KDE integration/status for Workstation

[Christian Schaller]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>
> To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: "KDE on Fedora discussion" <kde at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:29:42 PM
> Subject: Re: KDE integration/status for Workstation
> 
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Adam Williamson" <awilliam at redhat.com>
> >> > To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop"
> >> > <desktop at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:20:06 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: KDE integration/status for Workstation
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 19:59 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> > > Hi All,
> >> > >
> >> > > During the default DE discussions, a number of WG members expressed
> >> > > interest in keeping KDE as a release blocking DE for Workstation.  QA
> >> > > is now asking FESCo about KDE's status as well in
> >> > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1243
> >> > >
> >> > > So if KDE is going to be a release blocking DE for Workstation, we
> >> > > need to figure out how exactly it gets installed and what manner it
> >> > > would be tested in.  In the above ticket I came up with the following:
> >> > >
> >> > > install the Workstation live image, install KDE through
> >> > > software-installer (if necessary), log into KDE from GDM after
> >> > > install, test
> >> > >
> >> > > However, that was entirely off the top of my head.  Would the live
> >> > > image be large enough to contain the KDE Workstation already or would
> >> > > a user/QA tester need to install it through the software-installer?
> >> > > What tests should be done?  Etc.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > This with my Personal Opinion hat on, not representing QA:
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure all/most people who actually want to use Fedora KDE are
> >> > likely to be sold on doing it by downloading what they will see as
> >> > 'GNOME', installing that, and then installing KDE on top of it. I think
> >> > this will be fine for some folks, but there'll be a significant
> >> > constituency which just wants a KDE image.
> >> >
> >> > In fact we might be creating a bit of a problem, because I can see both
> >> > "want KDE as an alternative desktop on top of the Workstation product"
> >> > and "just want Fedora KDE" as two entirely legitimate and viable
> >> > constituencies, which sort of means we've just created a bunch of extra
> >> > work for ourselves. I'm not sure I see a clever magical solution to
> >> > that, though. Engage brain cells...
> >> > --
> >> Well my take is that there will never be a solution that makes everyone
> >> happy,
> >> but in my mind the expectation here has always been that the people who
> >> would
> >> not be happy about the proposed solution would end up focusing their
> >> energy
> >> on
> >> doing a remix. Because there isn't really a way we can make a product and
> >> at
> >> the
> >> same time be a solution for people who essentially want a different
> >> product.
> >
> > Yep, and that probably leads back to the question if we want or don't want
> > to
> > provide more products than we currently have so far (three). And to be
> > honest,
> > I like idea having more products but with very high bar (that should apply
> > for all products) - to avoid a situation of having dozens of products but
> > still be inclusive.
> 
> All of your subsequent email is perfectly fine, but this thread is
> focused on what we want to do with KDE in the Workstation product.  If
> you want to advocate for a KDE product, please take that discussion to
> the devel list.  I don't want to derail this conversation, and this
> list isn't the right place to discuss what you're suggesting.
> 
> > CC'ing KDE mailing list. Due to some other stuff, I'm not very active
> > recently in discussion but initially KDE SIG was more inclined to own
> > product, then I saw a few people more inclined being part of WS WG and
> > now I think it's clearly steering back to spin/product. Remix would be
> > suicide - even KDE SIG is pretty big team, active,  with healthy
> > community, it would mean a lot of duplication etc.
> 
> I think Christian actually meant spin, not remix, in the Fedora
> definition of those terms.
> 

I actually did mean remix, but it of course do boil down to what spin vs remix 
actually ends up meaning. I do realize that they are both somewhat loosely defined
terms with different people putting different meaning to them.

So in general I am strongly against a proliferation of products in the sense that
I see the general Fedora download experience to be a page presenting you with 3
easily identifiable and zero overlap options (desktop, server, clould). One could argue 
that one could add a few more options there for other clearly distinct usecases, but in 
general if the page turns into a long list of options, we have lost the point doing the 
products to begin with.

Remixes for me is more along the lines of what is happening in the Ubuntu world, where
all remixes/spins or whatever you want to call them are branded separately, making the 
distinction clear of what is the core product and what is derivatives. (That said
I would suggest we do not do the alternative branding along the same lines as Ubuntu did
making them all variations of the Fedora name.)

Anyway, I guess this discussion belongs on -devel and not here.

Christian