The PRD avoids these questions by design. To often open source discussions end up
being discussions about the merits of the means as opposed to the actual goals.
It should be a sobering notion that for all the years when the community discussed
if the a successful desktop should be implemented in C or C++ we ended up having our
collective thunder stolen by a desktop written in Objective-C. There are some lessons
to be learned from that (and to be clear I don't think the lesson is that Objective-C
is
a 'better' language).
So while of course there does come a point for drilling down into implementation detail,
the suggestion I got from various FeSCO members, and which I thought very sensible,
was to avoid that being the starting point.
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2013 1:14:15 PM
Subject: Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Something that doesn't seem specified here is any sort of a design style
> or guide for how apps used in the Workstation should generally be built
> and function. Is there intended to be that sort of standard?
Indeed, the document carefully eschews this question, which goes hand in
hand with the question of WHAT desktop environment(s) the Workstation is
supposed to include. If the goal is (and I think it should be, because
that's what users expect) a traditional desktop with a panel (containing at
least the standard items: menu button, task bar, system tray, digital
clock), a menu (popping up from the menu button in the panel), and a desktop
displaying the xdg-user-dir for DESKTOP in some place (spread over the
entire desktop or in a widget, Plasma can do either as desired), then it is
clear that gnome-shell does NOT qualify.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct