> Rahul, I question the point of ... making laundry lists of pros, cons, bugs > of desktop X vs Y... I'm sure folks can come up with a similar list of > gnome (or other) related negative items, or kde-only features too but I > question it's constructiveness. > > My only comments here: > > 1. The desktop spin *is* gnome for cryin out loud. Seriously, common sense > is just screaming in my head to call a spade a spade. > > 2. A bigger question to me is what does it mean to be the "default" > desktop. All this "it's the default because..." comments make me wonder if > folks are just grasping for reasons to justify the status quo. Where or how > is this documented anywhere? If it isn't, shouldn't it be? We have a Desktop team. So IMHO the default desktop is what they decide it to be. They are currently focused only on Gnome. If they were focused on KDE, then the default desktop would be KDE. To change that, it would take some KDE contributors to join the Desktop team. When both are as well represented in the Desktop team, then the default desktop might be both of them. If KDE becomes more represented in the Desktop team, then it might become the one default desktop. To me, it's only a matter of who does the work. Would you complain that most of our webapps use TurboGears instead of Tomcat ? No, simply becasue that's what those who do the work (the Infrastructure team) decided to use. That's the same for the Desktop team. It doesn't take any policy to change this fact. It takes people willing to do the job where it needs to happen, in the right team. Just my thoughts anyway... ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
