Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraPlasmaWorkstation
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary == Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
== Owner ==
* Names: [[User:joshstrobl | Joshua Strobl]], [[User:marcdeop | Marc Deop i Argemí]], [[User:tdawson | Troy Dawson]], [[User:farchord | Steve Cossette]], [[User:aleasto| Alessandro Astone]] * Emails: joshua@buddiesofbudgie.org, marcdeop@fedoraproject.org, tdawson@redhat.com, farchord@gmail.com, aleasto@fedoraproject.org
== Detailed Description ==
With the release of Plasma 6, KDE Plasma has developed into a high quality, well-regarded desktop experience.
=== Improved end user experience ===
Plasma has been at the forefront of creating a cohesive desktop platform that empowers the user to have full ownership of their computing experience.
Plasma provides this approachable, highly-flexible, user-extensible experience with predictability across Plasma releases. Unlike other desktop experiences such as GNOME Shell, the APIs leveraged by Plasma applets / widgets have been more stable across “minor” Plasma releases, reducing long-term user frustration and promoting a healthier ecosystem for developers and users alike.
This extensibility additionally applies to the underlying window manager, KWin, with effects and scripts that provide both utility and personalization, such as:
* Automatically blocking compositing for full screen applications * Fun effects such as window glitch and portals
Plasma provides a more traditional user experience that could be viewed as being more approachable to everyday computing users, serving as a smoother "on-ramp" to using Linux-based operating systems. Alongside its wide breadth of personalization capabilities, it provides an out-of-the-box desktop experience that is more predictable than some of its counterparts. As an example, Plasma provides a system tray for applications supporting StatusNotifierItem (e.g. Flameshot, OBS Studio, VPN clients), which is not functionality supported by default in GNOME Shell and requires an extension which may break between releases.
=== Standardization support ===
The KDE community has a long heritage of collaborative standards development and supporting capabilities that application developers and users need for a productive experience.
KDE is heavily involved in the development of cross-desktop standards and tools that benefit the larger open source desktop community. From the XDG icon theme specification to D-Bus to StatusNotifierItems and Wayland protocols, KDE has been front and center for evolving the Linux desktop platform in a manner that benefits the wider community.
Many of the specifications and protocols in use today originate or are heavily influenced by KDE, and KDE has continued to be a bastion of innovation in a user-centric and community-centric manner.
Notably, the following recent Wayland protocols have been driven or influenced by KDE:
* xdg-toplevel-drag (dragging tabs in and out of windows) * content-type * drm-lease (enable applications to selectively gain privileged display device access) * tearing-control (enable faster than display framerate refreshing, ie no “vsync lock”) * ext-idle-notify * xdg-activation (enable notifications to bring a window to the foreground on user activation) * xdg-decoration (server side decorations, derived from KDE’s protocol)
There are several upcoming protocols being driven by KDE as well, such as:
* alpha-modifier (set alpha values for a surface) * ext-blur (enable blur effect underneath a surface) * xdg-toplevel-icon (enable applications to set window icons) * ext-placement (allow application window positioning) * window-id (consistent, uniform method window IDs) * xdg-pip (picture in picture overlays) * dbus-annotation (link D-Bus objects to surfaces)
This demonstrates that KDE works not to just enable new technologies and features for Plasma Wayland, but they also do it in a way that drives larger community adoption, success, and growth.
=== Wayland support ===
KDE Plasma offers the most advanced Wayland desktop experience today, providing support for highly-demanded features, such as:
* Fractional scaling * Color management * Variable Refresh Rate for capable displays * Support for optionally allowing legacy X11 applications to access desktop resources * Screensharing for legacy applications * Global shortcut support for legacy applications * Support for accessibility, including integration with the Orca screen reader * Support for AR/VR displays
=== Industry support ===
KDE Plasma has been garnering wider industry support in consumer products over the last couple years. This includes various PINE64 products (PinePhones, PineBooks, etc.), the Steam Deck from Valve, and Tuxedo OS from Tuxedo Computers.
The Steam Deck in particular has brought the Linux desktop in the form of KDE Plasma to more people than ever before, through the desktop mode in SteamOS 3.x releases. As a result, Valve has heavily invested into KDE and its technology stack for mainstream usage. Game developers are also testing on KDE Plasma more often nowadays as part of SteamOS compatibility testing.
=== Community Support ===
A number of Fedora downstreams have launched with KDE Plasma as the flagship experience or migrated to it over time. Notably Fedora Asahi Remix uses KDE Plasma as the flagship due to significantly better support and features for ARM based platforms and the hardware that Apple Silicon systems have. Nobara uses KDE Plasma as the flagship due to a high quality Wayland experience that supports gaming and game development well.
Developers of Linux XR applications and services already recommend using KDE Plasma to be able to leverage AR/VR experiences in a modern desktop.
Starting in 2025, KDE Plasma’s release cycle switches to a semi-annual cadence that lines up with Fedora Linux releases, enabling a tight interlock of development and integration between Fedora and KDE.
== Feedback ==
== Benefit to Fedora ==
* Fedora Linux advertises and advocates for the most advanced Wayland desktop experience with broad community support and engagement. * We ship a desktop experience that supports the wide range of user needs and enables the experiences people expect from a modern desktop (HDR, VRR, VR gaming, HiDPI) and strives to support as many users as possible in a manner that results in positive engagement with the community. * We align the default Fedora workstation experience with what the larger PC ecosystem expects for a high quality desktop.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: fedora-release: -kde subpackages get renamed to -workstation-kde. -workstation subpackages get renamed to -workstation-gnome.
* Other developers: Fedora Plasma Workstation is added to the main landing page and promoted as the default desktop experience
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12043 12043] <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Policies and guidelines: No, it would not required changes as it is already release-blocking.
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Community Initiatives: N/A
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
Existing Fedora Workstation systems will not be switched to KDE Plasma. This will only affect new installs of Fedora Workstation. Existing Fedora KDE installs will be upgraded to the Plasma Workstation branding.
== How To Test ==
As the fundamental experience is not changing in the existing KDE Plasma variant, users can try out the Fedora KDE spin to see what Fedora Plasma Workstation looks like.
== User Experience == The user experience does not change from the existing KDE Plasma variant. Existing Fedora Workstation users won’t see their experience change. New users of Fedora will get KDE Plasma instead of GNOME.
== Dependencies ==
N/A
== Contingency Plan ==
Retain the existing default GNOME experience for Fedora Workstation. Move Fedora Plasma Workstation back to spin branding.
== Documentation ==
Documentation would need to be updated to reference Plasma and point links to KDE rather than GNOME.
== Release Notes ==
Fedora Linux now offers a new default workstation experience as “Fedora Plasma Workstation” using KDE Plasma Desktop. This replaces the previous Fedora KDE Plasma spin. The previous "GNOME Shell"-based desktop experience can now be accessed through its dedicated Edition page.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney amoloney@redhat.com wrote:
Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
If this is an April fools joke -- it's a weird one, and a day too late.
Richard.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:44:02PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney amoloney@redhat.com wrote:
Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
If this is an April fools joke -- it's a weird one, and a day too late.
Why would it be? KDE Plasma seem to be more technically advanced than GNOME. This change makes sense.
KDE Plasma seem to be more technically advanced than GNOME.
The problem is, the more technically advanced a system is, in many cases, the less user friendly it is. For example, when you're confusing people who are actual software engineers by asking them if they want a Blowfish encrypted KDE Wallet or a GPG encrypted KDE wallet when they just want to launch a chat application, you've thought too much about said technical advancement.
I have no qualms with KDE being promoted much more than it is, but I feel like a user who doesn't know or care should be directed to GNOME, as its likely a better fit for those who choose the path of less resistance. Maybe have it be a toggle, similar to how the beta releases are presented.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 19:44, Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney amoloney@redhat.com wrote:
Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
If this is an April fools joke -- it's a weird one, and a day too late.
Well it was added to the wiki yesterday, but only picked up by Aoife today.
Well, we did submit this yesterday around 2:30-3:00PM EST, guessing it was a bit too late.
But the proposal is 1000% serious.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:46 PM Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 19:44, Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney amoloney@redhat.com wrote:
Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
If this is an April fools joke -- it's a weird one, and a day too late.
Well it was added to the wiki yesterday, but only picked up by Aoife today.
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Alright, so a substantial amount of information changed since the original submission of the change proposal. We aren't necessarily thinking of demoting Gnome. The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.
I completely agree that Gnome is an awesome DE, and I will never knock that down. But I think the KDE audience in the Fedora community is also quite substantial.
We've been discussing it in Matrix, and we can't seem to reach a consensus as to what is the best way to initiate the discussion procedure. Figured a change proposal was probably a decent way to "kick the hornet's nest", so to speak.
We essentially just want more visibility on the website, if that makes sense.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:58 PM Steven A. Falco stevenfalco@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/24 03:50 PM, Steve Cossette wrote:
Well, we did submit this yesterday around 2:30-3:00PM EST, guessing it
was a bit too late.
But the proposal is 1000% serious.
I'm glad to hear you say that, as I switched to KDE around the time of Gnome3 and never looked back.
Steve-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Steve Cossette wrote:
We essentially just want more visibility on the website, if that makes sense.
Back when I was still a KDE SIG member, whenever we brought that up with the Websites Team, they would just point us to the Board (what is now the Council), and the Board would point us back to the Websites Team. That fingerpointing was very effective at preventing any change.
And the Websites Team has always been really creative at hiding the KDE Spin the best they could, hiding it behind extra "Additional options" links in fine print, even with a grayed-out "Spins" icon (looking as if they were somehow unavailable), while having a huge "Download" button on the front page immediately serving you a GNOME ISO for a default architecture (for a long time i686 even though many people already actually wanted x86_64, then x86_64 even while 32-bit was still supported) with no further confirmation. Any reasonable Free Software project does not have the download link on the front page serve directly an arbitrary file, but a download page with explanations and a choice of download options, but the Fedora Websites Team insisted that "'Download' means 'Download'" and that a button with a verb must trigger an immediate action.
Kevin Kofler
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:06:45PM -0400, Steve Cossette wrote:
Alright, so a substantial amount of information changed since the original submission of the change proposal. We aren't necessarily thinking of demoting Gnome. The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.
So, I am far from a web designer, but if you aren't a Linux savvy person and just decided to try out this Fedora thing because you heard it was nice and you go to download it and get:
our website: Want a workstation? user: yes!
our website: great! We have Gnome and KDE! user: what? what does that mean? which one should I get?
our website:
Gnome: "Get things done with ease, comfort, and control. An easy and elegant way to use your computer, GNOME is designed to help you have the best possible computing experience."
KDE: "Powerful, multi-platform, and for everyone Use KDE software to surf the web, keep in touch with colleagues, friends and family, manage your files, enjoy music and videos; and get creative and productive at work. The KDE community develops and maintains more than 200 applications which run on any Linux desktop, and often other platforms too."
User: ok, that didn't tell me much, whats the difference? perhaps I will just keep using windows.
Ok, thats obvously somewhat tounge in cheek, but if we promote multiple things, we need some way to describe them to uses who might not know the history of things and do it in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else.
kevin
Am 03.04.24 um 01:48 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:06:45PM -0400, Steve Cossette wrote:
Alright, so a substantial amount of information changed since the original submission of the change proposal. We aren't necessarily thinking of demoting Gnome. The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.
So, I am far from a web designer, but if you aren't a Linux savvy person and just decided to try out this Fedora thing because you heard it was nice and you go to download it and get:
Quite frankly, considering the goals and the philosophy of Fedora (always trying to push for new stuff even if it isn't fully ready yet), I would argue that Fedora isn't for Linux savvy people.
Kilian
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Ok, thats obvously somewhat tounge in cheek, but if we promote multiple things, we need some way to describe them to uses who might not know the history of things and do it in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else.
It is actually quite simple:
Here are your options:
[I HATE OPTIONS, JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING WITH NO OPTIONS!] (big button) → downloads GNOME x86_64
DESKTOP SPINS:
Desktop: ( ) GNOME (Workstation) ( ) KDE Plasma Desktop ( ) Xfce etc.
Architecture: ( ) x86_64 (64-bit x86/AMD64) ( ) aarch64 (64-bit ARM) etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
MOBILE SPINS:
Mobile Environment: ( ) Phosh etc.
Architecture: ( ) aarch64 (64-bit ARM) etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
LABS:
Lab: ( ) Astronomy etc.
Architecture: etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
ATOMIC DESKTOPS:
Desktop: ( ) GNOME (Silverblue) ( ) KDE Plasma Desktop (Kinoite) ( ) Sway (Atomic) ( ) Budgie (Atomic)
Architecture: etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
OTHER EDITIONS:
Edition: ( ) Server etc.
Architecture: etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
Of course there is going to be a lot of bikeshedding about the order of the options. I would put them in that order, because I think desktop spins are most likely to be downloaded by a new user, then mobile, then use-case- specific labs, then experiments like Atomic, and then non-desktop stuff like Server. But the most important feature is the "I HATE OPTIONS!" button, because it serves exactly the users you think will be confused by the options and will give them a desktop environment designed exactly for them.
Kevin Kofler
Sorry, that's pretty much how things are right now, is that what you were trying to demonstrate?
I'm not really following.
Personally, if we were to promote both KDE and Gnome on the website, I'd make it dead simple. I really suck at making graphics so I'll try to put it in text:
I imagine a page, where 60% of the page's vh (Viewpoint height -- the viewable height on your browser) is used to showcase KDE and Gnome. The left side would be KDE and the right side would be Gnome (Colors don't really matter tbh but they should differ enough to outline the difference between the two)
On each side, you'd have a partial screenshot of what the DE looks like, maybe with a short youtube video that shows a quick demo and some text outlining the major points of the DE.
I would also suggests adding a thinner section below to simply point to a page with "More choices", where you'd see the other spins.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 8:36 PM Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Ok, thats obvously somewhat tounge in cheek, but if we promote multiple things, we need some way to describe them to uses who might not know the history of things and do it in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else.
It is actually quite simple:
Here are your options:
[I HATE OPTIONS, JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING WITH NO OPTIONS!] (big button) → downloads GNOME x86_64
DESKTOP SPINS:
Desktop: ( ) GNOME (Workstation) ( ) KDE Plasma Desktop ( ) Xfce etc.
Architecture: ( ) x86_64 (64-bit x86/AMD64) ( ) aarch64 (64-bit ARM) etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
MOBILE SPINS:
Mobile Environment: ( ) Phosh etc.
Architecture: ( ) aarch64 (64-bit ARM) etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
LABS:
Lab: ( ) Astronomy etc.
Architecture: etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
ATOMIC DESKTOPS:
Desktop: ( ) GNOME (Silverblue) ( ) KDE Plasma Desktop (Kinoite) ( ) Sway (Atomic) ( ) Budgie (Atomic)
Architecture: etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
OTHER EDITIONS:
Edition: ( ) Server etc.
Architecture: etc.
[DOWNLOAD SELECTED]
Of course there is going to be a lot of bikeshedding about the order of the options. I would put them in that order, because I think desktop spins are most likely to be downloaded by a new user, then mobile, then use-case- specific labs, then experiments like Atomic, and then non-desktop stuff like Server. But the most important feature is the "I HATE OPTIONS!" button, because it serves exactly the users you think will be confused by the options and will give them a desktop environment designed exactly for them.
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Steve Cossette wrote:
Sorry, that's pretty much how things are right now, is that what you were trying to demonstrate?
I'm not really following.
Not really. The current design is better than those old designs that immediately served you an ISO when you clicked "Download now", but the focus is still on the Editions (which are framed and have logos) at the expense of the Spins and the other options (which have neither frames nor logos). Clicking on Workstation then gives you a selection of architectures, but not of desktop environments; for those, you have to find and pick the (much less prominent) Spins option on the front page instead.
I think the first thing to offer users should be the Spins (including the "Workstation Edition" which is technically no different from a Spin). Most users are looking for a desktop distribution. The non-desktop options should come last, after all the desktop-ish (desktop, mobile, lab, and atomic) options.
Fedora 21 has introduced the Editions vs. Spins distinction, Fedora 2*21=42 would be a good time to retire it.
And selecting a desktop/workstation download should require you to select the desktop environment, with a skip option clearly labeled something like "I do not want to choose" or "Options confuse me" (or "I HATE OPTIONS!" as I had called it somewhat hyperbolically), which happens to be a pretty good description of the GNOME design philosophy. Or maybe even just: (·) GNOME (default) A desktop environment focused on ease of use **Pick this option if questions like this one confuse you.** ( ) KDE Plasma Desktop A highly customizable desktop environment ( ) Xfce A lightweight desktop environment etc. But there should be no link directly to any GNOME Edition/Spin/whatever (except Labs, if that specific Lab exists only as a GNOME-based version) without a clearly visible selection of desktop environments (which is unfortunately what the current "Workstation" link is). (And for Labs, the selection should at least visibly state somewhere what desktop environment they are based on, an information which some Labs now put in their description, requiring an extra click to see it, and some not even there.)
