windows the build denotes limitations of one kind of another. With Linux, I get a distro and I can build from it what I want. I want a desktop, I get a desktop.... What desktop... my choice.. Gnome, Kde, etc. I choose KDE :). I want a server, I install servers. Want both, go ahead. You are installing Linux you can do what you want. The "product" is Fedora's Distribution of Linux.
+1
I know that nobody will agree... But thats OK... Thats just my 2 cents worth.
Not true, I do agree with you. :-)
Kevin Kofler who wants Fedora Previous back!
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But your concern is also an important point. These "products" are fragmenting Fedora for no good reason, and actually confusing users.
I think the confusion arises from the term "product". I've no idea what it's supposed to mean. OTOH "spin" isn't very clear to the newbie user either. That said, some such term to indicate typical configurations of Fedora is a useful idea. I well remember the tedium of installing the DVD version and wading through a seemingly interminable series of menus about exactly which packages I wanted. Having access to that level of detail is useful for some, but most people would probably prefer not to have to do it except at the outermost level, especially if they're newbies. I think that's what the various "products" are trying to achieve, though the results are less than ideal at the moment.
poc
Honest question, would it be very hard, or problematic somehow to offer the three major Fedora spins as they are, but also offer a big Fedora DVD? I understand that it takes a lot of effort to know what to fit in exactly 4.7 Gigs but I guess there is a demand for it, right?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But your concern is also an important point. These "products" are fragmenting Fedora for no good reason, and actually confusing users.
I think the confusion arises from the term "product". I've no idea what it's supposed to mean. OTOH "spin" isn't very clear to the newbie user either. That said, some such term to indicate typical configurations of Fedora is a useful idea. I well remember the tedium of installing the DVD version and wading through a seemingly interminable series of menus about exactly which packages I wanted. Having access to that level of detail is useful for some, but most people would probably prefer not to have to do it except at the outermost level, especially if they're newbies. I think that's what the various "products" are trying to achieve, though the results are less than ideal at the moment.
poc
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
On 12/13/2014 11:21 AM, Dhaval Anjaria wrote:
Honest question, would it be very hard, or problematic somehow to offer the three major Fedora spins as they are, but also offer a big Fedora DVD? I understand that it takes a lot of effort to know what to fit in exactly 4.7 Gigs but I guess there is a demand for it, right?
(Scroll down below for my answer to this question.)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@gmail.com mailto:pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > But your concern is also an important point. These "products" are > fragmenting Fedora for no good reason, and actually confusing users. I think the confusion arises from the term "product". I've no idea what it's supposed to mean. OTOH "spin" isn't very clear to the newbie user either. That said, some such term to indicate typical configurations of Fedora is a useful idea. I well remember the tedium of installing the DVD version and wading through a seemingly interminable series of menus about exactly which packages I wanted. Having access to that level of detail is useful for some, but most people would probably prefer not to have to do it except at the outermost level, especially if they're newbies. I think that's what the various "products" are trying to achieve, though the results are less than ideal at the moment. poc
I gathered they stopped issuing the DVD after cramming "everything" on one disk became, frankly, problematic. And when network upgrade became all the rage. (It was a little difficult to manage at first.)
Temlakos
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 01:30:04PM +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I think the confusion arises from the term "product". I've no idea what it's supposed to mean. OTOH "spin" isn't very clear to the newbie user either. That said, some such term to indicate typical configurations of
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions? I would also like to find better way to distinguish the spins like KDE desktop, where there is full QA and a number of dedicated people, from those which get minimal effort and often have serious problems that no one fixes.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:32:40 -0500 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions?
What about the following:
Showcases:
Fedora Workstation showcase Fedora Server showcase Fedora Cloud showcase
Flavors:
Fedora Gnome flavor Fedora KDE flavor Fedora XFCE flavor
Spins:
Fedora Electronic-lab spin Fedora Games spin
A "flavor" would be a spin that is more seriously supported, with dedicated people etc., as opposed to a "spin" which is not that much serious, so to say. Some more defined criteria regarding which is which could be established, or else this could be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Btw, "flavors" and "spins" could be advertised a bit more prominently on the website, because a casual reader might get the impression that Workstation, Server and Cloud are all there is to Fedora.
