Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Nov 5 21:06:29 UTC 2013

On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:04 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:44:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > "Promote as the Proper Way To Get Apps On GNOME / Fedora Desktop" would
> > NOT be great. Having spent a lot of time thinking about both sides of
> > the debate I'm still firmly in the 'coherent distribution is the ideal
> > state' camp. Upstream distribution is probably never going to go away
> > entirely, and it'd be good to make it as painless and reliable as
> > possible _where it's really necessary to use it_. But it should never be
> > the primary/preferred method of software distribution on Fedora, in my
> > opinion. It should always be an exception.
> I really would like all my desktop applications to run in a sandbox, whether
> they come from upstream directly or from us.

I would like that too, to be clear. That is why I used the term
"upstream distribution" and not the term "sandboxed apps". Sandboxing is
a desirable technology for both upstream and centralized distribution,
which makes its conflation with upstream distribution unfortunate in
this debate: I think that has come about because sandboxing is arguably
more _urgently_ desirable for upstream distribution, but what we're
really arguing about here is the old 'upstream vs. distro-based'
chestnut, not sandboxing.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

More information about the devel mailing list