Kevin Kofler
Am 03.04.2024 um 03:51 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel devel@lists.fedoraproject.org:
Fedora 21 has introduced the Editions vs. Spins distinction, Fedora 2*21=42 would be a good time to retire it.
We would be pretty silly if we did that. This differentiation and the associated quality and safeguarding criteria are a model for success and one of our differentiation criteria.
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
Peter Boy wrote:
We would be pretty silly if we did that. This differentiation and the associated quality and safeguarding criteria are a model for success and one of our differentiation criteria.
I think that is a quite pointless "differentiation criteria". Most users do not even understand the difference between an "Edition" and a "Spin" or "Lab". And technically, there is none. I do not see how Fedora's success has anything to do with such an implementation detail.
All this differentiation achieves is creating first-class ("Edition") and second-class ("Spin" or "Lab") spins, for no benefit whatsoever.
Kevin Kofler
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:36:07AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Ok, thats obvously somewhat tounge in cheek, but if we promote multiple things, we need some way to describe them to uses who might not know the history of things and do it in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else.
It is actually quite simple:
Here are your options:
<snip>
Why not the opposite:
Download Workstation
[I'm a linux user and know what I want, just show me the full list of downloads, click here]?
(Which is pretty much what we have now)
kevin
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Why not the opposite:
Download Workstation
[I'm a linux user and know what I want, just show me the full list of downloads, click here]?
Because that still leads people to click that "Download Workstation" link before even seeing the options. "I do not want to have to choose" should be a concious choice, also considering that the mostly unconfigurable (by design) GNOME is very likely to be the wrong option for anybody not in that category. And besides:
(Which is pretty much what we have now)
Well, not quite, it is more like:
[LOGO Workstation (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO Server (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO IoT (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO Cloud (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO CoreOS (Download Now) (Learn More)]
Want more Fedora options?
Atomic Desktops (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora Spins (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora Labs (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora ALT Downloads (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo
So you get offered a lot of (most likely) irrelevant (to you) options (Server, IoT, Cloud, CoreOS) before even being told that there are more options than those (and Workstation), the "Workstation" link does not tell you that (even though those are clearly workstation/desktop-targeted options too), and you also do not see the full list of options anywhere, but just a list of lists. You actually have to click on "Learn More" after "Fedora Spins" to even see what desktop environments are available.
Kevin Kofler
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 03:24, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Why not the opposite:
Download Workstation
[I'm a linux user and know what I want, just show me the full list of downloads, click here]?
Because that still leads people to click that "Download Workstation" link before even seeing the options. "I do not want to have to choose" should be a concious choice, also considering that the mostly unconfigurable (by design) GNOME is very likely to be the wrong option for anybody not in that category. And besides:
(Which is pretty much what we have now)
Well, not quite, it is more like:
[LOGO Workstation (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO Server (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO IoT (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO Cloud (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO CoreOS (Download Now) (Learn More)]
Want more Fedora options?
Atomic Desktops (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora Spins (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora Labs (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora ALT Downloads (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo
So you get offered a lot of (most likely) irrelevant (to you) options (Server, IoT, Cloud, CoreOS) before even being told that there are more options than those (and Workstation), the "Workstation" link does not tell you that (even though those are clearly workstation/desktop-targeted options too), and you also do not see the full list of options anywhere, but just a list of lists. You actually have to click on "Learn More" after "Fedora Spins" to even see what desktop environments are available.
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
I'm mostly a user and I can accept a change from GNOME to KDE, IF and only if I'm not forced to use Wayland.
For me it isn't usable in my setup and most things are plain broken.
(sorry for the slight offset in conversation)
Luis
Luis Correia wrote:
I'm mostly a user and I can accept a change from GNOME to KDE, IF and only if I'm not forced to use Wayland.
For me it isn't usable in my setup and most things are plain broken.
As the maintainer of plasma-workspace-x11 and kwin-x11, I can assure you that that will not be the case. I have been through a whole FESCo debate just to be allowed to maintain those packages.
1. sudo dnf install plasma-workspace-x11 2. Select "Plasma (X11)" as the session type in your display manager. 3. Enjoy!
(It is also possible to force SDDM to itself use X11 rather than Wayland, if even SDDM does not work properly under Wayland for you.)
Kevin Kofler
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:24:08AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Why not the opposite:
Download Workstation
[I'm a linux user and know what I want, just show me the full list of downloads, click here]?
Because that still leads people to click that "Download Workstation" link before even seeing the options. "I do not want to have to choose" should be a concious choice, also considering that the mostly unconfigurable (by design) GNOME is very likely to be the wrong option for anybody not in that category. And besides:
It's still a choice. Just a better presentation IMHO for people who 'do not want to choose'.
(Which is pretty much what we have now)
Well, not quite, it is more like:
[LOGO Workstation (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO Server (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO IoT (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO Cloud (Download Now) (Learn More)]
[LOGO CoreOS (Download Now) (Learn More)]
Want more Fedora options?
Atomic Desktops (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora Spins (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora Labs (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo nor mention of "download"
Fedora ALT Downloads (Learn More) ← no frame nor logo
So you get offered a lot of (most likely) irrelevant (to you) options
to you? They are quite relevent to others...
Anyhow, I think our positions are pretty clear here, so no need to prolong this subthread.
kevin
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
to you? They are quite relevent to others...
I would really like to see what the proportion of users downloading the Server, IoT, Cloud, and CoreOS Editions is compared to Workstation or the Spins. I would not expect it to be very high. Most Fedora users are desktop users. And server or cloud users will mostly install Fedora by picking "Fedora" in a combo box at their commercial cloud, VPS, and/or dedicated server provider's web interface, not from fedoraproject.org. I would be surprised if the percentage of users both running a home server or a private cloud (as opposed to a hosted commercial offering in a remote datacenter) AND picking Fedora as the OS to run on it (as opposed to a more conservative OS such as Rocky/Alma or Debian stable) were significant. CoreOS is also mostly a server thing, desktop users get pointed to Atomic Desktop variants (Silverblue/Kinoite/"… Atomic") instead. And IoT is just completely niche. So why do you expect those Editions to be more relevant to users downloading Fedora from fedoraproject.org than the Spins?
Kevin Kofler
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 17:03, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
to you? They are quite relevent to others...
I would really like to see what the proportion of users downloading the Server, IoT, Cloud, and CoreOS Editions is compared to Workstation or the Spins. I would not expect it to be very high. Most Fedora users are desktop
Downloads are very hard to measure because too many things are grabbing everything from mirrors for different reasons. [Plus various people seem to think manipulating the stats for their particular spin on the number of downloads will make it more popular (I am looking at the several dozen ips which were downloading the same spin every ten minutes). The countme stats for 'running' systems https://data-analysis.fedoraproject.org/csv-reports/countme/ can probably give you the data on number of active systems.
users. And server or cloud users will mostly install Fedora by picking "Fedora" in a combo box at their commercial cloud, VPS, and/or dedicated server provider's web interface, not from fedoraproject.org. I would be surprised if the percentage of users both running a home server or a private cloud (as opposed to a hosted commercial offering in a remote datacenter) AND picking Fedora as the OS to run on it (as opposed to a more conservative OS such as Rocky/Alma or Debian stable) were significant. CoreOS is also mostly a server thing, desktop users get pointed to Atomic Desktop variants (Silverblue/Kinoite/"… Atomic") instead. And IoT is just completely niche. So why do you expect those Editions to be more relevant to users downloading Fedora from fedoraproject.org than the Spins?
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Downloads are very hard to measure because too many things are grabbing everything from mirrors for different reasons. [Plus various people seem to think manipulating the stats for their particular spin on the number of downloads will make it more popular (I am looking at the several dozen ips which were downloading the same spin every ten minutes). The countme stats for 'running' systems https://data-analysis.fedoraproject.org/csv-reports/countme/ can probably give you the data on number of active systems.
Countme stats do not tell you though how many of those users actually downloaded their Edition from fedoraproject.org vs. getting it preinstalled by some cloud/VPS/dedicated server provider. If people are not going to fedoraproject.org to download, say, the Cloud Edition or the Server Edition, then it is pointless to feature that particular Edition prominently on fedoraproject.org. That is why I was asking for download statistics specifically.
And is there a statistical evaluation of that data somewhere? Downloading 350 MiB (!) of raw CSV data does not sound to me like a convenient way to work with it.
Kevin Kofler
On 4/3/24 16:49, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Downloads are very hard to measure because too many things are grabbing everything from mirrors for different reasons. [Plus various people seem to think manipulating the stats for their particular spin on the number of downloads will make it more popular (I am looking at the several dozen ips which were downloading the same spin every ten minutes). The countme stats for 'running' systems https://data-analysis.fedoraproject.org/csv-reports/countme/ can probably give you the data on number of active systems.
Countme stats do not tell you though how many of those users actually downloaded their Edition from fedoraproject.org vs. getting it preinstalled by some cloud/VPS/dedicated server provider. If people are not going to fedoraproject.org to download, say, the Cloud Edition or the Server Edition, then it is pointless to feature that particular Edition prominently on fedoraproject.org. That is why I was asking for download statistics specifically.
And is there a statistical evaluation of that data somewhere? Downloading 350 MiB (!) of raw CSV data does not sound to me like a convenient way to work with it.
Challenge accepted. Will reply with something of an analysis in a bit hopefully :)
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
-- Aaron Rainbolt Lubuntu Developer Matrix: @arraybolt3:ubuntu.com IRC: arraybolt3 on libera.chat and oftc.net GitHub: https://github.com/ArrayBolt3
On 4/3/24 17:49, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
And is there a statistical evaluation of that data somewhere? Downloading 350 MiB (!) of raw CSV data does not sound to me like a convenient way to work with it.
It's messy, but interesting. Here's the architecture data for the last 3 or so years:
from top to bottom, x86_64 aarch64 ppc64le s390x armhfp i386 arm powerpc64 riscv64
so you can see the decline of armhfp and i386.
I don't know what to make of the relatively large population of ppc64le and s390x; I think maybe IBM is eating their own dogfood and using it in some internal datacenters?
I am pleased to see RISC-V showing up within last year!
sqlite -csv :memory:
.import totals.csv t
select date(round(julianday(week_end)/30)*30) as Tx, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "x86_64") as x86_64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "aarch64") as aarch64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "ppc64le") as ppc64le, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "s390x") as s390x, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "armhfp") as armhfp, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "i386") as i386,count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "arm") as arm, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "powerpc64") as powerpc64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "riscv64") as riscv64 from t group by tx
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 16:37, Przemek Klosowski via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 4/3/24 17:49, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Thanks for doing this. I would have loved to find a way to just have gnuplot do this nightly
And is there a statistical evaluation of that data somewhere? Downloading 350 MiB (!) of raw CSV data does not sound to me like a convenient way to work with it.
It's messy, but interesting. Here's the architecture data for the last 3 or so years:
I found using a 4 day moving average cleaned up a lot of issues ranging from Fedora proxy logs not being gotten due to script issues or similar. It also evened out the Friday night to Monday morning drop on all items we have seen in the older yum data also.
from top to bottom, x86_64 aarch64 ppc64le s390x armhfp i386 arm powerpc64 riscv64
so you can see the decline of armhfp and i386.
I don't know what to make of the relatively large population of ppc64le and s390x; I think maybe IBM is eating their own dogfood and using it in some internal datacenters?
When I looked at it several years ago it was being used all over from the IP space. Some of it was IBM, some of it was IBM cloud and some of it was various universities and stuff.
I am pleased to see RISC-V showing up within last year!
sqlite -csv :memory:
.import totals.csv t
select date(round(julianday(week_end)/30)*30) as Tx, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "x86_64") as x86_64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "aarch64") as aarch64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "ppc64le") as ppc64le, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "s390x") as s390x, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "armhfp") as armhfp, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "i386") as i386,count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "arm") as arm, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "powerpc64") as powerpc64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "riscv64") as riscv64 from t group by tx
On 4/4/24 15:36, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
On 4/3/24 17:49, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
And is there a statistical evaluation of that data somewhere? Downloading 350 MiB (!) of raw CSV data does not sound to me like a convenient way to work with it.
It's messy, but interesting. Here's the architecture data for the last 3 or so years:
from top to bottom, x86_64 aarch64 ppc64le s390x armhfp i386 arm powerpc64 riscv64
so you can see the decline of armhfp and i386.
I don't know what to make of the relatively large population of ppc64le and s390x; I think maybe IBM is eating their own dogfood and using it in some internal datacenters?
I am pleased to see RISC-V showing up within last year!
Very impressive. I tried to make a table of output using a Python script and it ended up being so inefficient for reasons I don't understand (a bug in my code possibly/likely) that I couldn't get the final report to ever come out.
sqlite -csv :memory:
.import totals.csv t
select date(round(julianday(week_end)/30)*30) as Tx, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "x86_64") as x86_64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "aarch64") as aarch64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "ppc64le") as ppc64le, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "s390x") as s390x, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "armhfp") as armhfp, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "i386") as i386,count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "arm") as arm, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "powerpc64") as powerpc64, count(os_arch) filter (where os_arch like "riscv64") as riscv64 from t group by tx
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list --devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email todevel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
-- Aaron Rainbolt Lubuntu Developer Matrix: @arraybolt3:ubuntu.com IRC: arraybolt3 on libera.chat and oftc.net GitHub:https://github.com/ArrayBolt3
I get your point, Kevin. I would argue though that, if a user is looking to use Linux, they probably got a decent idea as to what DE they want to use. There are.... SO MANY LINUX DISTROS! Making a choice between two is honestly probably not that jarring imo.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 7:49 PM Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:06:45PM -0400, Steve Cossette wrote:
Alright, so a substantial amount of information changed since the
original
submission of the change proposal. We aren't necessarily thinking of demoting Gnome. The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the
website.
At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.
So, I am far from a web designer, but if you aren't a Linux savvy person and just decided to try out this Fedora thing because you heard it was nice and you go to download it and get:
our website: Want a workstation? user: yes!
our website: great! We have Gnome and KDE! user: what? what does that mean? which one should I get?
our website:
Gnome: "Get things done with ease, comfort, and control. An easy and elegant way to use your computer, GNOME is designed to help you have the best possible computing experience."
KDE: "Powerful, multi-platform, and for everyone Use KDE software to surf the web, keep in touch with colleagues, friends and family, manage your files, enjoy music and videos; and get creative and productive at work. The KDE community develops and maintains more than 200 applications which run on any Linux desktop, and often other platforms too."
User: ok, that didn't tell me much, whats the difference? perhaps I will just keep using windows.
Ok, thats obvously somewhat tounge in cheek, but if we promote multiple things, we need some way to describe them to uses who might not know the history of things and do it in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else.
kevin
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 21:15 -0400, Steve Cossette wrote:
I get your point, Kevin. I would argue though that, if a user is looking to use Linux, they probably got a decent idea as to what DE they want to use. There are.... SO MANY LINUX DISTROS! Making a choice between two is honestly probably not that jarring imo.
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
Adam Williamson wrote:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next
That was for Fedora 21 in 2014! As you stated it, I know you and I have been around forever and 2014 feels like yesterday, but it was really quite a long time ago. ;-)
Now we are planning for Fedora 2*21, which would be a good time to revisit this decision.
which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own-adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated.
Which is exactly what we (KDE users) are complaining about and have been complaining about for those 10 years. And we know many users have complained about it, too. If they even found out Fedora supports KDE/Plasma at all, which not all of them did.
The download page now is not as horrible as it was 10 years ago, but the main issue (the featuring of the Editions at the expense of everything else, making the GNOME "Workstation Edition" much more prominent than the other desktop environment options) is by design and thus still present.
AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
There is no evidence that this was a consequence of the change itself and not of the massive marketing done around it. Media loves announcing when something changes. So if Fedora changes things again to make Editions and Spins equal, and comes up with a fancy codename (like the old "Fedora.next") for that ("Fedora.equality"? "Fedora.flexible"? "Fedora.choice"? "Your Fedora"? Or whatever the marketers can come up with), I expect that we will get lots of media coverage and another bump in downloads from that.
Kevin Kofler
El mié., 3 abr. 2024 3:22, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 21:15 -0400, Steve Cossette wrote:
I get your point, Kevin. I would argue though that, if a user is looking
to
use Linux, they probably got a decent idea as to what DE they want to
use.
There are.... SO MANY LINUX DISTROS! Making a choice between two is honestly probably not that jarring imo.
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
How do we measure "usage" and how do we attribute the bump to the change in the download page? Did we A/B test the new page?
Iñaki
Am 03.04.2024 um 03:18 schrieb Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, …
And let's not forget that we set special requirements for an edition and an edition working group behind it, which should (and does) ensure ongoing maintenance and user orientation in the long term (even if the latter unfortunately too often takes a back seat).
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
On Tue, Apr 2 2024 at 06:18:31 PM -07:00:00, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
Yes, promoting Fedora Workstation over all the other desktops has been key to the success of Fedora over the past 10 years. I suspect it was the right choice, because Fedora has grown considerably from our unrelenting focus on attracting so many GNOME desktop users to the Fedora edition that receives the most investment. But there is a continuum of strategies we can use to promote our default desktop over other options, and I wonder if we've erred too far in favor of Fedora Workstation and against Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop here. The Plasma spin is much "bigger" than the other spins, it's of comparable quality to Fedora Workstation, and it is release blocking. It just seems strange to relegate it to a secondary downloads page regardless of how popular it is, while the non-desktop editions (some of which are frankly relatively niche) get featured very prominently.
I'm not sure what the solution is here. Kevin's suggestion of featuring all spins equally risks overloading users with difficult choices and diluting our focus on what we do well, and I hesitate to open the doors for all spins to request a place on the main download page. I suppose I think of KDE Plasma as "special" relative to all the others due to its relatively large upstream developer community and user base, so I guess I'd like to see some way to elevate the status of Plasma in Fedora without also jeopardizing the special status of Fedora Workstation. We should have a very compelling reason if we're going to continue hiding one of our strongest products, and I don't think we do anymore. Our reputation as a quality GNOME distro has become so strong that it's not going to be damaged by other Fedora desktop offerings.
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
(c) Do both of the above, because they aren't mutually exclusive proposals.
Michael
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:22 PM Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2 2024 at 06:18:31 PM -07:00:00, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
Yes, promoting Fedora Workstation over all the other desktops has been key to the success of Fedora over the past 10 years. I suspect it was the right choice, because Fedora has grown considerably from our unrelenting focus on attracting so many GNOME desktop users to the Fedora edition that receives the most investment. But there is a continuum of strategies we can use to promote our default desktop over other options, and I wonder if we've erred too far in favor of Fedora Workstation and against Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop here. The Plasma spin is much "bigger" than the other spins, it's of comparable quality to Fedora Workstation, and it is release blocking. It just seems strange to relegate it to a secondary downloads page regardless of how popular it is, while the non-desktop editions (some of which are frankly relatively niche) get featured very prominently.
I'm not sure what the solution is here. Kevin's suggestion of featuring all spins equally risks overloading users with difficult choices and diluting our focus on what we do well, and I hesitate to open the doors for all spins to request a place on the main download page. I suppose I think of KDE Plasma as "special" relative to all the others due to its relatively large upstream developer community and user base, so I guess I'd like to see some way to elevate the status of Plasma in Fedora without also jeopardizing the special status of Fedora Workstation. We should have a very compelling reason if we're going to continue hiding one of our strongest products, and I don't think we do anymore. Our reputation as a quality GNOME distro has become so strong that it's not going to be damaged by other Fedora desktop offerings.
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
What would be wrong with "Fedora GNOME Workstation" and "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop"? I think once we're both at the same level, the desktop name as a distinguishing property is valuable.
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
I think this would be rather chaotic, but I do think we need something to show that the spins exist more. I suspect that a big part of why some of them languish and fade is the lack of visibility. It makes it a foregone conclusion, which is a huge problem with how we handle non-edition variants in general.
(c) Do both of the above, because they aren't mutually exclusive proposals.
Indeed.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Den ons 3 apr. 2024 kl 18:45 skrev Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:22 PM Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2 2024 at 06:18:31 PM -07:00:00, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
Yes, promoting Fedora Workstation over all the other desktops has been key to the success of Fedora over the past 10 years. I suspect it was the right choice, because Fedora has grown considerably from our unrelenting focus on attracting so many GNOME desktop users to the Fedora edition that receives the most investment. But there is a continuum of strategies we can use to promote our default desktop over other options, and I wonder if we've erred too far in favor of Fedora Workstation and against Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop here. The Plasma spin is much "bigger" than the other spins, it's of comparable quality to Fedora Workstation, and it is release blocking. It just seems strange to relegate it to a secondary downloads page regardless of how popular it is, while the non-desktop editions (some of which are frankly relatively niche) get featured very prominently.
I'm not sure what the solution is here. Kevin's suggestion of featuring all spins equally risks overloading users with difficult choices and diluting our focus on what we do well, and I hesitate to open the doors for all spins to request a place on the main download page. I suppose I think of KDE Plasma as "special" relative to all the others due to its relatively large upstream developer community and user base, so I guess I'd like to see some way to elevate the status of Plasma in Fedora without also jeopardizing the special status of Fedora Workstation. We should have a very compelling reason if we're going to continue hiding one of our strongest products, and I don't think we do anymore. Our reputation as a quality GNOME distro has become so strong that it's not going to be damaged by other Fedora desktop offerings.
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
What would be wrong with "Fedora GNOME Workstation" and "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop"? I think once we're both at the same level, the desktop name as a distinguishing property is valuable.
From Red Hat's POV it is not Fedora Gnome Workstation ( https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2020/05/07/gnome-is-not-the-default-for-fedor... ).
One of the best things with Fedora Workstation is that it is a complete user facing OS (like Windows, macOS and iOS) that you actually can develop applications for (if you want to). You don't have to target the extremely fluffy "Linux desktop", you can target Fedora Workstation. This proposal would totally eliminate the good points of having this single OS and app platform.
/Andreas
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
I think this would be rather chaotic, but I do think we need something to show that the spins exist more. I suspect that a big part of why some of them languish and fade is the lack of visibility. It makes it a foregone conclusion, which is a huge problem with how we handle non-edition variants in general.
(c) Do both of the above, because they aren't mutually exclusive proposals.
Indeed.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Andreas Tunek wrote:
From Red Hat's POV it is not Fedora Gnome Workstation ( https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2020/05/07/gnome-is-not-the-default-for-fedor... ).
TL;DR: "We do not want 'GNOME' in the name because we want to only support GNOME in Workstation, whereas 'GNOME Workstation' would imply that there are other Workstations."
I am not sure I buy this argument. By the same argument, we should also not call the OS "Fedora Linux" because it implies there is also a "Fedora BSD" or "Fedora Hurd" or even "Fedora Windows" ;-) or something.
Giving a product a clear name does not imply existence of another product.
(And that is not even arguing the premise of the "one single Workstation that happens to use GNOME" concept, only the branding implications!)
One of the best things with Fedora Workstation is that it is a complete user facing OS (like Windows, macOS and iOS) that you actually can develop applications for (if you want to). You don't have to target the extremely fluffy "Linux desktop", you can target Fedora Workstation. This proposal would totally eliminate the good points of having this single OS and app platform.
That "conveniently" ignores the existence of that pesky thing called "other distributions". The GNU/Linux version of vendor lock-in. Thanks Red Hat!
And besides, a standalone application (as opposed to a desktop widget or similar) developed for one of the Fedora desktop deliverables (Workstation Edition, desktop Spins) is also going to work on any of the others.
Kevin Kofler
On 2024-04-03 14:27, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
I am not sure I buy this argument. By the same argument, we should also not call the OS "Fedora Linux" because it implies there is also a "Fedora BSD" or "Fedora Hurd" or even "Fedora Windows" 😉 or something.
Personally, I think the reason we should not call the OS "Fedora Linux" is that the trademark guidelines for the term "Linux" specifically say not to:
"When you are using the Linux mark pursuant to a sublicense, it should never be used as a verb or noun. It should be used only as an adjective followed by the generic name/noun. In other words, “Super Dooper Linux OS” is okay, but “Super Dooper Linux” isn’t."
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/the-linux-mark
My opinion is that Fedora should be setting a good example for others to follow, and this is an area where it does not, currently.
Gordon Messmer wrote:
"When you are using the Linux mark pursuant to a sublicense, it should never be used as a verb or noun. It should be used only as an adjective followed by the generic name/noun. In other words, “Super Dooper Linux OS” is okay, but “Super Dooper Linux” isn’t."
Kinda the same recommendation that also applies to the Fedora trademark, by the way. But everyone only cares about their own trademark.
Kevin Kofler
Den ons 3 apr. 2024 kl 23:27 skrev Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>:
Andreas Tunek wrote:
From Red Hat's POV it is not Fedora Gnome Workstation (
https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2020/05/07/gnome-is-not-the-default-for-fedor...
).
TL;DR: "We do not want 'GNOME' in the name because we want to only support GNOME in Workstation, whereas 'GNOME Workstation' would imply that there are other Workstations."
I am not sure I buy this argument. By the same argument, we should also not call the OS "Fedora Linux" because it implies there is also a "Fedora BSD" or "Fedora Hurd" or even "Fedora Windows" ;-) or something.
Yes, Fedora used to have a correct name, but it was changed.
Giving a product a clear name does not imply existence of another product.
(And that is not even arguing the premise of the "one single Workstation that happens to use GNOME" concept, only the branding implications!)
One of the best things with Fedora Workstation is that it is a complete user facing OS (like Windows, macOS and iOS) that you actually can
develop
applications for (if you want to). You don't have to target the extremely fluffy "Linux desktop", you can target Fedora Workstation. This proposal would totally eliminate the good points of having this single OS and app platform.
That "conveniently" ignores the existence of that pesky thing called "other distributions". The GNU/Linux version of vendor lock-in. Thanks Red Hat!
And besides, a standalone application (as opposed to a desktop widget or similar) developed for one of the Fedora desktop deliverables (Workstation Edition, desktop Spins) is also going to work on any of the others.
From the user facing app side, if you want to implement support for your company's weird week numbering system in the calendar widget in Fedora Workstation you can do that today. If there were two desktop systems it would be more than twice the work (since you need two distinct dev environments).
From the infrastructure side it is even worse. Red Hat has been very successful using Fedora as the first implementation from things like systemd to PipeWire zero copy screen sharing. I believe that has been aided by the fact that it is possible to do one implementation instead of several. When you see that things work you can make everything "API stable"* and usable by other systems. If you have several desktop systems they will have diverging feature set (as Schaller wrote in his blog post) or development will slow down quite a lot.
You might call this "vendor lock in", but from my perspective things like systemd and PipeWire have been very successful projects that have gotten support from a majority of the free software eco-system. And I think they have been aided by the focus on Fedora and the fact that Fedora Workstation is ONE platform.
/Andreas
*Or how things are suppose to work together, it is hard to find the right words.
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On 2024-04-03 11:35, Andreas Tunek wrote:
From Red Hat's POV it is not Fedora Gnome Workstation (https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2020/05/07/gnome-is-not-the-default-for-fedor...).
I think this gets to the heart of the issue. If we set aside subjective arguments about which desktop is better or more popular, only one of these desktops allows Fedora to publish a stable operating system which is a coherent whole, because only one of them has a release cycle that aligns with Fedora's. The other desktop's release cycle does not align, which means that a significant component of the system rebases in the middle of a release, which undermines the fundamental concept of a stable release.
If RPM's ELF dependency generator were better, the importance of stability would be debatable, but as it is, I really think Fedora should be more stable than it is, especially for whatever it defines as "the OS." Today, dnf/rpm will happily allow users to install an application that will not run because that application actually depends on newer versions of dependencies than are installed on the system. If a significant portion of the standard desktop regularly rebased in the middle of a release, I expect that would be a more common problem.
Am 04.04.24 um 03:00 schrieb Gordon Messmer:
I think this gets to the heart of the issue. If we set aside subjective arguments about which desktop is better or more popular, only one of these desktops allows Fedora to publish a stable operating system which is a coherent whole, because only one of them has a release cycle that aligns with Fedora's. The other desktop's release cycle does not align, which means that a significant component of the system rebases in the middle of a release, which undermines the fundamental concept of a stable release.
About the release cycle: After the initial release of Plasma 6 when dust has mostly settled down (approx. 2 point releases), they want to switch over to a release cycle which would align (which is likely also the reason why F42 was choosen in this proposal).
Kilian
Kilian Hanich via devel wrote:
About the release cycle: After the initial release of Plasma 6 when dust has mostly settled down (approx. 2 point releases), they want to switch over to a release cycle which would align (which is likely also the reason why F42 was choosen in this proposal).
Interesting point. And there I thought it was only because the answer is always 42. ;-)
Kevin Kofler
Gordon Messmer wrote:
If RPM's ELF dependency generator were better, the importance of stability would be debatable, but as it is, I really think Fedora should be more stable than it is, especially for whatever it defines as "the OS." Today, dnf/rpm will happily allow users to install an application that will not run because that application actually depends on newer versions of dependencies than are installed on the system. If a significant portion of the standard desktop regularly rebased in the middle of a release, I expect that would be a more common problem.
Symbol versioning helps with this, because the ELF dependency generator extracts the symbol versions (though not the individual symbols, only the versions) that are required. And, e.g., Qt uses symbol versioning.
The KDE packages also often have explicit versioned Requires on the dependencies where it matters.
Kevin Kofler
Hello Michael, and thanks for replying.
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
*I semi-agree on this one. Why would Workstation remain the default? I will admit that for new users, Gnome is best. Maybe label it as such? Something like:**Fedora Gnome Workstation*: - Best for new users - Rich, beautiful user interface - [...]
*Fedora Plasma Workstation:* - Best for intermediate users and higher - Superior customizability - HDR/VRR Support - [...]
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
*I honestly think that would be chaotic.*
(c) Do both of the above, because they aren't mutually exclusive proposals.
*Fair.*
Another route would be to go the Ubuntu route, if you really don't want to stop having Workstation as the default: Spin (pun intended) the KDE spin on it's own branding. Though I do understand that is an undertaking on it's own. It would still be Fedora, about as much as Kubuntu is Ubuntu. (Though, I don't know about 'Kedora' as it has absolutely no meaning XD) Though I feel like we should really only go this route if the other ideas get completely exhausted...
Steve
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:22 PM Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2 2024 at 06:18:31 PM -07:00:00, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
Yes, promoting Fedora Workstation over all the other desktops has been key to the success of Fedora over the past 10 years. I suspect it was the right choice, because Fedora has grown considerably from our unrelenting focus on attracting so many GNOME desktop users to the Fedora edition that receives the most investment. But there is a continuum of strategies we can use to promote our default desktop over other options, and I wonder if we've erred too far in favor of Fedora Workstation and against Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop here. The Plasma spin is much "bigger" than the other spins, it's of comparable quality to Fedora Workstation, and it is release blocking. It just seems strange to relegate it to a secondary downloads page regardless of how popular it is, while the non-desktop editions (some of which are frankly relatively niche) get featured very prominently.
I'm not sure what the solution is here. Kevin's suggestion of featuring all spins equally risks overloading users with difficult choices and diluting our focus on what we do well, and I hesitate to open the doors for all spins to request a place on the main download page. I suppose I think of KDE Plasma as "special" relative to all the others due to its relatively large upstream developer community and user base, so I guess I'd like to see some way to elevate the status of Plasma in Fedora without also jeopardizing the special status of Fedora Workstation. We should have a very compelling reason if we're going to continue hiding one of our strongest products, and I don't think we do anymore. Our reputation as a quality GNOME distro has become so strong that it's not going to be damaged by other Fedora desktop offerings.
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
(c) Do both of the above, because they aren't mutually exclusive proposals.
Michael
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Steve Cossette wrote:
Another route would be to go the Ubuntu route, if you really don't want to stop having Workstation as the default: Spin (pun intended) the KDE spin on it's own branding. Though I do understand that is an undertaking on it's own. It would still be Fedora, about as much as Kubuntu is Ubuntu. (Though, I don't know about 'Kedora' as it has absolutely no meaning XD) Though I feel like we should really only go this route if the other ideas get completely exhausted...
That is what I tried with Kannolo. Success was… limited, to say the least.
Kevin Kofler
Topic change for one minute With the Everything.iso, there is a recovery option, which presents questions pertaining to a Fedora installation needing a security scan (eg systemctl daemon-reload). Has anyone succeeded in the recovery script working to completion? I raise the question here, as it is not a distro issue, but a recovery issue, and I do not know to which topic I should raise the bugzilla report. End of topic change.
Leslie Satenstein
On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 12:22:14 p.m. EDT, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2 2024 at 06:18:31 PM -07:00:00, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I mean, we really don't need to speculate about this much. We did an entire overhaul of the project - Fedora.next - which was explicitly based around making it much more focused and less of a choose-your-own- adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated. AFAIR, the numbers Matthew tracks strongly indicate this was associated with a very significant immediate bump in Fedora usage.