Best, :-) Marko
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 05:02:51 PM Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Showcases:
Fedora Workstation showcase Fedora Server showcase Fedora Cloud showcase
Flavors:
Fedora Gnome flavor Fedora KDE flavor Fedora XFCE flavor
Spins:
Fedora Electronic-lab spin Fedora Games spin
There is no point in adding another word to the name. Reminds me of how badly named Android phones are. We don't want to keep explaining difference between Showcases, flavors and Spins.
Upstream wants to use KDE for community and Plasma for desktop so that's what we should use. GNOME and KDE are the only two release blocking desktop environments and I would love to see following.
Fedora Workstation Fedora Plasma Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
Am 13.12.2014 um 19:24 schrieb Sudhir Khanger:
There is no point in adding another word to the name. Reminds me of how badly named Android phones are. We don't want to keep explaining difference between Showcases, flavors and Spins.
Upstream wants to use KDE for community and Plasma for desktop so that's what we should use. GNOME and KDE are the only two release blocking desktop environments and I would love to see following.
Fedora Workstation Fedora Plasma Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
guess what "Plasma" says for a ordinary, new Linux user: nothing
calling one "Workstation" and the other "Plasma" is braindead *both* are workstations with just a different DE
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 07:29:42 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
guess what "Plasma" says for a ordinary, new Linux user: nothing
By your definition, what do these ordinary, new Linux user, think of when you say Fedora? Hat? What do they of when you say Apple? Fruit?
You can call it anything as long as you are able to build a brand around it. One words are able to roll off tongue easily and easier to write. They don't mean anything unless you attach context with them.
Am 13.12.2014 um 22:01 schrieb Sudhir Khanger:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 07:29:42 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
guess what "Plasma" says for a ordinary, new Linux user: nothing
By your definition, what do these ordinary, new Linux user, think of when you say Fedora? Hat? What do they of when you say Apple? Fruit?
if he is on the fedora website and seek a download the question "what is Fedora" don't matter - he is alreay there
KDE is known for much more than a decade "Plasma" - pffff?!
the point here is that it makes no sense to call one flavour "Workstation" and the other "Plasma" because *both* are workstation or call it desktop setups
You can call it anything as long as you are able to build a brand around it. One words are able to roll off tongue easily and easier to write. They don't mean anything unless you attach context with them
* the words GNOME and KDE already have a brand * workstation is a usecase * both are the same usecase in a different flavour
so you hardly can call one "Workstation" and the other "Plasma" or "KDE"
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 19:29 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.12.2014 um 19:24 schrieb Sudhir Khanger:
There is no point in adding another word to the name. Reminds me of how badly named Android phones are. We don't want to keep explaining difference between Showcases, flavors and Spins.
Upstream wants to use KDE for community and Plasma for desktop so that's what we should use. GNOME and KDE are the only two release blocking desktop environments and I would love to see following.
Fedora Workstation Fedora Plasma Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
guess what "Plasma" says for a ordinary, new Linux user: nothing
calling one "Workstation" and the other "Plasma" is braindead *both* are workstations with just a different DE
For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
poc
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 09:03:14 PM Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
I don't think it is a great idea for us to call KDE a desktop when upstream insists on calling it a community. Desktop aka Plasma is a separate effort under KDE umbrella project.
Am 13.12.2014 um 22:15 schrieb Sudhir Khanger:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 09:03:14 PM Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
I don't think it is a great idea for us to call KDE a desktop when upstream insists on calling it a community. Desktop aka Plasma is a separate effort under KDE umbrella project
frankly - do we create a distribution for usptream developers or users?
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:20:09 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly - do we create a distribution for usptream developers or users?
You can keep calling it whatever you want to call it in your little circle. But all the official support material, announcements, docs, forums, Kubuntu, OpenSUSE support they will distinguish between KDE community and Plasma desktop.
Am 13.12.2014 um 22:29 schrieb Sudhir Khanger:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:20:09 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly - do we create a distribution for usptream developers or users?
