Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

[drago01]

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 21:03 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>> >>> that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with
>> >>> bundeled applications exists *nobody* would package and maintain
>> >>> them as RPM -> everybody would point with his finger to the app
>> >>
>> >> No because RPM packages apps *do* have benifits .. otherwise we
>> >> wouldn't have this discussion.
>> >>
>> >>> if it goes in that direction, and it starts faster than anybody likes
>> >>> you do a dramatical harm to the userbase which likes the consistent
>> >>> package managment and *really used* conecpt of shared libraries
>> >>
>> >> Again those are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You can have sandboxed *and*
>> >> rpm packaged apps at the same time.
>> >
>> > the most imporant word in your answer is *CAN*
>> >
>> > but you will not, nobody will package whatever application
>> > as RPM if he is fine with the app-store, so you *could*
>> > have both but i doubt at the end of the day it will happen
>>
>> And I disagree ... but there is a way to find out ... lets try and see ;)
>
> That's rather a cavalier attitude.
>
> You seem to agree that the future Harald posits is at least a
> possibility.

No I don't. I just think that at this point the best way to prove that
to him is simply to show it how it works out in practice.

I still don't get why we have to argue that much about something like
this .. is giving upstreams a well defined way how to ship there
applications instead of letting them come up with a hack really that
bad?
Upstreams will always (and always had) seek was to do that .. simply
because there is demand. No one is forcing anyone to install such
apps.