Underlying DE for the Workstation product

[Kalev Lember]

On 01/30/2014 09:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Given the tension between the definition of a "Workstation Product" and
> the multiple desktop spins that I've identified on devel@ - i.e. that a
> "Workstation product" built around a single desktop occupies the
> 'desktop space', without accounting for alternative desktops - do you
> definitely want to go ahead with the model where the WS product is
> specifically associated with a single desktop and makes no attempt to
> somehow 'include' alternative desktops, or is it worth considering
> possible approaches that somehow account for alternatives? I realize it
> might be quite late to do that, but it seemed worth asking the question.

I personally feel that a single default offering is a must, if Fedora is
to be successful in the desktop market. We have been losing market share
to Ubuntu that has one single default desktop product, and I think this
is a lesson to learn from.

When I joined the Workstation WG, I did that to help build a successful
product. To build a base system system that user can rely on; a base
system that 3rd party vendors can reliably target with their software.
Most other WG members I've talked to are also here to help build a
single product.

I do not want to downplay the value of Spins and alternative offerings,
but I personally do not want to spend my time developing them, and I'd
rather see if they were developed elsewhere and the Workstation WG was
limited to putting together one product.

-- 
Kalev