You can keep calling it whatever you want to call it in your little circle. But all the official support material, announcements, docs, forums, Kubuntu, OpenSUSE support they will distinguish between KDE community and Plasma desktop
fine - in fact that is a bad decision of KDE upstream
then just call it "KDE Plasma" because eveybody will understand it when the other option contains GNOME, upstream can change their names as often as they like "KDE", "KDE SC", "Plasma" and what not all
i know what KDE is - why? because i was there with KDE 1.0 in the 1990's and well *i know* what Plasma is *but only* because i am an IT guy reading any IT news
for the ordinary user that whole naming and ren-namig crap is just disturbing and non helpful at all - feels sometimes the open source communit follows the commercial marketing circles for no good reason
Reindl Harald ha scritto:
Am 13.12.2014 um 22:29 schrieb Sudhir Khanger:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:20:09 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
frankly - do we create a distribution for usptream developers or users?
You can keep calling it whatever you want to call it in your little circle. But all the official support material, announcements, docs, forums, Kubuntu, OpenSUSE support they will distinguish between KDE community and Plasma desktop
fine - in fact that is a bad decision of KDE upstream
then just call it "KDE Plasma" because eveybody will understand it when the other option contains GNOME, upstream can change their names as often as they like "KDE", "KDE SC", "Plasma" and what not all
i know what KDE is - why? because i was there with KDE 1.0 in the 1990's and well *i know* what Plasma is *but only* because i am an IT guy reading any IT news
for the ordinary user that whole naming and ren-namig crap is just disturbing and non helpful at all - feels sometimes the open source communit follows the commercial marketing circles for no good reason
This has been discussed a lot, there are some reason which are not maybe the same "good" for everyone, but please go back and read all the articles on the dot about this.
Moreover, the more you use the old name, the more time will be needed until people knows that "Plasma" is the desktop from the KDE community.
Ok for KDE Plasma, not ok for KDE as the desktop name.
(new users don't care about the history, fwiw).
Anyway, this is all orthogonal to the problem of the recognition of the current KDE spin in the new order. Let's try to solve that.
Ciao
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 02:45 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 09:03:14 PM Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
I don't think it is a great idea for us to call KDE a desktop when upstream insists on calling it a community. Desktop aka Plasma is a separate effort under KDE umbrella project.
That's as may be, but calling it Plasma means almost nobody will understand what it is. KDE-Plasma perhaps.
poc
Il 13/12/2014 22:03, Patrick O'Callaghan ha scritto:
[...] For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
I know that you know, but in a nutshell the Plasma workspace is a bloated tray taking all the screen, and populated with buggy applets called Plasmoids. But if you select "Folder view" you get a Desktop where you may put what you need (folders, files, application launchers, etc.) and get a decent KDE. One day KDE developers will realize that a computer Desktop must be like a desktop where we keep the documents we're working on and the tools to operate on them, and not third party applications. That day KDE will conquer again the popularity it's lost with the "evolution" toward Plasma. I know a lot of people which dropped KDE because of Plasma, I don't know anyone who switched to KDE, fascinated by Plasma. I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 1, and I still mourn KDE 3.5 which luckily I can still use with CentOs 5 and RHEL 5.
Giuliano
Giuliano Colla ha scritto:
Il 13/12/2014 22:03, Patrick O'Callaghan ha scritto:
[...] For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
I know that you know, but in a nutshell the Plasma workspace is a bloated tray taking all the screen, and populated with buggy applets called Plasmoids. But if you select "Folder view" you get a Desktop where you may put what you need (folders, files, application launchers, etc.) and get a decent KDE.
But that's still Plasma. Just a different configuration.
One day KDE developers will realize that a computer Desktop must be like a desktop where we keep the documents we're working on and the tools to operate on them, and not third party applications. That day KDE will conquer again the popularity it's lost with the "evolution" toward Plasma. I know a lot of people which dropped KDE because of Plasma, I don't know anyone who switched to KDE, fascinated by Plasma.
You just said that you can get a "decent desktop". So it's a matter of configuration. Again, a different issue. We are talking about naming here and "old" people who knows the difference can help with spreading the change, instead of opposing it.
Ciao
Am 14.12.2014 um 01:40 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
Giuliano Colla ha scritto:
Il 13/12/2014 22:03, Patrick O'Callaghan ha scritto:
[...] For once I agree with Reindl. I don't even understand what Plasma is and I've been an exclusively KDE user since version 3.
I know that you know, but in a nutshell the Plasma workspace is a bloated tray taking all the screen, and populated with buggy applets called Plasmoids. But if you select "Folder view" you get a Desktop where you may put what you need (folders, files, application launchers, etc.) and get a decent KDE.
But that's still Plasma. Just a different configuration.
One day KDE developers will realize that a computer Desktop must be like a desktop where we keep the documents we're working on and the tools to operate on them, and not third party applications. That day KDE will conquer again the popularity it's lost with the "evolution" toward Plasma. I know a lot of people which dropped KDE because of Plasma, I don't know anyone who switched to KDE, fascinated by Plasma.
You just said that you can get a "decent desktop". So it's a matter of configuration. Again, a different issue. We are talking about naming here and "old" people who knows the difference can help with spreading the change, instead of opposing it
sorry, but i do not need to help spreading a completly useless "change" because if i am interested in marketing i go out and by a Mac
KDE is KDE - period
Reindl Harald wrote:
guess what "Plasma" says for a ordinary, new Linux user: nothing
calling one "Workstation" and the other "Plasma" is braindead *both* are workstations with just a different DE
Let's just call the KDE Plasma Desktop edition "Fedora Desktop". :-p Hey, it's as specific as "Fedora Workstation"… And it's also part of the full upstream name "KDE Plasma Desktop Workspace" for the desktop environment.
Kevin Kofler
On 13 December 2014 at 13:24, Sudhir Khanger> wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 05:02:51 PM Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Showcases:
Fedora Workstation showcase Fedora Server showcase Fedora Cloud showcase
Flavors:
Fedora Gnome flavor Fedora KDE flavor Fedora XFCE flavor
Spins:
Fedora Electronic-lab spin Fedora Games spin
There is no point in adding another word to the name. Reminds me of how badly named Android phones are. We don't want to keep explaining difference between Showcases, flavors and Spins.
Upstream wants to use KDE for community and Plasma for desktop so that's what we should use. GNOME and KDE are the only two release blocking desktop environments and I would love to see following.
Fedora Workstation Fedora Plasma Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
I am thinking much simpler - Fedora Gnome - Fedora KDE and for everything else: - Fedora netinstall
Plus more specialized spins like Fedora Scientific, Fedora Jam at some other "Special Spins" page.
I tried to find the netinstall image today. I realized that they made this tremendously hard. Fortunately, I found a blog page of adamw, thanks to some folks at #fedora. Accordingly, the netinstall has been renamed to "server install image". So I had to find a mirror, go to Server directory under F21, and download the image from there.
All of this would have been avoided by putting a simple link on the home page.
Sad...
Orcan
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 11:32 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 01:30:04PM +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I think the confusion arises from the term "product". I've no idea what it's supposed to mean. OTOH "spin" isn't very clear to the newbie user either. That said, some such term to indicate typical configurations of
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions? I would also like to find better way to distinguish the spins like KDE desktop, where there is full QA and a number of dedicated people, from those which get minimal effort and often have serious problems that no one fixes.
In other industries "model" distinguishes one variant from another:
Fedora model=server Fedora model=workstation-Gnome Fedora model=workstation-KDE
The above are well-supported. Then we have:
Fedora model=workstation, desktop=LXDE etc.
which exist but are not the main focus at present (though they might graduate to workstation-LXDE or whatever in some later release).
I don't expect that to please everyone but I'll throw it out there.
poc
On 12/13/2014 10:32 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions? I would also like to find better way to distinguish the spins like KDE desktop, where there is full QA and a number of dedicated people, from those which get minimal effort and often have serious problems that no one fixes.
Fedora Workstation with GNOME Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
alternate workstation versions (supported): Fedora Workstation with KDE Plasma Fedora Workstation with Some Other DE
alternate workstation versions (unsupported): Fedora Workstation with Some Wonky DE Fedora Workstation with Some Other Wonky DE
1) important to note that the default workstation includes GNOME 2) hoping "supported" doesn't imply too much
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 19:38 -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote:
On 12/13/2014 10:32 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions? I would also like to find better way to distinguish the spins like KDE desktop, where there is full QA and a number of dedicated people, from those which get minimal effort and often have serious problems that no one fixes.
