Underlying DE for the Fedora Workstation product, Meta-Desktop

[Alexander GS]

Just to clarify if the GNOME Meta-Desktop is implemented GNOME 3 and
GNOME 2 will just be two fully separate desktop interfaces and
experiences sitting on top of the same fully modern foundation called
GNOME Minimal which includes the technologies you mentioned.

MATE would be involved with as well as a major contributor to GNOME 2.
Because projects like MATE are usually low on resources this would be an
amazing platform for them. If you look at the proposal there's an SVG
image that shows MATE and GNOME 2 as having a direct connection. 

https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop

At the same time MATE developers could maintain a separate community and
make it's own GNOME 2 spin and include it's own custom applications,
themes and branding for things like Linux Mint and it's other interests.


On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:09 -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Alexander GS <alxgrtnstrngl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> The GNOME we're trying to build has its own vision, and it's trying to
> >> become its own well-defined product: The number-one free software
> >> operating system.
> >
> > Not it's not. This means that they have a single dedicated desktop
> > experience and that the community is allowed to use those components but
> > there isn't a formal mechanism to standardize to a common core.  It also
> > excludes any potential requirements for a separate desktop environment
> > for commercial vendors. If you actually read my Proposal you would
> > realize that.
> >
> > I have worked out a compromise that works for GNOME 3, GNOME 2 and the
> > Gnome community projects.  It's called the GNOME Meta-Desktop.
> >
> > PROPOSAL
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > GNOME Meta-Desktop
> >
> > Problem
> >
> > For some time now, Linux has been evolving beyond the idea of the
> > "single" desktop platform. This is not Windows where each platform is
> > bolted down to a single desktop interface design. Unfortunately projects
> > like GNOME have been slow to adapt. GNOME's focus on a single dedicated
> > desktop interface design has caused the Linux desktop space to fragment
> > causing divisions and frictions between the various communities. This
> > has also deprived commercial Linux platforms the ability to shape
> > desktops that fit strict requirements demanded by their target markets.
> >
> > Currently and unofficially GNOME is evolving into a meta-desktop with
> > GNOME Shell, Cinnamon and MATE the resultant outputs of this evolution.
> > This brings along with it several problems such as fragmentation and
> > redundancies. The GNOME meta-desktop needs to be standardized, needs
> > community collaboration and needs GNOME in-house desktop products to
> > drive it forward.
> >
> > https://wiki.gnome.org/AlexGS/GnomeMetaDesktop
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Pursuant to this proposal being accepted and implemented the following
> > will occur:
> >
> > - The Fedora Workstation product will feature GNOME 3 as it's official
> > default and GNOME 2 will always be bundled with GNOME 3 on Workstation
> > installations and on install images.  Installations and install disks
> > that do not contain both GNOME 3 and GNOME 2 cannot be considered Fedora
> > Workstation.  This requirement remains indefinitely.
> >
> > - GNOME 2 will be the default for RHEL and CentOS. Users will have the
> > option of installing GNOME 3 as well. They will have to add special
> > repositories to do this.
> >
> > - Community desktops based on GNOME re-spins like MATE or forks like
> > Cinnamon in addition to non-GNOME desktops like KDE and will be
> > "supported" desktops but NOT included by default on Fedora Workstation
> > installation.
> 
> 
> You're saying to include Gnome 2 instead of MATE? That is definitely
> NOT going to work.
> 
> Gnome 2 is obsoleted. It has no support for systemd/logind, newer
> versions of upower, etc. etc. and nobody is going to spend the time to
> code it. It just wouldn't work.
> 
> MATE on the other hand does.
> 
> I do like the proposal in general, it was along the lines of the
> "choose your own adventure" approach I  was proposing, but exactly how
> would you plan on getting it accepted?
> 
> 
> Dan