Yes, promoting Fedora Workstation over all the other desktops has been key to the success of Fedora over the past 10 years. I suspect it was the right choice, because Fedora has grown considerably from our unrelenting focus on attracting so many GNOME desktop users to the Fedora edition that receives the most investment. But there is a continuum of strategies we can use to promote our default desktop over other options, and I wonder if we've erred too far in favor of Fedora Workstation and against Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop here. The Plasma spin is much "bigger" than the other spins, it's of comparable quality to Fedora Workstation, and it is release blocking. It just seems strange to relegate it to a secondary downloads page regardless of how popular it is, while the non-desktop editions (some of which are frankly relatively niche) get featured very prominently.
I'm not sure what the solution is here. Kevin's suggestion of featuring all spins equally risks overloading users with difficult choices and diluting our focus on what we do well, and I hesitate to open the doors for all spins to request a place on the main download page. I suppose I think of KDE Plasma as "special" relative to all the others due to its relatively large upstream developer community and user base, so I guess I'd like to see some way to elevate the status of Plasma in Fedora without also jeopardizing the special status of Fedora Workstation. We should have a very compelling reason if we're going to continue hiding one of our strongest products, and I don't think we do anymore. Our reputation as a quality GNOME distro has become so strong that it's not going to be damaged by other Fedora desktop offerings.
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
(c) Do both of the above, because they aren't mutually exclusive proposals.
Michael
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
I like this proposal. It would give the KDE spin more prominence and would be a good reply to the huge work that has been put into the spin in recent times. It also wouldn't disrupt our story about Fedora Workstation.
If we call it "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop" or similarly, it won't be confused with Fedora Workstation.
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
I'm not sure. I think the getfedora.o page could use some work, but just moving one or two things might not be enough. For me, when using the website is the huge list semi-orthogonal categories: the top-level split is: - editions, as individual items - atomic desktops - spins - labs - alt downloads Alt downloads is split into: - Fedora 40 beta - network installer - torrent downloads - alternate architectures (even though download pages also have architectures?) - cloud base images - testing images - rawhide The Fedora Spins looks great, IMO. The Fedora Labs page looks nice too.
There's also a visual split I also always struggle to find Beta releases when I need them. In some places there's a banner with a link, in other places there's a toogle.
And there are at least three domains: getfedora.org, fedoraproject.org, alt.fedoraproject.org.
This is hard to navigate. It seems that each subpage uses a different categorization and way to split things. And the different subpages use different visual styles.
I think we should have: a) one domain
b) a flat categorization where you first select the type (one of the editions or the desktops or spins or labs or network installer or cloud image).
The editions should be listed prominently, and the other things can lower in the page or require a click to show.
c) at all subpages there should be a toggle button to show pre-release
d) once you know what to download, you can see the architecture and format options and torrent vs. iso.
In such a structure the same "procedure" would be used to navigate different choices, making it easier to figure out what all the options are.
Zbyszek
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
I like this proposal. It would give the KDE spin more prominence and would be a good reply to the huge work that has been put into the spin in recent times. It also wouldn't disrupt our story about Fedora Workstation.
If we call it "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop" or similarly, it won't be confused with Fedora Workstation.
So, effectively no change other than it moves from the Spins section to the Editions section? That would also mean it should be on the front page too, like the other Editions.
(b) Alternatively, elevate the positioning of all spins on the fedoraproject.org homepage. Place the link to the spins right next to the link to Fedora Workstation, above the atomic desktops (which are sadly still experimental), above the Fedora labs and ALT downloads, and honestly probably above the non-desktop Fedora editions. Nobody is going to be confused as to which one is the primary product.
I'm not sure. I think the getfedora.o page could use some work, but just moving one or two things might not be enough. For me, when using the website is the huge list semi-orthogonal categories: the top-level split is:
- editions, as individual items
- atomic desktops
- spins
- labs
- alt downloads
Alt downloads is split into:
- Fedora 40 beta
- network installer
- torrent downloads
- alternate architectures (even though download pages also have architectures?)
- cloud base images
- testing images
- rawhide
The Fedora Spins looks great, IMO. The Fedora Labs page looks nice too.
There's also a visual split I also always struggle to find Beta releases when I need them. In some places there's a banner with a link, in other places there's a toogle.
And there are at least three domains: getfedora.org, fedoraproject.org, alt.fedoraproject.org.
This is hard to navigate. It seems that each subpage uses a different categorization and way to split things. And the different subpages use different visual styles.
I think we should have: a) one domain
b) a flat categorization where you first select the type (one of the editions or the desktops or spins or labs or network installer or cloud image).
The editions should be listed prominently, and the other things can lower in the page or require a click to show.
c) at all subpages there should be a toggle button to show pre-release
d) once you know what to download, you can see the architecture and format options and torrent vs. iso.
In such a structure the same "procedure" would be used to navigate different choices, making it easier to figure out what all the options are.
There are only two artifacts left on alt.fedoraproject.org that really need to be moved to the main site:
- the Everything netinstall ISO - the Fedora base container images
We should maybe consider adding the torrent downloads to the main site, I guess?
The alternative architecture images page needs to be decommissioned, as it's redundant with the content on the main site. The rest of alt.fedoraproject.org is probably fine as it is, as I doubt we want to put Rawhide somewhere on the main site.
(Also, as an aside, I learned that Workstation has a ppc64le ISO, I guess we should ensure KDE has one too, it's not like we don't have it for Kinoite already.)
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 18:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
I like this proposal. It would give the KDE spin more prominence and would be a good reply to the huge work that has been put into the spin in recent times. It also wouldn't disrupt our story about Fedora Workstation.
If we call it "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop" or similarly, it won't be confused with Fedora Workstation.
So, effectively no change other than it moves from the Spins section to the Editions section? That would also mean it should be on the front page too, like the other Editions.
Being an Edition is a very significant thing, though, as we conceive of Fedora more widely than just the download page. We put a bunch of hoops in the way of IoT and CoreOS becoming editions, and there are hoops in the way of Silverblue becoming one (or, you know, wherever we go with that path in the end).
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:26:52PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 18:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
I like this proposal. It would give the KDE spin more prominence and would be a good reply to the huge work that has been put into the spin in recent times. It also wouldn't disrupt our story about Fedora Workstation.
If we call it "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop" or similarly, it won't be confused with Fedora Workstation.
So, effectively no change other than it moves from the Spins section to the Editions section? That would also mean it should be on the front page too, like the other Editions.
Being an Edition is a very significant thing, though, as we conceive of Fedora more widely than just the download page. We put a bunch of hoops in the way of IoT and CoreOS becoming editions, and there are hoops in the way of Silverblue becoming one (or, you know, wherever we go with that path in the end).
My silent assumption was that the current change proposal would be withdrawn and replaced by a new proposal. We have a formal procedure in [1]. Looking at that list, it seems all fine. The only sticky point is whether KDE desktop serves a different purpose than Workstation with GNOME. I'd say it does: desktop preferences are like religion, and people don't just switch (except when they do).
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/edition-promotion-policy...
Zbyszek
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:03 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:26:52PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 18:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need to be careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora Workstation as the main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an "alternative desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version. That is, let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation, while making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently than it is today.
I like this proposal. It would give the KDE spin more prominence and would be a good reply to the huge work that has been put into the spin in recent times. It also wouldn't disrupt our story about Fedora Workstation.
If we call it "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop" or similarly, it won't be confused with Fedora Workstation.
So, effectively no change other than it moves from the Spins section to the Editions section? That would also mean it should be on the front page too, like the other Editions.
Being an Edition is a very significant thing, though, as we conceive of Fedora more widely than just the download page. We put a bunch of hoops in the way of IoT and CoreOS becoming editions, and there are hoops in the way of Silverblue becoming one (or, you know, wherever we go with that path in the end).
My silent assumption was that the current change proposal would be withdrawn and replaced by a new proposal. We have a formal procedure in [1]. Looking at that list, it seems all fine. The only sticky point is whether KDE desktop serves a different purpose than Workstation with GNOME. I'd say it does: desktop preferences are like religion, and people don't just switch (except when they do).
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/edition-promotion-policy...
I have asked that the proposal only be withdrawn once an alternative arrangement has been successfully made[1]. I don't expect it to be withdrawn until that is figured out, since Matthew Miller didn't promise anything to resolve the underlying request to make Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop as visible as Fedora GNOME Workstation[2].
[1]: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/111343/44 [2]: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/111343/41
I'm probably not the right person to comment on this, because I completely abandoned Fedora Desktop when it was hit (badly) by Gnome 3. That destroyed my daily workflow and work routines and made it unusable (for me), or at least barely usable for serious professional work not related to software development (and I ended up using MacOS to this day).
But I have continued to use Fedora Server on all of our servers, have committed to the working group, and still consider Fedora a great distribution, regardless.
So, nevertheless:
== Summary == Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
This is an absolute no-go! It would break everyone’s usage of Fedora Workstation and is in irreconcilable contradiction to the characteristics of an „Edition" as defined with Fedora.next.
And that is not „just“ a technical issue (the FESCo domain), but a basic Fedora principle.
Another proposal is to make it an „Edition“. But basically, a merely KDE Desktop is not „edition-able“. Among others, an edition is meant to cover a specific use case and a long-term and (more or less) perfectly designed and engineered solution for this. So we have desktop (Workstation) and server. Among server we have several Editions, the universal Fedora Server, container centric CoreOS, edge centric IoT and Cloud. Each of the server-like Editions covers a destined, specific use case without overlapping.
For the desktop area I don’t see a non-overlapping use case between Gnome and KDE. It’s just a different tool for the same use case.
And if we are willing to accept an exception and accept KDE desktop as an Edition, I don’t see that the current SIG qualifies as an edition-capable working group. Given the recent discussion about Wayland / X11, I don’t see any obligation/commitment to ensure long-term reliability and trouble-free usability. Instead, I see in the discussion an unbridled desire to introduce something new (that's good) without regard for backwards compatibility and uninterrupted usability (that's bad, we need both). And obviously the resources to manage both (Wayland and X11) in one working group are also lacking (and given the schism, possibly also the willingness to do so).
That may change and can change, of course. But that’s nothing for F42, rather for F52.
There are only two artifacts left on alt.fedoraproject.org that really need to be moved to the main site:
- the Everything netinstall ISO
This is a failure to understand (or to commit to) what we have decided to do with Fedora.next. We don't want to DIY piece together a solution.
And it is a plain false promise. You can't install CoreOS, IoT, silverblue with it, not even Server, which is offered in the menu (because a lot of presets are missing).
We should discard it from the website at all, or at least rename it to „All desktop offerings for DIY on your own risk“. And it really belongs to alt.fedoraproject.org http://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and under no circumstances on the main page, and certainly not on the editions.
Am 05.04.2024 um 00:17 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl:
... I’m not sure. I think the getfedora.o page could use some work, but just moving one or two things might not be enough. For me, when using the website is the huge list semi-orthogonal categories: the top-level split is:
- editions, as individual items
- atomic desktops
- spins
- labs
- alt downloads
Alt downloads is split into:
- Fedora 40 beta
- network installer
- torrent downloads
- alternate architectures (even though download pages also have architectures?)
- cloud base images
- testing images
- rawhide
This is really intentional. It is what we decided with Fedora.next and that resulted in a great success for Fedora. So we should really leave the structure as it is.
... And there are at least three domains: getfedora.org, fedoraproject.org, alt.fedoraproject.org. ... This is hard to navigate. It seems that each subpage uses a different categorization and way to split things. And the different subpages use different visual styles.
I think we should have: a) one domain
Basically, we have one domain *now*: fedoraproject.org
getfedora.org is a backwards compatible forwarding of the old way of presenting fedora.
alt.fedoraproject.org is a subdomain, which is a widespread way to structure a huge and complex offering as Fedora. Similarly, we have e.g. calendar.fedoraproject.org or lists.fedoraproject.org
b) a flat categorization where you first select the type (one of the editions or the desktops or spins or labs or network installer or cloud image).
The editions should be listed prominently, and the other things can lower in the page or require a click to show.
From a UX perspective, this is too cumbersome and involves too many clicks.
c) at all subpages there should be a toggle button to show pre-release
If I see it correctly, this is already available on all pages. But a unified design would probably be better, an automatic hint during a beta phase.
Am 03.04.2024 um 23:03 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel devel@lists.fedoraproject.org:
I would really like to see what the proportion of users downloading the Server, IoT, Cloud, and CoreOS Editions is compared to Workstation or the Spins. I would not expect it to be very high. Most Fedora users are desktop users. . . . just completely niche. So why do you expect those Editions to be more relevant to users downloading Fedora from fedoraproject.org than the Spins?
If you have a look on the statistics Matthew reported on Flock last year, you would know that the numbers for Workstation were declining, whereas the numbers for Server raised steeply and for CoreOS and IoT steadily up.
<ironie> To put it in your (Kevin Kofler’s) words (it’s NOT my wording!): Why should we see any relevance in a declining Workstation instead of all the steadily growing server variants? Where is to be seen the future of Fedora? </ironie>
But in fact, the phrasing itself of that paragraph is 'un-fedorian‘.
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
Peter Boy wrote:
I'm probably not the right person to comment on this, because I completely abandoned Fedora Desktop when it was hit (badly) by Gnome 3. That destroyed my daily workflow and work routines and made it unusable (for me), or at least barely usable for serious professional work not related to software development (and I ended up using MacOS to this day).
Which is exactly why I proposed back then to make Plasma (which actually operates more similarly to GNOME 2 than GNOME 3 does) the default. :-)
== Summary == Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
This is an absolute no-go! It would break everyone’s usage of Fedora Workstation
It would be a major change, yes. Though not really different from the aforementioned upgrade to GNOME 3 with its completely redesigned user experience, which was also done.
If Workstation were never allowed to change its user experience, it would be shipping MATE nowadays, not GNOME.
and is in irreconcilable contradiction to the characteristics of an „Edition" as defined with Fedora.next.
How so?
And that is not „just“ a technical issue (the FESCo domain), but a basic Fedora principle.
If you believe a basic Fedora principle is being violated, please bring that up with the Council.
Another proposal is to make it an „Edition“. But basically, a merely KDE Desktop is not „edition-able“. Among others, an edition is meant to cover a specific use case and a long-term and (more or less) perfectly designed and engineered solution for this. So we have desktop (Workstation) and server. Among server we have several Editions, the universal Fedora Server, container centric CoreOS, edge centric IoT and Cloud. Each of the server-like Editions covers a destined, specific use case without overlapping.
For the desktop area I don’t see a non-overlapping use case between Gnome and KDE. It’s just a different tool for the same use case.
This exact argument was already used 10 years ago to reject our (that was before I left the KDE SIG, though this issue was one of the triggers for me leaving the SIG) request for a Plasma Edition. 10 years later, we still have no way out of this dilemma. The definition of an Edition needs to be refined or completely replaced to get out of this catch-22.
As part of the process to look for a non-overlapping use case, there was an attempt to focus specifically on scientific applications, which eventually lead to the Scientific Lab, but that did not make it to an Edition either, just to a Lab.
The overlap issue is also going to hinder other deliverables' efforts to become Editions. E.g., Silverblue mostly overlaps with Workstation and CoreOS: Workstation for the general use cases (workstation/desktop usage), CoreOS for the atomic and container-oriented use cases.
And if we are willing to accept an exception and accept KDE desktop as an Edition, I don’t see that the current SIG qualifies as an edition-capable working group. Given the recent discussion about Wayland / X11, I don’t see any obligation/commitment to ensure long-term reliability and trouble-free usability. Instead, I see in the discussion an unbridled desire to introduce something new (that's good) without regard for backwards compatibility and uninterrupted usability (that's bad, we need both). And obviously the resources to manage both (Wayland and X11) in one working group are also lacking (and given the schism, possibly also the willingness to do so).
That particular concern, however, is one that I also share. The working group should be required to accept at least one of us plasma-workspace-x11 maintainers (it can be Sérgio M. Basto or Steven A. Falco if they do not accept me) into the working group.
That may change and can change, of course. But that’s nothing for F42, rather for F52.
It just requires creating a new working group. That can be done instantly.
This is a failure to understand (or to commit to) what we have decided to do with Fedora.next. We don't want to DIY piece together a solution.
But one of the big strengths of Fedora is that you can do exactly that.
And it is a plain false promise. You can't install CoreOS, IoT, silverblue with it, not even Server, which is offered in the menu (because a lot of presets are missing).
The presets thing is something that should be fixed. Maybe an entry "server presets" in the list of checkboxes that will install a metapackage that then uses boolean Requires to drag in the individual preset packages for whatever the user actually installs during or after the installation.
The inability to install an atomic system using Everything is inherent to what atomic systems are and what the Everything ISO is, and should be obvious to anyone who actually understands what they want to install.
Basically, we have one domain *now*: fedoraproject.org
But that domain has subdomains such as spins.fedoraproject.org, labs.fedoraproject.org, etc. distinct from the main fedoraproject.org domain (though technically the subdomains redirect to pages on the main domain these days).
If you have a look on the statistics Matthew reported on Flock last year, you would know that the numbers for Workstation were declining, whereas the numbers for Server raised steeply and for CoreOS and IoT steadily up.
The numbers for Workstation might be declining because people are installing other desktop Spins, or a custom selection from Everything, instead. :-) None of those will have fedora-release-workstation installed.
Kevin Kofler
I am an old geezer with about 60 years of IT experience, from mainframe to cellphone.I am self-convinced that dropping gnome for KDE as a default would be BAD.Why?Today, everyone who ones a cellphone, has on his phone a set of icons. Some are there by default, some are there as extra applications that the user added.
The Cellphone user is very comfortable with Gnome. So much so, that I believe that if he was given KDE as the interface, two things would happen. a) The user will switch to Gnome, or b) The user will find a way to add his favourite applications to the desktop. What then is a compromise that will satisfy the Gnome and KDE "bigots"? Consider: The Fedora 41/42 installation program can ask the user if he prefers "Menu" or "icon" interface. The above approach satisfied both camps.
Leslie Satenstein
On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 08:16:54 a.m. EDT, Kevin Kofler via devel devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Peter Boy wrote:
I'm probably not the right person to comment on this, because I completely abandoned Fedora Desktop when it was hit (badly) by Gnome 3. That destroyed my daily workflow and work routines and made it unusable (for me), or at least barely usable for serious professional work not related to software development (and I ended up using MacOS to this day).
Which is exactly why I proposed back then to make Plasma (which actually operates more similarly to GNOME 2 than GNOME 3 does) the default. :-)
== Summary == Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
This is an absolute no-go! It would break everyone’s usage of Fedora Workstation
It would be a major change, yes. Though not really different from the aforementioned upgrade to GNOME 3 with its completely redesigned user experience, which was also done.
If Workstation were never allowed to change its user experience, it would be shipping MATE nowadays, not GNOME.
and is in irreconcilable contradiction to the characteristics of an „Edition" as defined with Fedora.next.
How so?
And that is not „just“ a technical issue (the FESCo domain), but a basic Fedora principle.
If you believe a basic Fedora principle is being violated, please bring that up with the Council.
Another proposal is to make it an „Edition“. But basically, a merely KDE Desktop is not „edition-able“. Among others, an edition is meant to cover a specific use case and a long-term and (more or less) perfectly designed and engineered solution for this. So we have desktop (Workstation) and server. Among server we have several Editions, the universal Fedora Server, container centric CoreOS, edge centric IoT and Cloud. Each of the server-like Editions covers a destined, specific use case without overlapping.
For the desktop area I don’t see a non-overlapping use case between Gnome and KDE. It’s just a different tool for the same use case.
This exact argument was already used 10 years ago to reject our (that was before I left the KDE SIG, though this issue was one of the triggers for me leaving the SIG) request for a Plasma Edition. 10 years later, we still have no way out of this dilemma. The definition of an Edition needs to be refined or completely replaced to get out of this catch-22.
As part of the process to look for a non-overlapping use case, there was an attempt to focus specifically on scientific applications, which eventually lead to the Scientific Lab, but that did not make it to an Edition either, just to a Lab.
The overlap issue is also going to hinder other deliverables' efforts to become Editions. E.g., Silverblue mostly overlaps with Workstation and CoreOS: Workstation for the general use cases (workstation/desktop usage), CoreOS for the atomic and container-oriented use cases.
And if we are willing to accept an exception and accept KDE desktop as an Edition, I don’t see that the current SIG qualifies as an edition-capable working group. Given the recent discussion about Wayland / X11, I don’t see any obligation/commitment to ensure long-term reliability and trouble-free usability. Instead, I see in the discussion an unbridled desire to introduce something new (that's good) without regard for backwards compatibility and uninterrupted usability (that's bad, we need both). And obviously the resources to manage both (Wayland and X11) in one working group are also lacking (and given the schism, possibly also the willingness to do so).
That particular concern, however, is one that I also share. The working group should be required to accept at least one of us plasma-workspace-x11 maintainers (it can be Sérgio M. Basto or Steven A. Falco if they do not accept me) into the working group.
That may change and can change, of course. But that’s nothing for F42, rather for F52.
It just requires creating a new working group. That can be done instantly.
This is a failure to understand (or to commit to) what we have decided to do with Fedora.next. We don't want to DIY piece together a solution.
But one of the big strengths of Fedora is that you can do exactly that.
And it is a plain false promise. You can't install CoreOS, IoT, silverblue with it, not even Server, which is offered in the menu (because a lot of presets are missing).
The presets thing is something that should be fixed. Maybe an entry "server presets" in the list of checkboxes that will install a metapackage that then uses boolean Requires to drag in the individual preset packages for whatever the user actually installs during or after the installation.
The inability to install an atomic system using Everything is inherent to what atomic systems are and what the Everything ISO is, and should be obvious to anyone who actually understands what they want to install.
Basically, we have one domain *now*: fedoraproject.org
But that domain has subdomains such as spins.fedoraproject.org, labs.fedoraproject.org, etc. distinct from the main fedoraproject.org domain (though technically the subdomains redirect to pages on the main domain these days).
If you have a look on the statistics Matthew reported on Flock last year, you would know that the numbers for Workstation were declining, whereas the numbers for Server raised steeply and for CoreOS and IoT steadily up.
The numbers for Workstation might be declining because people are installing other desktop Spins, or a custom selection from Everything, instead. :-) None of those will have fedora-release-workstation installed.
Kevin Kofler
Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote:
The Cellphone user is very comfortable with Gnome. So much so, that I believe that if he was given KDE as the interface, two things would happen. a) The user will switch to Gnome, or b) The user will find a way to add his favourite applications to the desktop.
b) is actually very easy on modern Plasma (I tried it on Plasma 5), just right-click on the application in the menu and click "Add to desktop" in the context menu. KDE upstream has long given up trying to deprecate desktop icons (as they tried to do in early Plasma 4 releases, though even those allowed you to put a folder view widget displaying the Desktop folder (and hence, icons) on the desktop). In Plasma 6, the desktop is always a folder view.
Or the user can just switch the menu type to something icon-based and very similar to the menu in GNOME Shell with right-click on the menu button, "Show Alternatives…" and "Application Dashboard".
And if the user really wants a smartphone UI with a smartphone-style menu, always-maximized windows, etc., they should use Plasma Mobile, not Plasma Desktop. But a customized Plasma Desktop as described above is probably a better fit for traditional desktop/notebook computers.
Kevin Kofler
Am 05.04.2024 um 14:16 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel devel@lists.fedoraproject.org:
Peter Boy wrote:
. . .
This is an absolute no-go! It would break everyone’s usage of Fedora Workstation
It would be a major change, yes. Though not really different from the aforementioned upgrade to GNOME 3 with its completely redesigned user experience, which was also done.
If Workstation were never allowed to change its user experience, it would be shipping MATE nowadays, not GNOME.
Well, a switch from Gnome to KDE would require a lot of changes in everyday applications, e.g. Mail. That is not required when you update from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3.
and is in irreconcilable contradiction to the characteristics of an „Edition" as defined with Fedora.next.
How so?
Provide a reliable solution which includes a non breaking evolvement of the Edition.
But not to give the wrong impression: I think it would be beneficial for Fedora to develop an alternative to the current Gnome Workstation, which has evolved over the years into a rather fat, bloated and opaque entity. But I think this change proposal is the wrong way to go.
For the desktop area I don’t see a non-overlapping use case between Gnome and KDE. It’s just a different tool for the same use case.
This exact argument was already used 10 years ago to reject our (that was before I left the KDE SIG, though this issue was one of the triggers for me leaving the SIG) request for a Plasma Edition. 10 years later, we still have no way out of this dilemma. The definition of an Edition needs to be refined or completely replaced to get out of this catch-22.
As part of the process to look for a non-overlapping use case, there was an attempt to focus specifically on scientific applications, which eventually lead to the Scientific Lab, but that did not make it to an Edition either, just to a Lab.
The overlap issue is also going to hinder other deliverables' efforts to become Editions. E.g., Silverblue mostly overlaps with Workstation and CoreOS: Workstation for the general use cases (workstation/desktop usage), CoreOS for the atomic and container-oriented use cases.
Too bad, an explicit scientific desktop edition might have helped me propagate a Linux desktop in our University research cluster of excellence a good decade ago. Scientific Linux for Servers was a great success.
But it could still be a non-overlapping use case in its own right (even if I am contradicting myself):
Integration / integrability in professional work environments thanks to the similarity of the KDE interface to Windows / MacOS and thanks to the cross-operating system capabilities of KDE (many KDE apps are already available for Windows, at least I’m happily using Kate on MacOS). And additionally, a way aiming to specifically attract new users who are currently on Windows/MacOS.
Scientific Desktop would be a special sub-case of this.
(Hm, would be really attractive to develop something like that)
That may change and can change, of course. But that’s nothing for F42, rather for F52.
It just requires creating a new working group. That can be done instantly.
I'm afraid it's not that simple. It requires not only a new foundation or restructuring of a SIG, but also a mindset change among participants. And the latter takes much longer.
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
Peter Boy wrote:
Well, a switch from Gnome to KDE would require a lot of changes in everyday applications, e.g. Mail. That is not required when you update from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3.
Well, in principle, GNOME applications will usually work under Plasma and the other way round. But in practice of course most default applications on the Edition would change along with the desktop environment. So if you are one of those users who never upgrades, but always reinstalls from scratch, or at least installs everything in the Edition's group on upgrades, you will be in for a few surprises indeed.
Provide a reliable solution which includes a non breaking evolvement of the Edition.
I would argue that people upgrading to a newer Fedora should just upgrade in place with the packages they have installed, ignoring the new defaults of the Edition, so they would remain on GNOME and GNOME applications if that is what the release they had initially installed was shipping.
Though of course then there will be some people complaining that an upgraded Workstation is completely different from a freshly installed Workstation. But IMHO, that would be a feature, not a bug.
Too bad, an explicit scientific desktop edition might have helped me propagate a Linux desktop in our University research cluster of excellence a good decade ago. Scientific Linux for Servers was a great success.
We tried, but it was deemed not distinctive enough to warrant an Edition, our application was rejected on those grounds. After all, it was still a desktop spin, just with some scientific applications preinstalled on top of it. So it was accepted just as yet another Spin (next to the regular KDE Spin), and eventually the Labs category was created for this and other use- case-specific (former) Spins.
So a Scientific Spin (now Scientific Lab) did in fact exist around a decade ago, but maybe "a good decade ago" was slightly too early, just before it was created.
In addition, there was also pushback against this suggested compromise (having the Plasma Edition be a Scientific Edition) from non-scientific KDE users who understandably did not want to have to install a Scientific Edition and then uninstall lots of niche apps they will never use from it. But that discussion became moot because the Edition application was rejected anyway.
Kevin Kofler
We didnt withdraw it because, well to be completely honest, we are afraid that, if we do that, in the eyes of the community at least, we will abandon the idea completely and any subsequent effort would be undermined as a result.
It’s kindof a case of « damned if you do and damned if you don’t »…
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 03:03 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:26:52PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 18:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:21:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So here are three brainstorming proposals:
(a) Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop becomes a Fedora edition. We'd need
to be
careful about how we do it. I would still promote Fedora
Workstation as the
main/recommended "leading" desktop, would call Plasma an
"alternative
desktop option," and would strongly caution against use of the word "Workstation" anywhere in the branding for the Plasma version.
That is,
let's continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora
Workstation, while
making Plasma easier to find and presenting it more prominently
than it is
today.
I like this proposal. It would give the KDE spin more prominence and would be a good reply to the huge work that has been put into the
spin
in recent times. It also wouldn't disrupt our story about Fedora
Workstation.
If we call it "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop" or similarly, it won't be confused with Fedora Workstation.
So, effectively no change other than it moves from the Spins section to the Editions section? That would also mean it should be on the front page too, like the other Editions.
Being an Edition is a very significant thing, though, as we conceive of Fedora more widely than just the download page. We put a bunch of hoops in the way of IoT and CoreOS becoming editions, and there are hoops in the way of Silverblue becoming one (or, you know, wherever we go with that path in the end).
My silent assumption was that the current change proposal would be withdrawn and replaced by a new proposal. We have a formal procedure in [1]. Looking at that list, it seems all fine. The only sticky point is whether KDE desktop serves a different purpose than Workstation with GNOME. I'd say it does: desktop preferences are like religion, and people don't just switch (except when they do).
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/edition-promotion-policy...
Zbyszek
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Wednesday, 3 April 2024 01:48:47 CEST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:06:45PM -0400, Steve Cossette wrote:
Alright, so a substantial amount of information changed since the original submission of the change proposal. We aren't necessarily thinking of demoting Gnome. The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.
So, I am far from a web designer, but if you aren't a Linux savvy person and just decided to try out this Fedora thing because you heard it was nice and you go to download it and get:
our website: Want a workstation? user: yes!
our website: great! We have Gnome and KDE! user: what? what does that mean? which one should I get?
our website:
Gnome: "Get things done with ease, comfort, and control. An easy and elegant way to use your computer, GNOME is designed to help you have the best possible computing experience."
KDE: "Powerful, multi-platform, and for everyone Use KDE software to surf the web, keep in touch with colleagues, friends and family, manage your files, enjoy music and videos; and get creative and productive at work. The KDE community develops and maintains more than 200 applications which run on any Linux desktop, and often other platforms too."
User: ok, that didn't tell me much, whats the difference? perhaps I will just keep using windows.
Ok, thats obvously somewhat tounge in cheek, but if we promote multiple things, we need some way to describe them to uses who might not know the history of things and do it in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else.
kevin
Let's assume that we all agree with what you stated ( and I personally partly do).
Why do we promote Workstation (with Gnome) over any other alternative that might arise? (in this case, a Fedora Workstation KDE)
I understand that the Change Proposal is about switching the "Workstation" concept to using Plasma KDE and that approach might have been flawed but... how do we challenge the "status quo" where everybody assumes that Fedora's default is Gnome?
Because somebody else has mentioned that is unlikely that the KDE Spin can be promoted to an Edition because it "overlaps" with the current Workstation...
And I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I genuinely want to know how to make Fedora's default to be Plasma KDE because I do believe the whole *linux* (and Fedora's) community will benefit from having a major distro like Fedora not defaulting to Gnome.
Best regards,
Marc
PS: thanks for the feedback to everybody :-)
On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 20:24 +0200, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote:
Let's assume that we all agree with what you stated ( and I personally partly do).
Why do we promote Workstation (with Gnome) over any other alternative that might arise? (in this case, a Fedora Workstation KDE)
It's an interesting question. I would say my answer is "because it works better if we promote *something*". Forcing the choice on people who just want "desktop Fedora" is awkward. The reason we default to GNOME is because we ~always have. To me, this is a reasonable justification. Change is always uncomfortable and disruptive. If you have two equally good options and you already picked one, you should stick with it, not just switch between them every so often for the sake of it. If Plasma were demonstrably, markedly and uncontroversially *superior* to GNOME (please don't take this as an excuse to start a holy war, I am positing for the sake of this post that neither of the two is demonstrably, markedly and uncontroversially better than the other), the case would be different.
I understand that the Change Proposal is about switching the "Workstation" concept to using Plasma KDE and that approach might have been flawed but... how do we challenge the "status quo" where everybody assumes that Fedora's default is Gnome?
Again personally, I would set a very high bar for this to happen, purely on the grounds of conservatism. Don't change for the sake of change. I would only support changing Fedora's default desktop if it was very clear that the current default was sufficiently flawed that it was hurting the project. I don't think we are at that point.
And I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I genuinely want to know how to make Fedora's default to be Plasma KDE because I do believe the whole *linux* (and Fedora's) community will benefit from having a major distro like Fedora not defaulting to Gnome.
There already is at least one. The most prominent download option for openSUSE is their "Offline image" (equivalent of our old Everything DVD), and the top item in the list of possible "roles" for the system (effectively the choice we are discussing here) is "Desktop with KDE Plasma" (at least in the screenshot in the install guide).
Am 03.04.24 um 20:56 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 20:24 +0200, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote:
Let's assume that we all agree with what you stated ( and I personally partly do).
Why do we promote Workstation (with Gnome) over any other alternative that might arise? (in this case, a Fedora Workstation KDE)
It's an interesting question. I would say my answer is "because it works better if we promote *something*". Forcing the choice on people who just want "desktop Fedora" is awkward. The reason we default to GNOME is because we ~always have. To me, this is a reasonable
I second that. I prefer to have a clean path to go instead the endless choice. Call it *nix philosophy, Hick's law or what ever. I call it consistency and that is evidently the reason for Fedora's success, but not alone.
Fedora's "variants" provides a coherent experience in the particular usage. I already had RHL installed on a Sun IPX with Gnome, so I'm biased. I would not change the place or what defines the Workstation variant but other artifacts (editions, spins, labs) should get better visibility.
Leon Fauster via devel wrote:
I already had RHL installed on a Sun IPX with Gnome, so I'm biased.
Interesting that you were not put off by the changes that have happened to GNOME since the old RHL days. I tried GNOME 1 at one point long ago, it was actually pretty good. (It was very configurable back then. Remember when it shipped Enlightenment as the window manager, how many options that had?) Then GNOME 2 came, removing much of the configurability of GNOME 1. And then GNOME 3 came, removing AGAIN much of the remaining configurability of GNOME 2, leading to a very hardcoded experience. GNOME 2 was already too much for me, and I switched back to KDE, back because I had already tried KDE 1.1.1 on another distro. And I have never looked back.
Well, actually, I wanted to be fair and give GNOME 3 a chance, so I tried it out once. But it took less than 10 minutes for me to realize that it is not for me. The user experience is just too unfamiliar (the unified application menu and open window selector (launch menu AND task bar replacement), the always maximized windows, the lack of a system tray, the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.), and GNOME does not make it easy for you to change it. (You can actually get a pretty standard desktop experience nowadays if you install a lot of "unbreak this", "unbreak that" GNOME Shell extensions, but that kinda defeats the point of GNOME.) The default experience felt pretty much unusable to me personally.
KDE Plasma not only has more familiar defaults (actually looking and feeling much more similar to GNOME 1 than GNOME 3 does), but also lets you easily change those defaults that you do not like.
Kevin Kofler
Am 04.04.24 um 00:44 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel:
Leon Fauster via devel wrote:
I already had RHL installed on a Sun IPX with Gnome, so I'm biased.
Interesting that you were not put off by the changes that have happened to GNOME since the old RHL days. I tried GNOME 1 at one point long ago, it was actually pretty good. (It was very configurable back then. Remember when it shipped Enlightenment as the window manager, how many options that had?) Then GNOME 2 came, removing much of the configurability of GNOME 1. And then GNOME 3 came, removing AGAIN much of the remaining configurability of GNOME 2, leading to a very hardcoded experience. GNOME 2 was already too much for me, and I switched back to KDE, back because I had already tried KDE 1.1.1 on another distro. And I have never looked back.
Honestly, I know both worlds of the desktop environment paradigms. Therefore I do not compare these two because its pointless. Both follow some design principles and addresses different goals. If KDE do expose some knobs to configure something in the UI, its fine. I prefer Gnome because its more tidier (no diving into dconf/gsettings possibilities). For the proposal: both DEs are legit, one should not substitute the other.
Well, actually, I wanted to be fair and give GNOME 3 a chance, so I tried it out once. But it took less than 10 minutes for me to realize that it is not for me. The user experience is just too unfamiliar (the unified application menu and open window selector (launch menu AND task bar replacement), the always maximized windows, the lack of a system tray, the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.), and GNOME does not make it easy for you to change it. (You can actually get a pretty standard desktop experience nowadays if you install a lot of "unbreak this", "unbreak that" GNOME Shell extensions, but that kinda defeats the point of GNOME.) The default experience felt pretty much unusable to me personally.
10 minutes is not enough to do a remodeling of the "familiar" experience, so that you reaches the so called realm of intuition. The latter is something that we learn over time and the desktop environment does not offer this on its own. It provides only a framework where this can happen.
KDE Plasma not only has more familiar defaults (actually looking and feeling much more similar to GNOME 1 than GNOME 3 does), but also lets you easily change those defaults that you do not like.
PS: Imagine the first CLI steps and the corresponding bad experience, but we have not given up :-)!
Leon Fauster via devel wrote:
10 minutes is not enough to do a remodeling of the "familiar" experience, so that you reaches the so called realm of intuition. The latter is something that we learn over time and the desktop environment does not offer this on its own. It provides only a framework where this can happen.
But that is exactly the issue with the GNOME design: It is really arrogant to expect me to unlearn decades of learned familiar experience and retrain to something completely different that in the end has at most minor advantages, it is not significantly better, just different.
I want the software to ideally behave the way I am used to (i.e., the way Windows 95 worked, see below) out of the box, or if not, at least have an "old-school mode" toggle in the preferences that makes it work that way (and I will almost certainly use that toggle).
PS: Imagine the first CLI steps and the corresponding bad experience, but we have not given up :-)!
Oh, my first computer was actually an XT clone running IBM PC-DOS 3.3. So I actually started with a CLI. :-) Then Windows 95 on a Pentium 120 (MHz). And on that Pentium, I also got started with versions of Red Hat Linux of the time (not sure what the first one was), first from CD-ROMs bundled with computer magazines, then the downloadable FTP edition. And I also tried one magazine CD-ROM with an edition of Caldera "OpenLinux" (which was actually much less open than RHL, and Caldera eventually became the infamous SCO) with the at the time brand new KDE 1 (version 1.1.1). Having used DOS, the bash CLI was not that bad to work with, but the distros at the time already came with GUI environments (FVWM95, then came KDE 1 and GNOME 1).
Kevin Kofler
Dne 04. 04. 24 v 0:44 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
Leon Fauster via devel wrote:
I already had RHL installed on a Sun IPX with Gnome, so I'm biased.
Interesting that you were not put off by the changes that have happened to GNOME since the old RHL days. I tried GNOME 1 at one point long ago, it was actually pretty good. (It was very configurable back then. Remember when it shipped Enlightenment as the window manager, how many options that had?) Then GNOME 2 came, removing much of the configurability of GNOME 1. And then GNOME 3 came, removing AGAIN much of the remaining configurability of GNOME 2, leading to a very hardcoded experience. GNOME 2 was already too much for me, and I switched back to KDE, back because I had already tried KDE 1.1.1 on another distro. And I have never looked back.
Well, actually, I wanted to be fair and give GNOME 3 a chance, so I tried it out once. But it took less than 10 minutes for me to realize that it is not for me. The user experience is just too unfamiliar (the unified application menu and open window selector (launch menu AND task bar replacement), the always maximized windows, the lack of a system tray, the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.), and GNOME does not make it easy for you to change it. (You can actually get a pretty standard desktop experience nowadays if you install a lot of "unbreak this", "unbreak that" GNOME Shell extensions, but that kinda defeats the point of GNOME.) The default experience felt pretty much unusable to me personally.
Uh, from your description, I would really have hard time to decipher you are talking about Gnome 3.
"the always maximized windows" what is this about? Maybe you are missing some maximize/normalize buttons.
"the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.)" this is also not the case for ages, or at least not in its completeness.
Maybe you should give it second try.
Vít
KDE Plasma not only has more familiar defaults (actually looking and feeling much more similar to GNOME 1 than GNOME 3 does), but also lets you easily change those defaults that you do not like.
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 4:38 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 04. 04. 24 v 0:44 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
Leon Fauster via devel wrote:
I already had RHL installed on a Sun IPX with Gnome, so I'm biased.
Interesting that you were not put off by the changes that have happened to GNOME since the old RHL days. I tried GNOME 1 at one point long ago, it was actually pretty good. (It was very configurable back then. Remember when it shipped Enlightenment as the window manager, how many options that had?) Then GNOME 2 came, removing much of the configurability of GNOME 1. And then GNOME 3 came, removing AGAIN much of the remaining configurability of GNOME 2, leading to a very hardcoded experience. GNOME 2 was already too much for me, and I switched back to KDE, back because I had already tried KDE 1.1.1 on another distro. And I have never looked back.
Well, actually, I wanted to be fair and give GNOME 3 a chance, so I tried it out once. But it took less than 10 minutes for me to realize that it is not for me. The user experience is just too unfamiliar (the unified application menu and open window selector (launch menu AND task bar replacement), the always maximized windows, the lack of a system tray, the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.), and GNOME does not make it easy for you to change it. (You can actually get a pretty standard desktop experience nowadays if you install a lot of "unbreak this", "unbreak that" GNOME Shell extensions, but that kinda defeats the point of GNOME.) The default experience felt pretty much unusable to me personally.
Uh, from your description, I would really have hard time to decipher you are talking about Gnome 3.
"the always maximized windows" what is this about? Maybe you are missing some maximize/normalize buttons.
By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions.
"the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.)" this is also not the case for ages, or at least not in its completeness.
Yes, this did change a few GNOME releases ago.
Neal Gompa wrote:
By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions.
In the version I tried, and judging from end user reports, for several years, it did not even present that, leading to fun issues such as some KDE dialogs that could not be closed at all (because they were missing a "Close" button and relying on the window decoration exclusively).
"the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.)" this is also not the case for ages, or at least not in its completeness.
Yes, this did change a few GNOME releases ago.
Of course, having only tried GNOME 3 once, I could not know this.
Kevin Kofler
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, 16:35 Kevin Kofler via devel, < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions.
In the version I tried, and judging from end user reports, for several years, it did not even present that, leading to fun issues such as some KDE dialogs that could not be closed at all (because they were missing a "Close" button and relying on the window decoration exclusively).
"the shut down options in the mouse menu hidden behind a keyboard dead key, etc.)" this is also not the case for ages, or at least not in its completeness.
Yes, this did change a few GNOME releases ago.
Of course, having only tried GNOME 3 once, I could not know this.
Of course the right thing to do when faced with a topic where you lack knowledge is to not throw shade and either learn it first or decide others know better and not comment.
What has been really awkward about this proposal is that instead of focussing on the benefits of Plasma, it's used as more of an axe to grind about gnome. Not unexpected considering the lead proposer.
However that is not helpful.
If you need to define gnome in order to promote plasma, you are doing it wrong.
Kevin Kofler-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Dne 04. 04. 24 v 17:32 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
Neal Gompa wrote:
By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions.
I agree that there are no other buttons. But still, Gnome opens the windows in normalized state, not maximized what was the original claim.
In the version I tried, and judging from end user reports, for several years, it did not even present that, leading to fun issues such as some KDE dialogs that could not be closed at all (because they were missing a "Close" button and relying on the window decoration exclusively).
I have never seen Gnome / Gtk app without "Close" button. I can imagine that there likely can be issue for some non-Gtk app. I don't know.
In any case, I prefer to use Gtk apps for Gnome and I assume this is the case for Gnome users. Similarly I won't be surprised if KDE users prefer QT apps. Mixing the DE and frameworks might not always work without issues. And this is not just about Gtk / Qt and Gnome / KDE. E.g. Java apps might look out of place on both DEs.
Vít
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:20:51PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 04. 04. 24 v 17:32 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
Neal Gompa wrote:
By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions.
I agree that there are no other buttons. But still, Gnome opens the windows in normalized state, not maximized what was the original claim.
GNOME (Mutter) maximizes windows if they initially take 80% of more screen space.
Am 05.04.24 um 12:20 schrieb Vít Ondruch:
Dne 04. 04. 24 v 17:32 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
Neal Gompa wrote:
By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions.
I agree that there are no other buttons. But still, Gnome opens the windows in normalized state, not maximized what was the original claim.
It feels strange when a discussion is done about such things, to argue against or for a component/DE/software etc.
As I said intuition is not something that is inherently in the technology. For instance, the "scale a photo"-gesture on a common mobile device OS, is not "natural". Its something that was communicated by advertisements.
Such communication could look like (with alternatives): In Gnome, with the focus on a window, use the leftAlt+Space shortcut to get your needed function. All that from the keyboard (intentional efficient short cut). And for the mouse pushers, open the tweak app to configure the top bar of the windows to get your button. For the distro, just configure for example the minimize button to be present as default.
All that said, does not solve the dialectic discussion. I would suggest the equal authorization to be present for both desktop environments. And such principle should lead the further activities. Remember diversity wins, ideology not.
Vít Ondruch wrote:
In any case, I prefer to use Gtk apps for Gnome and I assume this is the case for Gnome users. Similarly I won't be surprised if KDE users prefer QT apps.
I suppose there might be some people who get so emotionally attached to a widget library that they don't want to use programs that use another widget library. Personally I use what works acceptably for my needs regardless of which widget library it's built on. I edit photos in Gimp (the origin of GTK) even though I currently use a desktop built on Qt. I edit text files in Kate (a KDE program) regardless of which desktop I'm using. I used Kmail for many years, even in Gnome 2 at times, until Kmail became so bad that I had to switch to Claws Mail, which happens to use GTK. I even used to endure Gnome Calculator's annoying Gnome-3-ness because it was the best calculator I had until it recently stopped working. I hope I'm not alone in using what works instead of getting hung up on widget libraries.
Mixing the DE and frameworks might not always work without issues.
That's not usually a crippling problem in my experience. Each time the desktop I use breaks down, I switch to another. So far I've always been able to find one that could be configured to work acceptably. It's annoying when I have to spend time on that, but fortunately most of the important programs tend to survive. It would be really horrible if I'd have to log in to one desktop for programming and then switch to another for photo editing or word processing. Let's hope the discord never gets that bad.
If I can manage to set a sensible theme that exists for both Qt and GTK, then most programs will look similar enough to not distract me from my work – except for those Gnome 3 programs that refuse to obey the theme. (And Firefox which just has to be different, but that has nothing to do with desktops or widget libraries as far as I can see.)
Björn Persson
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 04:38, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe you should give it second try.
What I am going to say is not meant to be a bash in any way.
I am on my 10th try for GNOME3/40. For everything they move to somewhere my brain says is intuitive, there always seems to be something else moved which I have to relearn or fight past patterns for. Just like code refactoring, I realize all the movements and changes are for good reasons versus just 'moving for movement sake'. My brain just rebels against it in an almost painful way.
Again this isn't a rag on GNOME. I find that I can adapt only so much to desktop changes and prefer something which stays the same while I focus on my work. Other people find such changes easy and others find the lack of changes I want to be painful for their brains. I understand where GNOME is going and I agree that it is a purpose they should shoot for 100%. It just isn't easy for me to stay on the bus.
There is, if you add 1 extension, a category menu. That is the menu that is similar to other desktop interfaces such as Budgie, XFCE, and other.
Leslie Satenstein
On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 08:03:13 a.m. EDT, Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 04:38, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe you should give it second try.
What I am going to say is not meant to be a bash in any way. I am on my 10th try for GNOME3/40. For everything they move to somewhere my brain says is intuitive, there always seems to be something else moved which I have to relearn or fight past patterns for. Just like code refactoring, I realize all the movements and changes are for good reasons versus just 'moving for movement sake'. My brain just rebels against it in an almost painful way. Again this isn't a rag on GNOME. I find that I can adapt only so much to desktop changes and prefer something which stays the same while I focus on my work. Other people find such changes easy and others find the lack of changes I want to be painful for their brains. I understand where GNOME is going and I agree that it is a purpose they should shoot for 100%. It just isn't easy for me to stay on the bus.
Problem with extensions is, while they are *technically* supported by gnome, they can break with any update (It has happened to me in the past). Heck, it kinda reminds me of hacks people use to get around the junk people put in Windows 10/11...
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:09 AM Leslie Satenstein via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
There is, if you add 1 extension, a category menu. That is the menu that is similar to other desktop interfaces such as Budgie, XFCE, and other.
Leslie Satenstein
On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 08:03:13 a.m. EDT, Stephen Smoogen < ssmoogen@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 04:38, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe you should give it second try.
What I am going to say is not meant to be a bash in any way.
I am on my 10th try for GNOME3/40. For everything they move to somewhere my brain says is intuitive, there always seems to be something else moved which I have to relearn or fight past patterns for. Just like code refactoring, I realize all the movements and changes are for good reasons versus just 'moving for movement sake'. My brain just rebels against it in an almost painful way.
Again this isn't a rag on GNOME. I find that I can adapt only so much to desktop changes and prefer something which stays the same while I focus on my work. Other people find such changes easy and others find the lack of changes I want to be painful for their brains. I understand where GNOME is going and I agree that it is a purpose they should shoot for 100%. It just isn't easy for me to stay on the bus.
-- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren
--
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
With that being said though, I would rather this discussion not to devolve into a "Which DE is better".