Fedora Workstation with GNOME Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
alternate workstation versions (supported): Fedora Workstation with KDE Plasma Fedora Workstation with Some Other DE
alternate workstation versions (unsupported): Fedora Workstation with Some Wonky DE Fedora Workstation with Some Other Wonky DE
- important to note that the default workstation includes GNOME
- hoping "supported" doesn't imply too much
I could live with that as a description. However part of the question at issue is what invocations of fedup should exist to get the result the user wants, so a more compact form is needed. That's why I proposed a way of doing that earlier in the thread.
poc
On 12/14/2014 06:06 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 19:38 -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote:
Fedora Workstation with GNOME Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
alternate workstation versions (supported): Fedora Workstation with KDE Plasma Fedora Workstation with Some Other DE
alternate workstation versions (unsupported): Fedora Workstation with Some Wonky DE Fedora Workstation with Some Other Wonky DE
- important to note that the default workstation includes GNOME
- hoping "supported" doesn't imply too much
I could live with that as a description. However part of the question at issue is what invocations of fedup should exist to get the result the user wants, so a more compact form is needed. That's why I proposed a way of doing that earlier in the thread.
Understood; I was proposing wording for the download page.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 12:06:05PM +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 19:38 -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote:
On 12/13/2014 10:32 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions? I would also like to find better way to distinguish the spins like KDE desktop, where there is full QA and a number of dedicated people, from those which get minimal effort and often have serious problems that no one fixes.
Fedora Workstation with GNOME Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
alternate workstation versions (supported): Fedora Workstation with KDE Plasma Fedora Workstation with Some Other DE
alternate workstation versions (unsupported): Fedora Workstation with Some Wonky DE Fedora Workstation with Some Other Wonky DE
- important to note that the default workstation includes GNOME
- hoping "supported" doesn't imply too much
I could live with that as a description. However part of the question at issue is what invocations of fedup should exist to get the result the user wants, so a more compact form is needed. That's why I proposed a way of doing that earlier in the thread.
do we really need any of it for fedup? I would think people use fedup to upgrade, not to switch to a different product. Why would a gnome user want to type "fedup --product=workstation" instead of "fedup --product=nonproduct" - other than because of the misleading commandline options? Similar for KDE users if there would be product=KDE ?
Richard
--- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 13:34 +0100, Richard Z wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 12:06:05PM +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 19:38 -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote:
On 12/13/2014 10:32 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Naming things is famously hard; I agree — we could to better here. Any suggestions? I would also like to find better way to distinguish the spins like KDE desktop, where there is full QA and a number of dedicated people, from those which get minimal effort and often have serious problems that no one fixes.
Fedora Workstation with GNOME Fedora Server Fedora Cloud
alternate workstation versions (supported): Fedora Workstation with KDE Plasma Fedora Workstation with Some Other DE
alternate workstation versions (unsupported): Fedora Workstation with Some Wonky DE Fedora Workstation with Some Other Wonky DE
- important to note that the default workstation includes GNOME
- hoping "supported" doesn't imply too much
I could live with that as a description. However part of the question at issue is what invocations of fedup should exist to get the result the user wants, so a more compact form is needed. That's why I proposed a way of doing that earlier in the thread.
do we really need any of it for fedup? I would think people use fedup to upgrade, not to switch to a different product.
If that were true, we wouldn't need any options and fedup would just upgrade whatever the user already had.
Why would a gnome user want to type "fedup --product=workstation" instead of "fedup --product=nonproduct" - other than because of the misleading commandline options?
Sorry, can't parse what you're getting at here.
Similar for KDE users if there would be product=KDE ?
Part of my objection is simply to the term "product", which I think is unfortunate. I was pushing "model" as slightly better.
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 13:34 +0100, Richard Z wrote:
do we really need any of it for fedup? I would think people use fedup to upgrade, not to switch to a different product.
If that were true, we wouldn't need any options and fedup would just upgrade whatever the user already had.
That's the point.
