Jaroslav Reznik (jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > Our aim is on educational/scientific/engineering product. So the first > two cases is what I'd insist on (even it has some overlap with WS). > > For fifth use case you're right but I was overvoted in WG. > > > While scientists and content creators are listed cases the wording > > suggests that power users and developers are the core audience of the > > Plasma Product. > > It should not, could you give us guidance how we can make sure the > first two uses cases are the most important? > > > It isn't easy for me to see these two target descriptions as not > > overlapping for the most part. Maybe someone can add some explanation > > here so I can understand the differences you see in the audiences. > > Any hints to make it more clear welcomed. OK. I'm coming at the PRD from the idea that we would want another product to not have significant overlap with Workstation, and to be use-case (not technology) focused. If the Board decides otherwise, so be it. 1. "The WG aims to create a reliable, user-friendly and powerful operating system for laptops and PC hardware, leveraging the KDE Plasma Workspaces technologies." This is the *exact* sentence as Workstation, with KDE added onto the end. That is not differentiation, even if other targets are added later. 2. "primarily aimed at providing educational and scientific software" "special focus on providing a platform for everyone working on and with the KDE Plasma Workspaces..." "While the power user desktop is the main target of this system..." These are obviously all three separate things. 3. "work towards standardizing and unifying the Linux desktop space" We're so focused on unifying and standardizing that we have two of them! 4. "Power user" IMO, that's not a clearly defined use case. 5. "Case 5: Developer" As mentioned above, direct overlap with workstation. 6. Technology-focused PRD The Workstation PRD, for better or worse, goes to great pain to never reference any specific technology aside from an offhand reference to Wayland and pulesaudio (which is duplicated in this PRD, even though the PA reference somewhat conflicts with the phonon mention in the tech spec). The Plasma PRD, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to mention specific technology implementations for most every detail mentioned, from word processors to data visualization to IDEs to educational tools. This furthers the impression that the goal of this product is specifically focused on the technology implementation (QT/KDE). Bill _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