I've said that in the past, but each Desktop Environment has their merits, and discussing "Which is better" is as fruitless as "Mac vs PC" or "Android vs iOS" fights.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:34 AM Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com wrote:
Problem with extensions is, while they are *technically* supported by gnome, they can break with any update (It has happened to me in the past). Heck, it kinda reminds me of hacks people use to get around the junk people put in Windows 10/11...
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:09 AM Leslie Satenstein via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
There is, if you add 1 extension, a category menu. That is the menu that is similar to other desktop interfaces such as Budgie, XFCE, and other.
Leslie Satenstein
On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 08:03:13 a.m. EDT, Stephen Smoogen < ssmoogen@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 04:38, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe you should give it second try.
What I am going to say is not meant to be a bash in any way.
I am on my 10th try for GNOME3/40. For everything they move to somewhere my brain says is intuitive, there always seems to be something else moved which I have to relearn or fight past patterns for. Just like code refactoring, I realize all the movements and changes are for good reasons versus just 'moving for movement sake'. My brain just rebels against it in an almost painful way.
Again this isn't a rag on GNOME. I find that I can adapt only so much to desktop changes and prefer something which stays the same while I focus on my work. Other people find such changes easy and others find the lack of changes I want to be painful for their brains. I understand where GNOME is going and I agree that it is a purpose they should shoot for 100%. It just isn't easy for me to stay on the bus.
-- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren
--
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On 4/3/24 14:56, Adam Williamson wrote:
If you have two equally good options and you already picked one, you should stick with it, not just switch between them every so often for the sake of it. If Plasma were demonstrably, markedly and uncontroversially *superior* to GNOME (please don't take this as an excuse to start a holy war, I am positing for the sake of this post that neither of the two is demonstrably, markedly and uncontroversially better than the other), the case would be different.
Absolutely!!
"What's worse than a bad general?"
"Two good generals!"
I have used both Gnome and KDE, and settled on Gnome, not because I didn't like KDE but simply because I don't have to think about how to perform basic actions. If someone persuaded me that KDE become much better, I would switch, but I definitely would not want to download a new version of Fedora to install on my new computer, and find myself switched.
On 4/3/24 13:56, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 20:24 +0200, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote:
Let's assume that we all agree with what you stated ( and I personally partly do).
Why do we promote Workstation (with Gnome) over any other alternative that might arise? (in this case, a Fedora Workstation KDE)
It's an interesting question. I would say my answer is "because it works better if we promote *something*". Forcing the choice on people who just want "desktop Fedora" is awkward. The reason we default to GNOME is because we ~always have. To me, this is a reasonable justification. Change is always uncomfortable and disruptive. If you have two equally good options and you already picked one, you should stick with it, not just switch between them every so often for the sake of it. If Plasma were demonstrably, markedly and uncontroversially *superior* to GNOME (please don't take this as an excuse to start a holy war, I am positing for the sake of this post that neither of the two is demonstrably, markedly and uncontroversially better than the other), the case would be different.
Obviously it's going to be hard to make a point for either of the desktops to be demonstrably (and especially uncontroversially!) better than the other in general, because there is no such thing. There are some situations where IceWM emerges as the absolute and clear winner above everything else, that doesn't mean that the world's greatest DE is IceWM. (Nor does it mean that IceWM is a DE but that's beside the point.)
Still, one could make some case for this. Plasma is, for one, obviously going to be more familiar to newcomers to the Linux world simply by virtue of the fact that the paradigms presented by its initial configuration are more familiar to those coming from the Windows or ChromeOS worlds, and (hopefully) those paradigms aren't sufficiently different from MacOS to be too uncomfortable for a user coming from the Apple world. GNOME is quite different from both, making a new user's first reaction to the desktop more likely to be one of "what on earth is going on, where is my taskbar? What happened to my minimize buttons? What happened to my application menus? Where is the Start button? How do I even turn off the computer?" That's not to say GNOME's paradigms are bad - indeed, once you know what you're doing, they provide a nice environment to work from. They're just really different for someone just coming to Linux.
That's not to say that the goal of any Linux distro should be to appear like Windows - no amount of effort will make Linux sufficiently close to Windows to be fully usable with zero learning curve to a Windows user. Trying too hard will just lead to confusion once a user digs deep enough in. But if the end goal is higher download rate and better user retention, giving the user a comfortable on-ramp into the new world of Linux will likely fulfill that goal better than having them immediately climb a mental cliff just to get started. The user will inevitably run into the fact that drive letters don't exist, apps don't come from random places on the Internet, new OS versions come out frequently, etc., *but* they'll be more confident and have a better foundation to work with if they have a semi-familiar workspace from which to learn all these things.
Currently the way Fedora Workstation attempts to overcome this initial learning curve with the desktop is by presenting a "Tour" app to tell the user where things are. This is quite useful, but really it's kind of like throwing a rope to the user to help them climb the initial mental cliff. There's still a cliff to climb, and a steep one at that. KDE Plasma has no such tour because it doesn't need one. A user can glance at the desktop and figure out more-or-less what they're doing without even touching it. Ubuntu tries to make this "understood-at-a-glance" thing work with GNOME by adding some familiar elements (minimize and maximize buttons, an app menu, a visible dock where apps are, etc)., which *kinda* works, but I don't think that's the path Fedora Workstation wants to take since it requires adding GNOME shell extensions to make it happen. KDE Plasma, on the other hand, is familiar and ready-to-use out of the starting gate, no extensions needed.
Is Plasma going to be the best for everyone? Absolutely not. Is it even going to be the best for most? Debatable, controversial, let's not go there. Is it the best for newcomers? I would argue yes, far better than GNOME or any other major Linux desktop. Non-newcomers can find the spins or alternate editions and have the setup that's perfect for them. Newcomers can "just grab" the Workstation edition (which will be Plasma with this Change Proposal) and have the setup that will be best to get them started.
I understand that the Change Proposal is about switching the "Workstation" concept to using Plasma KDE and that approach might have been flawed but... how do we challenge the "status quo" where everybody assumes that Fedora's default is Gnome?
Again personally, I would set a very high bar for this to happen, purely on the grounds of conservatism. Don't change for the sake of change. I would only support changing Fedora's default desktop if it was very clear that the current default was sufficiently flawed that it was hurting the project. I don't think we are at that point.
And I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I genuinely want to know how to make Fedora's default to be Plasma KDE because I do believe the whole *linux* (and Fedora's) community will benefit from having a major distro like Fedora not defaulting to Gnome.
There already is at least one. The most prominent download option for openSUSE is their "Offline image" (equivalent of our old Everything DVD), and the top item in the list of possible "roles" for the system (effectively the choice we are discussing here) is "Desktop with KDE Plasma" (at least in the screenshot in the install guide).
-- Aaron Rainbolt Lubuntu Developer Matrix: @arraybolt3:ubuntu.com IRC: arraybolt3 on libera.chat and oftc.net GitHub:https://github.com/ArrayBolt3
Aaron Rainbolt wrote:
Still, one could make some case for this. Plasma is, for one, obviously going to be more familiar to newcomers to the Linux world simply by virtue of the fact that the paradigms presented by its initial configuration are more familiar to those coming from the Windows or ChromeOS worlds, and (hopefully) those paradigms aren't sufficiently different from MacOS to be too uncomfortable for a user coming from the Apple world.
You make a good point there. The thing is, GNOME tries really hard to design for new users, whom they define as a user who has never before used a computer. Such users are basically on the edge of extinction. A paradigm that works great for someone seeing a computer for the first time in their life does not necessarily work all that great for someone trained to use different paradigms used in the operating system(s) they have used for decades.
As you point out, for users switching from a different operating system, which is a much more likely scenario, the GNOME Shell design is really confusing and disruptive, and GNOME's reluctance to make it easy to switch some things back (instead requiring you to install shell extensions for any such change) does not help. Even if the other operating systems' patterns happen to be counterintuitive if you have never seen them before, once trained to them, you will not only be able to work efficiently with them, but also be confused by GNOME's intuitive design that they carefully usability-tested on people with little to no computer experience.
That leaves GNU/Linux power users who have used nothing but GNU/Linux for decades. I am in that category, like many regulars of this mailing list. (Well, I am particularly extreme in that even my smartphone runs GNU/Linux, but that is a different story.) And I would argue that GNOME is also a very bad default for users in that category because of its deliberate lack of configurability. Not to mention that the same (concept familiarity) concerns applying to people switching from other operating systems also apply to people switching from any other GNU/Linux desktop environment. Personally, when I tried GNOME 3 once, it took me less than 10 minutes to decide that this is just completely unusable for me personally.
So I think it is pretty clear that we do NOT "have two equally good options" as Adam Williamson wrote (in the post to which you were replying).
Kevin Kofler
Kevin Kofler via devel writes:
You make a good point there. The thing is, GNOME tries really hard to design for new users, whom they define as a user who has never before used a computer.
So, someone who never used at a computer before sits down in front of a new, empty, Gnome desktop, and it is expected that they'll take to it like a fish takes to water?
I doubt that very much.
Besides, there's a fatal flaw in this hypothetical scenario.
No such person could possibly exist. A completely new to computers user is not going to be sitting down in front of a new desktop, all by themselves. Without anyone else in the picture.
This is not going to happen.
There's going to be someone else, sitting next to them, who will be teaching the new user how to use a computer. And that someone will /also/ be familiar with traditional desktop concepts and paradigms. They, like the new user, will also expect to have a traditional desktop in front of them, that works like a traditional desktop.
And that was the fatal flaw in the grand experiment called "Gnome 3".
Am 04.04.24 um 01:46 schrieb Sam Varshavchik:
This is not going to happen.
There's going to be someone else, sitting next to them, who will be teaching the new user how to use a computer. And that someone will /also/ be familiar with traditional desktop concepts and paradigms. They, like the new user, will also expect to have a traditional desktop in front of them, that works like a traditional desktop.
Sure, but in a lot of cases that other person is a teacher, with a lot of other children needing attention too. That means you have one experience user vs (depending on country) 10 to 50 new users.
Kilian
Am 04.04.24 um 01:03 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel:
You make a good point there. The thing is, GNOME tries really hard to design for new users, whom they define as a user who has never before used a computer. Such users are basically on the edge of extinction. A paradigm that works great for someone seeing a computer for the first time in their life does not necessarily work all that great for someone trained to use different paradigms used in the operating system(s) they have used for decades.
Most new Desktop users these days have prior experience of using a smartphone or maybe even a tablet. That funnily enough has the side effect that a lot of them try to touch the screen when they use a Desktop for the first time. As you can maybe imagine, these people are very young.
Now, some people would argue that Gnome is a good design for a DE for people expecting something like a smartphone UI but made good for a Desktop, some people say the opposite. Personally I think it's a tradeoff. There are equally as many (and strong) arguments for and against it.
Regards
Kilian Hanich
Am 02.04.2024 um 22:06 schrieb Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com:
... The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. … ... We've been discussing it in Matrix, and we can't seem to reach a consensus as to what is the best way to initiate the discussion procedure. Figured a change proposal was probably a decent way to "kick the hornet's nest", so to speak.
We essentially just want more visibility on the website, if that makes sense.
That sounds pretty much like an April Fool's joke (and an abuse of the change proposal process). A pity in a way, but perhaps better this way, given the miserable debate about Wayland / X11 recently.
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
It is not an april fools joke.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 04:37 Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Am 02.04.2024 um 22:06 schrieb Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com:
... The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some
extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. …
... We've been discussing it in Matrix, and we can't seem to reach a
consensus as to what is the best way to initiate the discussion procedure. Figured a change proposal was probably a decent way to "kick the hornet's nest", so to speak.
We essentially just want more visibility on the website, if that makes
sense.
That sounds pretty much like an April Fool's joke (and an abuse of the change proposal process). A pity in a way, but perhaps better this way, given the miserable debate about Wayland / X11 recently.
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 4:08 AM Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com wrote:
Alright, so a substantial amount of information changed since the original submission of the change proposal.
It did? Because the page still reads: *"Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma."*
We aren't necessarily thinking of demoting Gnome.
And continues *"**The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status."*
Or are you saying you are planning to rewrite the page??
The overall spirit of the CP is that we think KDE, and to some extent the
other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.
Asking to improve KDE's visibility on the website is certainly quite different to replacing GNOME in Workstation.
Jens
El mar, 2 abr 2024 a las 6:40, Aoife Moloney (amoloney@redhat.com) escribió:
Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraPlasmaWorkstation
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary == Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
== Owner ==
- Names: [[User:joshstrobl | Joshua Strobl]], [[User:marcdeop | Marc
Deop i Argemí]], [[User:tdawson | Troy Dawson]], [[User:farchord | Steve Cossette]], [[User:aleasto| Alessandro Astone]]
- Emails: joshua@buddiesofbudgie.org, marcdeop@fedoraproject.org,
tdawson@redhat.com, farchord@gmail.com, aleasto@fedoraproject.org
== Detailed Description ==
With the release of Plasma 6, KDE Plasma has developed into a high quality, well-regarded desktop experience.
=== Improved end user experience ===
Plasma has been at the forefront of creating a cohesive desktop platform that empowers the user to have full ownership of their computing experience.
Plasma provides this approachable, highly-flexible, user-extensible experience with predictability across Plasma releases. Unlike other desktop experiences such as GNOME Shell, the APIs leveraged by Plasma applets / widgets have been more stable across “minor” Plasma releases, reducing long-term user frustration and promoting a healthier ecosystem for developers and users alike.
This extensibility additionally applies to the underlying window manager, KWin, with effects and scripts that provide both utility and personalization, such as:
- Automatically blocking compositing for full screen applications
- Fun effects such as window glitch and portals
Plasma provides a more traditional user experience that could be viewed as being more approachable to everyday computing users, serving as a smoother "on-ramp" to using Linux-based operating systems. Alongside its wide breadth of personalization capabilities, it provides an out-of-the-box desktop experience that is more predictable than some of its counterparts. As an example, Plasma provides a system tray for applications supporting StatusNotifierItem (e.g. Flameshot, OBS Studio, VPN clients), which is not functionality supported by default in GNOME Shell and requires an extension which may break between releases.
=== Standardization support ===
The KDE community has a long heritage of collaborative standards development and supporting capabilities that application developers and users need for a productive experience.
KDE is heavily involved in the development of cross-desktop standards and tools that benefit the larger open source desktop community. From the XDG icon theme specification to D-Bus to StatusNotifierItems and Wayland protocols, KDE has been front and center for evolving the Linux desktop platform in a manner that benefits the wider community.
Many of the specifications and protocols in use today originate or are heavily influenced by KDE, and KDE has continued to be a bastion of innovation in a user-centric and community-centric manner.
Notably, the following recent Wayland protocols have been driven or influenced by KDE:
- xdg-toplevel-drag (dragging tabs in and out of windows)
- content-type
- drm-lease (enable applications to selectively gain privileged
display device access)
- tearing-control (enable faster than display framerate refreshing, ie
no “vsync lock”)
- ext-idle-notify
- xdg-activation (enable notifications to bring a window to the
foreground on user activation)
- xdg-decoration (server side decorations, derived from KDE’s protocol)
There are several upcoming protocols being driven by KDE as well, such as:
- alpha-modifier (set alpha values for a surface)
- ext-blur (enable blur effect underneath a surface)
- xdg-toplevel-icon (enable applications to set window icons)
- ext-placement (allow application window positioning)
- window-id (consistent, uniform method window IDs)
- xdg-pip (picture in picture overlays)
- dbus-annotation (link D-Bus objects to surfaces)
This demonstrates that KDE works not to just enable new technologies and features for Plasma Wayland, but they also do it in a way that drives larger community adoption, success, and growth.
=== Wayland support ===
KDE Plasma offers the most advanced Wayland desktop experience today, providing support for highly-demanded features, such as:
- Fractional scaling
- Color management
- Variable Refresh Rate for capable displays
- Support for optionally allowing legacy X11 applications to access
desktop resources
- Screensharing for legacy applications
- Global shortcut support for legacy applications
- Support for accessibility, including integration with the Orca screen
reader
- Support for AR/VR displays
=== Industry support ===
KDE Plasma has been garnering wider industry support in consumer products over the last couple years. This includes various PINE64 products (PinePhones, PineBooks, etc.), the Steam Deck from Valve, and Tuxedo OS from Tuxedo Computers.
The Steam Deck in particular has brought the Linux desktop in the form of KDE Plasma to more people than ever before, through the desktop mode in SteamOS 3.x releases. As a result, Valve has heavily invested into KDE and its technology stack for mainstream usage. Game developers are also testing on KDE Plasma more often nowadays as part of SteamOS compatibility testing.