Those options were added to FedUp (and forced to be used by just refusing to proceed by default instead of simply defaulting to --product=nonproduct) with almost no evidence of user demand. (When I asked, they had to admit not having any real data, they only "asked around" in a group composed mostly of GNOME developers to find that upgrading to a Product was the "expected" behavior.)
Why would a gnome user want to type "fedup --product=workstation" instead of "fedup --product=nonproduct" - other than because of the misleading commandline options?
Sorry, can't parse what you're getting at here.
He's saying that the expected behavior of FedUp is clearly --product=nonproduct and thus that should be the default or only option instead of being required to be explicitly passed (and I agree with that).
Part of my objection is simply to the term "product", which I think is unfortunate. I was pushing "model" as slightly better.
"Product" is being replaced anyway because Red Hat Marketing doesn't like it (because Fedora is not a commercially supported product of Red Hat), the Council is looking for alternatives, with "Flavor" being the current working term. So you can propose the "Model" term to the Fedora Council.
Kevin Kofler
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 02:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 13:34 +0100, Richard Z wrote:
do we really need any of it for fedup? I would think people use fedup to upgrade, not to switch to a different product.
If that were true, we wouldn't need any options and fedup would just upgrade whatever the user already had.
That's the point.
Those options were added to FedUp (and forced to be used by just refusing to proceed by default instead of simply defaulting to --product=nonproduct) with almost no evidence of user demand. (When I asked, they had to admit not having any real data, they only "asked around" in a group composed mostly of GNOME developers to find that upgrading to a Product was the "expected" behavior.)
Interesting. I wasn't aware of the background.
Why would a gnome user want to type "fedup --product=workstation" instead of "fedup --product=nonproduct" - other than because of the misleading commandline options?
Sorry, can't parse what you're getting at here.
He's saying that the expected behavior of FedUp is clearly --product=nonproduct and thus that should be the default or only option instead of being required to be explicitly passed (and I agree with that).
That makes sense in most cases (i.e. as a default). I do think it useful to have the option of changing at upgrade time though.
Part of my objection is simply to the term "product", which I think is unfortunate. I was pushing "model" as slightly better.
"Product" is being replaced anyway because Red Hat Marketing doesn't like it (because Fedora is not a commercially supported product of Red Hat), the Council is looking for alternatives, with "Flavor" being the current working term. So you can propose the "Model" term to the Fedora Council.
My problem with "flavor" is that it's misspelled :-)
poc
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:15:29PM +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
He's saying that the expected behavior of FedUp is clearly --product=nonproduct and thus that should be the default or only option instead of being required to be explicitly passed (and I agree with that).
That makes sense in most cases (i.e. as a default). I do think it useful to have the option of changing at upgrade time though.
Some people suggested that the default should be workstation, since a GNOME desktop was the previous "Fedora default offering". We didn't do that. I think having people choose is a decent compromise. I know the naming isn't ideal -- I think I mentioned earlier than naming things is hard.
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
He's saying that the expected behavior of FedUp is clearly --product=nonproduct and thus that should be the default or only option instead of being required to be explicitly passed (and I agree with that).
That makes sense in most cases (i.e. as a default). I do think it useful to have the option of changing at upgrade time though.
If in fact "product=nonproduct" is the default, please just call it "default". Anything else is going to cause confusion to the non-expert (like me).
"product=nonproduct" is farcically confusing.
On Monday 15 December 2014 22:49:10 Timothy Murphy wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
He's saying that the expected behavior of FedUp is clearly --product=nonproduct and thus that should be the default or only option instead of being required to be explicitly passed (and I agree with that).
That makes sense in most cases (i.e. as a default). I do think it useful to have the option of changing at upgrade time though.
If in fact "product=nonproduct" is the default, please just call it "default". Anything else is going to cause confusion to the non-expert (like me).
"product=nonproduct" is farcically confusing.
lol.... One of the great paradoxes of life
Eli
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 22:49 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
He's saying that the expected behavior of FedUp is clearly --product=nonproduct and thus that should be the default or only option instead of being required to be explicitly passed (and I agree with that).
That makes sense in most cases (i.e. as a default). I do think it useful to have the option of changing at upgrade time though.
