GNOME 3.x Desktop

         There isn't a Fedora Desktop with GNOME 3.x, only with KDE, LXDE and other
spins and a Fedora Workstation with GNOME. I am not a developer, only a curious user and I
like GNOME so much, but I don't develop software. So, why not to provide a GNOME 3.x
desktop?

         Eduardo
         paroxitono8

[Hugo Alejandro]

It seems that you refer to the Fedora Spins, however, the main Fedora
desktop is GNOME (aka GNOME 3.x). The Spins are versions of fedora
with alternative
desktop environments maintained by the community.

If you want Fedora with GNOME, you should only download the Fedora
Workstation version.

Regards

2016-09-20 4:56 GMT-03:00 <tedjuly1957(a)outlook.com&gt;:

>           There isn't a Fedora Desktop with GNOME 3.x, only with
> KDE, LXDE
>  and other spins and a Fedora Workstation with GNOME. I am not a developer,
>  only a curious user and I like GNOME so much, but I don't develop software.
>  So, why not to provide a GNOME 3.x desktop?
>
>           Eduardo
>           paroxitono8
>  _______________________________________________
>  desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  


-- 
*Hugo*

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 09/20/2016 04:01 AM, Hugo Alejandro wrote:
>  It seems that you refer to the Fedora Spins, however, the main Fedora
> desktopis
>  GNOME (aka GNOME 3.x). The Spins are versions of fedora with alternative desktop
>  environments maintained by the community.
>  
>  If you want Fedora with GNOME, you should only download the Fedora Workstation
>  version.
>   
Also, be aware that it is Fedora Workstation Edition, not Fedora Developer
Edition. Workstation is meant to imply that it's Fedora's answer for
"getting
stuff done". This is by no means limited to software development. This means
everything from web browsing to video editing, sound mixing and spreadsheet
creation.

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:56 +0000, tedjuly1957(a)outlook.com wrote:
>  There isn't a Fedora Desktop with GNOME 3.x, only with KDE, LXDE
> and
>  other spins and a Fedora Workstation with GNOME. I am not a
>  developer, only a curious user and I like GNOME so much, but I don't
>  develop software. So, why not to provide a GNOME 3.x desktop? 
It would be exactly the same as Fedora Workstation! Workstation is what
you want.

Perhaps we have a branding problem here.

Michael

Fedora Workstation strategy [was Re: GNOME 3.x Desktop]

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:39:03AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>  It would be exactly the same as Fedora Workstation! Workstation is
> what
>  you want.
>  
>  Perhaps we have a branding problem here. 
I think we have a marketing problem, at least. Branding might be part
of it, but I don't think it's the main issue. Fedora Workstation
*isn't* supposed to be the showcase for GNOME on Fedora. It's supposed
to be the thing that makes the 1.4% number here:

 
http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2016#technology-deskto...

grow to 2.8%, and then 5.6%, and 11.2%, and so on.

That's expecting lot of growth, but Linux overall is at 21.7% of
developer desktop operating system share, and Ubuntu is at 12.7%, and
there's no reason we can't be as well - or better. The basic strategy
is: we do really well in that particular segment, and then we can
spread out horizontally from there.

The good news is that we _are_ up from last year in the developer
survey - but the bad news is that the growth is only by 0.1 percentage
points. The other good news is that we are "up and to the right" on
general growth, with each Fedora release more popular than the last -
but the growth isn't as steep as I'd like to see (and, actually, over
the summer, F22+F23 decreased *faster* than F24 increased, which is
concerning). If the developer numbers were flat but overall growth was
astronomical, I wouldn't care... but that's not where we are.

In practice, Workstation so far has mostly been "hey, this is aimed at
developers, but it's good for everyone" ... and we haven't focused very
much on features and selling points that are of _particular_ interest
to developers.

I'm open to a growth strategy other than the developer-focused one the
WG came up with a couple of years ago. Or, I'd like to see more
features we can showcase to developers - that is, solutions to
developers' problems which we solve.

In any case, that's why the Council has asked for the PRDs to be
reviewed annually. We need to be intentional and make sure that our
plan is working, and adjust it where it isn't - and adapt to changing
conditions in the world. But whatever we choose, it needs to be a real
strategy with a focus we can deliver on - and then we need to do it.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

Fedora Workstation strategy [was Re: GNOME 3.x Desktop]

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  In any case, that's why the Council has asked for the PRDs to be
>  reviewed annually. We need to be intentional and make sure that our
>  plan is working, and adjust it where it isn't - and adapt to changing
>  conditions in the world. But whatever we choose, it needs to be a real
>  strategy with a focus we can deliver on - and then we need to do it. 
I think every year is too often. I'd make it bienniel. It's a
significant process to produce the document and one year is hardly
long enough to evaluate any changes. I see the committment for a 2
year PRD being greater to just "stick with the plan". The mere
potential for annual change in scope is tiresome.


-- 
Chris Murphy

Fedora Workstation strategy [was Re: GNOME 3.x Desktop]

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:31:53AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>  > In any case, that's why the Council has asked for the PRDs
> to be
>  > reviewed annually. We need to be intentional and make sure that our
>  > plan is working, and adjust it where it isn't - and adapt to changing
>  > conditions in the world. But whatever we choose, it needs to be a real
>  > strategy with a focus we can deliver on - and then we need to do it.
>  I think every year is too often. I'd make it bienniel. It's a
>  significant process to produce the document and one year is hardly
>  long enough to evaluate any changes. I see the committment for a 2
>  year PRD being greater to just "stick with the plan". The mere
>  potential for annual change in scope is tiresome. 
Yeah, I agree - and in practice it's been two years, so might as well
make that official. I'll bring that up with the council.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader