On Feb 2, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote:
> On 02/02/2014 11:57 PM, Robert Mayr wrote: >> 2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at>: >>> Adam Williamson wrote: >>>> We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product, >>>> but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem >>>> to quite work with the Product conception. >>> >>> Why not? >>> >>> I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, either KDE becomes a Product or the whole >>> concept of "Products" gets dropped. >>> >>> The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we >>> get degraded to a second-class citizen? >>> >>> Kevin Kofler >> >> Why do you think only about KDE? This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war >> IMHO. >> The product for Desktop users should be just one, Workstation. And >> KDE, as Xfce or LXDE are part of this product and should live under >> the wing of the Workstation. That's not a degration in my eyes, just >> another array, and it's not constructive to have for every DE >> environment a separate product. > > I do not think it's useful to split Fedora into any amount of "products" (I > also have never considered the spins to be useful). > > IMO, a Linux distro.is a "construction kit", where _users_ should be able to > choose to compose their own setup, not what some committee, secret cabal or > "WG" thinks the user should choose. This makes no sense, either to describe Fedora.last or Fedora.next. I could pick any distribution and compose my own setup if I'm willing to work hard enough at it. But I want people, who I think actually know better than I do, to discover and define what best practices are or need to be matured; to make a clear bet on what technologies are nascent but have a good chance of being viable, and laying out a suggested path for implementation and future work. I consider that a proposal which I can take or leave. Even by constraining my choices, I gain by opting in. It's flawed logic that says more choice is inherently better. There's a reason why we have concepts like focus, emphasis, prominence and triage. All things are not equal. >> Fedora.next is not this, fedora.next >> aims to have 3 main products for different use cases, there is no >> reason to have a separate product for every single Spin unless we want >> to go backwards again. > > Actually, I think Fedora is going backwards in time, … If that's true, at least then it's not stuck in time, which would be decidedly worse. If it really is going backwards, this whole adventure will all the sooner reveal itself as the wrong direction. But I think it's a necessary process in eventually moving forward in any case. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