If in fact "product=nonproduct" is the default, please just call it "default". Anything else is going to cause confusion to the non-expert (like me).
"product=nonproduct" is farcically confusing.
+1
poc
Il 15/12/2014 13:15, Patrick O'Callaghan ha scritto:
[..] My problem with "flavor" is that it's misspelled :-)
It's not really misspelled. Just written in a foreign language :-) . As Oscar Wilde said a long time ago, Great Britain and US have a lot of things in common, except the language!
Giuliano
I believe even a traditional DVD offering everything, like it did before, would be good enough. On Dec 13, 2014 2:41 AM, "Eli Wapniarski" eli@orbsky.homelinux.org wrote:
On Friday 12 December 2014 16:43:09 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 17:43 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 01:14:39 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support.
I like 'base' better. Workstation is anyways a customized offering out
of
Fedora.
Just because Workstation, server, cloud are being called products
people
have already started spreading FUD that spins are somewhat less of
Fedora
than the products.
Fedora KDE is the best KDE desktop distribution in all respects. It
would
be a shame if media and users starts overlooking it because of the second-class connotation.
+1
I personally would prefer "product=Workstation, desktop=KDE" (or whatever).
Personally I would prefer:
"product=Fedora"
Labeling the installation media, Desktop, Server, etc. Just confuse a noob into thinking that they install one thing and they would be limited like they would be if they installed a Microsoft product (ie: Server, Home Editon, Professional Edition, Ultimate Edition.)
It's one of the things that I can't stand about Windows and love about Linux. With Windows the build denotes limitations of one kind of another. With Linux, I get a distro and I can build from it what I want. I want a desktop, I get a desktop.... What desktop... my choice.. Gnome, Kde, etc. I choose KDE :). I want a server, I install servers. Want both, go ahead. You are installing Linux you can do what you want. The "product" is Fedora's Distribution of Linux.
I know that nobody will agree... But thats OK... Thats just my 2 cents worth.
IOW make the specific desktop orthogonal to the selection of Workstation. The default can keep being Gnome if it makes some people happy.
Clearly either of these means more work for someone.
poc
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
I really hope you guys can take a step back and look at what is being written from the point of view of an outside observer. Nobody in this thread can agree. How do you expect a new user to not be confused.
Eli
On Friday 12 December 2014 23:10:14 Eli Wapniarski wrote:
On Friday 12 December 2014 16:43:09 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 17:43 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 01:14:39 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
For what it's worth, my suggestion was "vanilla", but it didn't get much support.
I like 'base' better. Workstation is anyways a customized offering out of Fedora.
Just because Workstation, server, cloud are being called products people have already started spreading FUD that spins are somewhat less of Fedora than the products.
Fedora KDE is the best KDE desktop distribution in all respects. It would be a shame if media and users starts overlooking it because of the second-class connotation.
+1
I personally would prefer "product=Workstation, desktop=KDE" (or whatever).
Personally I would prefer:
"product=Fedora"
Labeling the installation media, Desktop, Server, etc. Just confuse a noob into thinking that they install one thing and they would be limited like they would be if they installed a Microsoft product (ie: Server, Home Editon, Professional Edition, Ultimate Edition.)
It's one of the things that I can't stand about Windows and love about Linux. With Windows the build denotes limitations of one kind of another. With Linux, I get a distro and I can build from it what I want. I want a desktop, I get a desktop.... What desktop... my choice.. Gnome, Kde, etc. I choose KDE :). I want a server, I install servers. Want both, go ahead. You are installing Linux you can do what you want. The "product" is Fedora's Distribution of Linux.
I know that nobody will agree... But thats OK... Thats just my 2 cents worth.
IOW make the specific desktop orthogonal to the selection of Workstation. The default can keep being Gnome if it makes some people happy.
Clearly either of these means more work for someone.
poc
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
-
Dhaval Anjaria -
Eli Wapniarski -
Gerald B. Cox -
Giuliano Colla -
Glenn Holmer -
Kevin Kofler -
Lain Cortés González -
Luigi Toscano -
Marko Vojinovic -
Matthew Miller -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Reindl Harald -
Richard Z -
Sudhir Khanger -
Temlakos -
Timothy Murphy