On 01/30/2014 09:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Given the tension between the definition of a "Workstation Product" and > the multiple desktop spins that I've identified on devel@ - i.e. that a > "Workstation product" built around a single desktop occupies the > 'desktop space', without accounting for alternative desktops - do you > definitely want to go ahead with the model where the WS product is > specifically associated with a single desktop and makes no attempt to > somehow 'include' alternative desktops, or is it worth considering > possible approaches that somehow account for alternatives? I realize it > might be quite late to do that, but it seemed worth asking the question. I personally feel that a single default offering is a must, if Fedora is to be successful in the desktop market. We have been losing market share to Ubuntu that has one single default desktop product, and I think this is a lesson to learn from. When I joined the Workstation WG, I did that to help build a successful product. To build a base system system that user can rely on; a base system that 3rd party vendors can reliably target with their software. Most other WG members I've talked to are also here to help build a single product. I do not want to downplay the value of Spins and alternative offerings, but I personally do not want to spend my time developing them, and I'd rather see if they were developed elsewhere and the Workstation WG was limited to putting together one product. -- Kalev -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