=== Community Support ===
A number of Fedora downstreams have launched with KDE Plasma as the flagship experience or migrated to it over time. Notably Fedora Asahi Remix uses KDE Plasma as the flagship due to significantly better support and features for ARM based platforms and the hardware that Apple Silicon systems have. Nobara uses KDE Plasma as the flagship due to a high quality Wayland experience that supports gaming and game development well.
Developers of Linux XR applications and services already recommend using KDE Plasma to be able to leverage AR/VR experiences in a modern desktop.
Starting in 2025, KDE Plasma’s release cycle switches to a semi-annual cadence that lines up with Fedora Linux releases, enabling a tight interlock of development and integration between Fedora and KDE.
== Feedback ==
== Benefit to Fedora ==
- Fedora Linux advertises and advocates for the most advanced Wayland
desktop experience with broad community support and engagement.
- We ship a desktop experience that supports the wide range of user
needs and enables the experiences people expect from a modern desktop (HDR, VRR, VR gaming, HiDPI) and strives to support as many users as possible in a manner that results in positive engagement with the community.
- We align the default Fedora workstation experience with what the
larger PC ecosystem expects for a high quality desktop.
== Scope ==
- Proposal owners: fedora-release: -kde subpackages get renamed to
-workstation-kde. -workstation subpackages get renamed to -workstation-gnome.
- Other developers: Fedora Plasma Workstation is added to the main
landing page and promoted as the default desktop experience
- Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12043 12043]
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
- Policies and guidelines: No, it would not required changes as it is
already release-blocking.
- Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
- Alignment with Community Initiatives: N/A
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
Existing Fedora Workstation systems will not be switched to KDE Plasma. This will only affect new installs of Fedora Workstation. Existing Fedora KDE installs will be upgraded to the Plasma Workstation branding.
== How To Test ==
As the fundamental experience is not changing in the existing KDE Plasma variant, users can try out the Fedora KDE spin to see what Fedora Plasma Workstation looks like.
== User Experience == The user experience does not change from the existing KDE Plasma variant. Existing Fedora Workstation users won’t see their experience change. New users of Fedora will get KDE Plasma instead of GNOME.
== Dependencies ==
N/A
== Contingency Plan ==
Retain the existing default GNOME experience for Fedora Workstation. Move Fedora Plasma Workstation back to spin branding.
== Documentation ==
Documentation would need to be updated to reference Plasma and point links to KDE rather than GNOME.
== Release Notes ==
Fedora Linux now offers a new default workstation experience as “Fedora Plasma Workstation” using KDE Plasma Desktop. This replaces the previous Fedora KDE Plasma spin. The previous "GNOME Shell"-based desktop experience can now be accessed through its dedicated Edition page.
-- Aoife Moloney
Fedora Operations Architect
Fedora Project
Matrix: @amoloney:fedora.im
IRC: amoloney
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
I am a happy KDE user, since the good old days of version 1.0. I celebrate this decision! My recognition goes to the enormous and sustained work of the entire KDE community. Cheers, Sergiio
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 17:37 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I am a happy KDE user, since the good old days of version 1.0. I celebrate this decision! My recognition goes to the enormous and sustained work of the entire KDE community. Cheers, Sergiio
To be clear, there is no 'decision'. This is a Change proposal. Any Fedora community member can submit a Change proposal proposing just about any change; I could submit one tomorrow proposing we abandon all software development and open a yak farm instead.
A Change proposal existing is in no way an indication of any ultimate outcome. Change proposals can be, and frequently are, rejected.
El mar, 2 abr 2024 a las 18:32, Adam Williamson (adamwill@fedoraproject.org) escribió:
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 17:37 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I am a happy KDE user, since the good old days of version 1.0. I
celebrate
this decision! My recognition goes to the enormous and sustained work of the entire KDE community. Cheers, Sergiio
To be clear, there is no 'decision'. This is a Change proposal. Any Fedora community member can submit a Change proposal proposing just about any change; I could submit one tomorrow proposing we abandon all software development and open a instead.
A Change proposal existing is in no way an indication of any ultimate outcome. Change proposals can be, and frequently are, rejected. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Oh, yup Adam, thank you for correcting it. Haha, the yak farm comment made me laugh. I jumped the gun; it’s not a change. Nevertheless, I’m glad this topic is being discussed in a healthy manner :) In fact, on this page, we can also check the change policy and join the discussion thread!”
it’s not a change.
-- Sergio Belkin LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org
It's not a change already decided I meant :) !
sorry for the noise
Oooo I could go for some Yak meat!
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:32 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 17:37 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I am a happy KDE user, since the good old days of version 1.0. I
celebrate
this decision! My recognition goes to the enormous and sustained work of the entire KDE community. Cheers, Sergiio
To be clear, there is no 'decision'. This is a Change proposal. Any Fedora community member can submit a Change proposal proposing just about any change; I could submit one tomorrow proposing we abandon all software development and open a yak farm instead.
A Change proposal existing is in no way an indication of any ultimate outcome. Change proposals can be, and frequently are, rejected. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Adam Williamson wrote:
Change proposals can be, and frequently are, rejected.
If you look at the statistics, they very rarely are. A lot of bad changes with lots of criticism on the mailing list were waved through by FESCo. But if they dare touching a Red Hat holy cow such as the dogma of defaulting to GNOME everywhere, they are likely to be rejected. (Been there, done that.)
Kevin Kofler
Am 02.04.24 um 23:32 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 17:37 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I am a happy KDE user, since the good old days of version 1.0. I celebrate this decision! My recognition goes to the enormous and sustained work of the entire KDE community. Cheers, Sergiio
To be clear, there is no 'decision'. This is a Change proposal. Any Fedora community member can submit a Change proposal proposing just about any change; I could submit one tomorrow proposing we abandon all software development and open a yak farm instead.
A Change proposal existing is in no way an indication of any ultimate outcome. Change proposals can be, and frequently are, rejected.
Sorry, for not knowing the process right but where to vote up/down for such proposal?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 06:17:59PM +0200, Leon Fauster via devel wrote:
Am 02.04.24 um 23:32 schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 17:37 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
I am a happy KDE user, since the good old days of version 1.0. I celebrate this decision! My recognition goes to the enormous and sustained work of the entire KDE community. Cheers, Sergiio
To be clear, there is no 'decision'. This is a Change proposal. Any Fedora community member can submit a Change proposal proposing just about any change; I could submit one tomorrow proposing we abandon all software development and open a yak farm instead.
A Change proposal existing is in no way an indication of any ultimate outcome. Change proposals can be, and frequently are, rejected.
Sorry, for not knowing the process right but where to vote up/down for such proposal?
You can provide your feedback here or in the discussion thread.
The actual voting on proposals happens with FESCo members once the proposal has had feedback from the community (and of course if it's not withdrawn, etc).
kevin
From what I've been reading it seems the path of least resistance is to just keep the Fedora Workstation branding and have two options: GNOME or KDE Plasma. I don't believe that it should be overly confusing to ask people to pick one. I just asked Google Gemini to come up with a suggestion and here is the output. Obviously, the AI output can be improved, but at least to me, it seems fairly straightforward:
<<<GEMINI OUTPUT>>>
Here's how to communicate the option between GNOME and KDE on Fedora Workstation's webpage:
Headline:
Choice & Control: Choose Your Fedora Workstation Experience Power Up Your Desktop: GNOME or KDE Plasma for Fedora
Body:
Fedora Workstation Now Offers a Choice: For the first time, you can choose between the streamlined GNOME desktop or the highly customizable KDE Plasma desktop during Fedora Workstation installation.
Find Your Perfect Fit: Whether you prefer a clean and user-friendly experience (GNOME) or a feature-rich and adaptable desktop (KDE Plasma), Fedora Workstation has you covered.
Seamless Switching (Optional): Briefly mention the ability to install both environments later, but emphasize the ease of choice during installation.
Icons/Visuals: Use visuals that showcase the strengths of each desktop. A clean and modern image for GNOME and a feature-rich, customizable image for KDE Plasma.
Call to Action:
Download Fedora Workstation Now! (with clear links)
Learn More About GNOME & KDE Plasma (with links to informative pages)
Keep it Simple: Avoid technical jargon. Focus on the user experience benefits of each desktop.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney amoloney@redhat.com wrote:
Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraPlasmaWorkstation
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== Summary == Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining release-blocking status.
== Owner ==
- Names: [[User:joshstrobl | Joshua Strobl]], [[User:marcdeop | Marc
Deop i Argemí]], [[User:tdawson | Troy Dawson]], [[User:farchord | Steve Cossette]], [[User:aleasto| Alessandro Astone]]
- Emails: joshua@buddiesofbudgie.org, marcdeop@fedoraproject.org,
tdawson@redhat.com, farchord@gmail.com, aleasto@fedoraproject.org
== Detailed Description ==
With the release of Plasma 6, KDE Plasma has developed into a high quality, well-regarded desktop experience.
=== Improved end user experience ===
Plasma has been at the forefront of creating a cohesive desktop platform that empowers the user to have full ownership of their computing experience.
Plasma provides this approachable, highly-flexible, user-extensible experience with predictability across Plasma releases. Unlike other desktop experiences such as GNOME Shell, the APIs leveraged by Plasma applets / widgets have been more stable across “minor” Plasma releases, reducing long-term user frustration and promoting a healthier ecosystem for developers and users alike.
This extensibility additionally applies to the underlying window manager, KWin, with effects and scripts that provide both utility and personalization, such as:
- Automatically blocking compositing for full screen applications
- Fun effects such as window glitch and portals
Plasma provides a more traditional user experience that could be viewed as being more approachable to everyday computing users, serving as a smoother "on-ramp" to using Linux-based operating systems. Alongside its wide breadth of personalization capabilities, it provides an out-of-the-box desktop experience that is more predictable than some of its counterparts. As an example, Plasma provides a system tray for applications supporting StatusNotifierItem (e.g. Flameshot, OBS Studio, VPN clients), which is not functionality supported by default in GNOME Shell and requires an extension which may break between releases.
=== Standardization support ===
The KDE community has a long heritage of collaborative standards development and supporting capabilities that application developers and users need for a productive experience.
KDE is heavily involved in the development of cross-desktop standards and tools that benefit the larger open source desktop community. From the XDG icon theme specification to D-Bus to StatusNotifierItems and Wayland protocols, KDE has been front and center for evolving the Linux desktop platform in a manner that benefits the wider community.
Many of the specifications and protocols in use today originate or are heavily influenced by KDE, and KDE has continued to be a bastion of innovation in a user-centric and community-centric manner.
Notably, the following recent Wayland protocols have been driven or influenced by KDE:
- xdg-toplevel-drag (dragging tabs in and out of windows)
- content-type
- drm-lease (enable applications to selectively gain privileged
display device access)
- tearing-control (enable faster than display framerate refreshing, ie
no “vsync lock”)
- ext-idle-notify
- xdg-activation (enable notifications to bring a window to the
foreground on user activation)
- xdg-decoration (server side decorations, derived from KDE’s protocol)
There are several upcoming protocols being driven by KDE as well, such as:
- alpha-modifier (set alpha values for a surface)
- ext-blur (enable blur effect underneath a surface)
- xdg-toplevel-icon (enable applications to set window icons)
- ext-placement (allow application window positioning)
- window-id (consistent, uniform method window IDs)
- xdg-pip (picture in picture overlays)
- dbus-annotation (link D-Bus objects to surfaces)
This demonstrates that KDE works not to just enable new technologies and features for Plasma Wayland, but they also do it in a way that drives larger community adoption, success, and growth.
=== Wayland support ===
KDE Plasma offers the most advanced Wayland desktop experience today, providing support for highly-demanded features, such as:
- Fractional scaling
- Color management
- Variable Refresh Rate for capable displays
- Support for optionally allowing legacy X11 applications to access
desktop resources
- Screensharing for legacy applications
- Global shortcut support for legacy applications
- Support for accessibility, including integration with the Orca screen
reader
- Support for AR/VR displays
=== Industry support ===
KDE Plasma has been garnering wider industry support in consumer products over the last couple years. This includes various PINE64 products (PinePhones, PineBooks, etc.), the Steam Deck from Valve, and Tuxedo OS from Tuxedo Computers.
The Steam Deck in particular has brought the Linux desktop in the form of KDE Plasma to more people than ever before, through the desktop mode in SteamOS 3.x releases. As a result, Valve has heavily invested into KDE and its technology stack for mainstream usage. Game developers are also testing on KDE Plasma more often nowadays as part of SteamOS compatibility testing.
=== Community Support ===
A number of Fedora downstreams have launched with KDE Plasma as the flagship experience or migrated to it over time. Notably Fedora Asahi Remix uses KDE Plasma as the flagship due to significantly better support and features for ARM based platforms and the hardware that Apple Silicon systems have. Nobara uses KDE Plasma as the flagship due to a high quality Wayland experience that supports gaming and game development well.
Developers of Linux XR applications and services already recommend using KDE Plasma to be able to leverage AR/VR experiences in a modern desktop.
Starting in 2025, KDE Plasma’s release cycle switches to a semi-annual cadence that lines up with Fedora Linux releases, enabling a tight interlock of development and integration between Fedora and KDE.
== Feedback ==
== Benefit to Fedora ==
- Fedora Linux advertises and advocates for the most advanced Wayland
desktop experience with broad community support and engagement.
- We ship a desktop experience that supports the wide range of user
needs and enables the experiences people expect from a modern desktop (HDR, VRR, VR gaming, HiDPI) and strives to support as many users as possible in a manner that results in positive engagement with the community.
- We align the default Fedora workstation experience with what the
larger PC ecosystem expects for a high quality desktop.
== Scope ==
- Proposal owners: fedora-release: -kde subpackages get renamed to
-workstation-kde. -workstation subpackages get renamed to -workstation-gnome.
- Other developers: Fedora Plasma Workstation is added to the main
landing page and promoted as the default desktop experience
- Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12043 12043]
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
- Policies and guidelines: No, it would not required changes as it is
already release-blocking.
- Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
- Alignment with Community Initiatives: N/A
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
Existing Fedora Workstation systems will not be switched to KDE Plasma. This will only affect new installs of Fedora Workstation. Existing Fedora KDE installs will be upgraded to the Plasma Workstation branding.
== How To Test ==
As the fundamental experience is not changing in the existing KDE Plasma variant, users can try out the Fedora KDE spin to see what Fedora Plasma Workstation looks like.
== User Experience == The user experience does not change from the existing KDE Plasma variant. Existing Fedora Workstation users won’t see their experience change. New users of Fedora will get KDE Plasma instead of GNOME.
== Dependencies ==
N/A
== Contingency Plan ==
Retain the existing default GNOME experience for Fedora Workstation. Move Fedora Plasma Workstation back to spin branding.
== Documentation ==
Documentation would need to be updated to reference Plasma and point links to KDE rather than GNOME.
== Release Notes ==
Fedora Linux now offers a new default workstation experience as “Fedora Plasma Workstation” using KDE Plasma Desktop. This replaces the previous Fedora KDE Plasma spin. The previous "GNOME Shell"-based desktop experience can now be accessed through its dedicated Edition page.
-- Aoife Moloney
Fedora Operations Architect
Fedora Project
Matrix: @amoloney:fedora.im
IRC: amoloney
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
The proposal is trolling.
However it may show an underlying issue, but it is not being identified correctly let alone being addressed.
Members of the KDE SIG want Plasma spin to have more prominence, but this is hard in combination with Workstation taking the limelight.
A problem with some of the comments suggesting to give options for KDE is they try to define Workstation/gnome, but since they dont use it, they seem like hilarious caricatures and often contradictory. I have read them describe both as alien to new users compared to Plasma and also as the new user friendly option compared to Plasma. But why are they trying to define gnome here or even trying to compete like this?
A solution would be to give Plasma its own website with its own TLD where it can proclaim all of its virtues without the need to compare itself with gnome or with Fedora Workstation. That way all the virtues of the Plasma spin can be extolled.
As an example of this, the Kubuntu website doesn't compare itself against gnome, or even mention it. It doesn't need to. It can focus on being its own thing.
-
Aaron Rainbolt -
Adam Williamson -
Andreas Tunek -
Aoife Moloney -
Björn Persson -
foxt https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010 -
Gerald B. Cox -
Gordon Messmer -
Iñaki Ucar -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Jonathan Wakely -
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Kilian Hanich -
Leon Fauster -
Leslie Satenstein -
Luis Correia -
Marc Deop i Argemí -
Michael Catanzaro -
Naheem Zaffar -
Neal Gompa -
Peter Boy -
Przemek Klosowski -
Richard Hughes -
Sam Varshavchik -
Sergio Belkin -
Stephen Smoogen -
Steve Cossette -
Steven A. Falco -
Tomasz Torcz -
Vít Ondruch -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek