Dne 29.11.2013 14:18, Lennart Poettering napsal(a):
On Wed, 27.11.13 19:18, Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:01:25AM +0100, drago01 wrote:
I don't think we should aim at the general user, because not only is that
nebulous, it has all of those same problems.
That happens to be what every successful desktop (and mobile) OS have
been doing.
They built a system that is generally useful, they don't really care
whether you are a developer, graphics designer, gamer or whatever.
If the operating system works for the general user case it works for
pretty much everything else (it is just a matter of installing the
right applications / tools).
An operating system designed for a specific user type is doomed to end
up being a niche OS.
We're always going to be a niche OS, at least on the desktop -- which is,
itself, an increasingly small niche. But, let me restate my initial point.
It's great if we can be totally awesome for everyone, and sure, it's fine to
try for it. *And*, within that subset of everyone, there are some people we
want to make particularly happy.
One subset that I've identified is the one I mentioned -- the sysadmin who
runs RHEL or Fedora server systems and has Fedora on his or her desktop. The
entire LISA conference was _full_ of these people. As I mentioned in the
earlier thread, they don't all use Gnome, but they do use Fedora, and very
well _could_ use Gnome if we tailored the experience to their needs.
I think it's completely fair to say that previously, we've responded to
feedback from this demographic with "well, you're not a general user --
you're a weird special case". What I want is to acknowledge that even after
all these years of that, this is still our loyal base, and to make every one
of those feel like we are actually directly listening to their concerns
(even if they can't all be addressed).
This is just well disguised anti-GNOME FUD. I don't think this is useful at
all. You are just trying to turn GNOME into what you personally think
that GNOME should be, suggesting it was in some way accepted truth that
GNOME would be awful in its current state for admin and technical
folks. But that's not accepted truth, that's just your personal
opinion. And I certainly disagree with it, and so do many
That's what _I_ want out of a Fedora Workstation product. If there are other
classes of user where the same sort of feeling applies as well, let's
include those too. Maybe that *is* developers, although as expressed, I'm
skeptical. Maybe it's the maker/designer market -- at least the Creative
Commons / Free Culture segment of it. Those aren't areas where I have a huge
amount of history, interaction, or feedback from users. I talk about the
sysadmin case because there I *do* have those things and I'm quite sure of
myself.
Is this a matter of just installing the right applications and tools? Maybe.
It also involves being responsive to feedback, and testing changes with that
audience to make sure that they actually make the experience better as
intended, rather than becoming an irritation.
<snip>
Without GNOME you wouldn't have standardized IPC on Linux (I mean,
seriously fuck it, which other general purpose OS has no sane
standardized IPC to start with?), there wouldn't be sane device
management, nothing. The "base OS" people of Linux couldn't get here shit
together to get this infrastructure in place, so the GNOME guys had to
do it instead.
You would have, I know this FAQ is really outdated but still, there was
a DCOP IPC mechanism before DBUS got created and which KDE also adopted
later on: http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-faq.html#dcop
<quote>
D-Bus is intentionally pretty similar to DCOP, and can be thought of as
a "DCOP the next generation" suitable for sharing between the various
open source desktop projects.
</quote>
--
Lukáš Tinkl <ltinkl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Software Engineer - KDE desktop team, Brno
KDE developer <lukas@xxxxxxx>
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
