On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 14:48 +0100, Lukáš Tinkl wrote: > Dne 3.2.2014 14:38, Richard Hughes napsal(a): > > On 3 February 2014 13:26, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Really why is the "workstation working group" dictating and decided that.. > >> a) it's an single product > >> b) a single desktop environment > >> c) which desktop environment it is > > > > The reality is, what we've done for the last 19 releases isn't > > working. People don't know what "Fedora" is. Ubuntu has done a much > > better job of marketing themselves, and I'm sure it's no small amount > > due to the lack of confusion about their brand and offering. At the > > moment people wanting a Fedora desktop are shown this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/en_GB/get-fedora#desktops which is confusing > > as hell. All desktops that look somewhat similar with different subtle > > architectural, cultural or package changes in each. Compare to > > http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop which clearly has one product. Ubuntu > > still has a KDE version, it's just not called "Ubuntu KDE" and placed > > with the same prominence as "Ubuntu > > The-one-most-people-are-actually-using" > > > > If people want to go and build Kedora or MATEora that's fine for me, > > and probably makes sense to share infrastructure and base package > > sets. To allow users to choose a "spin" for our workstation product? > > Crazy. > > > > Richard. > > > > I've yet to see the correlation between their marketing and confusion > about the brand, and the impact on our "product". Perhaps it's just the > marketing, not the freedom of choice, maybe we're offering the wrong > desktop as the default choice, who knows... and what if we go their way > of just offering our workstation product and people say "hey, this is > not Fedora anymore, we might as well go with Ubuntu". I don't think we necessarily need to pursue this debate any further in this context - I just don't think it's necessary for either point of view. The Workstation "product" WG gets to define the lines that bound the Workstation product. But: * it doesn't get to define anything in particular about the non-Workstation space * it doesn't get to decide precisely how our marketing is going to work I'd say that given those two things, it's fairly unnecessary to discuss this whole topic area in the context of the Workstation WG. There is more than enough space outside the Workstation product 'space' to handle other desktops: as other Products, as spins, as something else entirely. We're already discussing that on devel@. Ditto the question of how precisely we describe and communicate whatever arrangement of Products and other deliverables we ultimately decide on: that's not a discussion that is specific to a single Product, it's an area we have not yet finalized or even really started thinking seriously about, and we have a huge range of possibilities. Basically, nothing about any decision that has been made by FESCo, the Board, or the Workstation WG so far as I can see places any particular restrictions on us at all as to how we decide to define, describe and deliver desktops outside the one the Workstation WG decides to choose as the basis of their product. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
