On Sep 14, 2015 10:39 AM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 07:14:18PM -0500, Pete Travis wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > The productization of Fedora was purportedly aimed at enabling the project
> > to target user bases more specifically instead of trying to be everything
> > for everyone. The KDE folks have been refused Edition status at least
> > partially on the basis that Workstation is already the developer-targeting
> > product; meanwhile, the Workstation group seems to focus on content
> > creation and consumption, instead of technology development.  I don't know
> > if there's a brand identity crisis, or if I'm just ignorant of the
> > Workstation goals, or have different connotations for terms like
> > 'developer' and 'workstation', or....
>
> At the risk of being tiresome, I'd like to reiterate that content
> creation and consumption are not exclusive to non-developers.  As has
> been said many times, "developers are people too," and they engage in
> many of the same activities as non-developers.  The Workstation team
> is not focusing exclusively on these common activities, but you can't
> have an effective Workstation without them.
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields

I don't disagree, and recognize that particular argument is tired...

I'm bringing it up again because the xdg-apps discussion leads me to believe there is a goal of only allowing users to install and execute approved graphical applications, and I'm having trouble visualizing how someone would perform common development tasks like installing libraries or executing their own code with that model.  They could strictly use devassist and gnome-builder, I suppose, which seems like mandating a very specific development workflow. 

Or, to put it another way, if Workstation goes in that direction, I'm offering to document the workarounds and config changes required to enable existing development patterns.

--Pete