On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 07:40 -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2014 8:27 PM, "Dan Mashal" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> > > My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred
> desktop
> > > directly, without installing GNOME first.
>
On Mar 25, 2014 8:27 PM, "Dan Mashal" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> > My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred
desktop
> > directly, without installing GNOME first.
>
>
> Exactly this.
>
> Installing MATE from the spin is not exactly t
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>
> On 03/19/2014 11:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>>
>> What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ?
>>
>> The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place
>> of users of other DE's in Fedora
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 08:21 +, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote:
> On 25/03/14 03:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Saying that "nobody" wants this, it's "madness", "totally wacky",
> >> "almost all users are NOT going to put up with th
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:27:19PM -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
> If we can keep the netinstall, which allows people to do exactly this,
> then I really could careless what happens with workstation (and I'm
> also a happy camper, as I imagine you and many others would be too).
I think "generic, flexib
On 03/19/2014 11:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ?
The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at
place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ?
Just create a working group surrounding each of these desktop
envi
2014-03-26 8:47 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Bridon :
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:27 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
[snip]
>> I think the same, if all spins become products we can also keep the
>> actual way. Fedora.next is a very good idea and I'm sure it will have
>> success, but it needs to follow his strategy w
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:27 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
>
> Il 21/mar/2014 12:59 "Matthew Miller" ha
> scritto:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > > I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth
> > > product to those three. KDE can help d
Il 21/mar/2014 12:59 "Matthew Miller" ha scritto:
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth
> > product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new
> > product, what must be done by all te
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred desktop
> directly, without installing GNOME first.
Exactly this.
Installing MATE from the spin is not exactly the same thing as
installing it from the netinstall or the DVD
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:09:09PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >> I said it's "madness" and "totally wacky" to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
>> >> installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
>> >> also what I said "almo
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:09:09PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> I said it's "madness" and "totally wacky" to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
> >> installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
> >> also what I said "almost all users are NOT going to put up with".
> > I haven't hea
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:19PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I said it's "madness" and "totally wacky" to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
>> installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
>> also what I said "almost all
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:19PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I said it's "madness" and "totally wacky" to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
> installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
> also what I said "almost all users are NOT going to put up with".
I haven't heard anyon
Adam Williamson wrote:
> *My* point is that you should make your rhetoric match your point. Two
> or three of those quotations were direct rips from your previous emails
> on the topic. If you don't actually mean those things, then I suggest
> not writing them.
I said it's "madness" and "totally w
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 21:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think
> > (and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I
> > think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people
> >
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think
> (and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I
> think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people
> install Ubuntu, for instance, and then add on GNOME or KDE or so
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:07:43PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE?
> Nobody, it's madness.
I don't think anyone wants to _have_ to, but I think it would be great if we
made it _easy to_ for people who _do_ have Gnome installed
On 25/03/14 03:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Saying that "nobody" wants this, it's "madness", "totally wacky",
"almost all users are NOT going to put up with this" is going rather
too
far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Saying that "nobody" wants this, it's "madness", "totally wacky",
> "almost all users are NOT going to put up with this" is going rather
> too
> far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this
> possible and I suspect quit
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 19:07 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:38 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
> > You always make sense. But nobody listens.
> >
> > Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE?
>
> Nobody, it's madness.
I think this is rather overstati
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:38 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
> You always make sense. But nobody listens.
>
> Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE?
Nobody, it's madness.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that spins are here to stay. Are spins
the best solution to this problem
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Yeah, this idea of having to install GNOME first to be able to install the
> desktop you actually want is totally wacky, and if that is really what we
> recommend to our users, they will run to other distributions (that actually
> support the
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Any other DE that wants to meet the requirements for Workstation is similarly
> welcome.
So if we meet the "requirements" exactly what happens?
As far as I understand, all MATE would have to do is use gdm as the
display manager. Is that correc
2014-03-23 3:48 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler :
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > When we say that there should be "high bar" for becoming a Fedora
> Product,
> > that means that there should be few of them,
>
> I see this repeated over and over by several people. This strikes me as
> quite the opposite of bei
On 23.03.2014 03:45, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be
submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora.
That "policy" is only a non-normative guideline (not part of any enforced
Fedora Guidelines
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> When we say that there should be "high bar" for becoming a Fedora Product,
> that means that there should be few of them,
I see this repeated over and over by several people. This strikes me as
quite the opposite of being inclusive.
IMHO, ALL the current Spins should auto
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be
> submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora.
That "policy" is only a non-normative guideline (not part of any enforced
Fedora Guidelines or Policies). The decision is purely up
Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> The most common user case would to install a spin with DE you want to use.
> I dont think it matter much if Gnome software support installation of
> evironments.
> most other DE spins uses LightDM, so if you want a more lightweight DE,
> you don't
> install the Gnome Desktop
2014-03-21 14:46 GMT+01:00 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn :
> As I perceive it one of the biggest problems for Fedora as a development
> platform for new technologies is that everything is tied to very rigorous
> guidelines and controls that tend to be fairly conservative. This is great
> when you care abo
2014-03-21 10:02 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik :
> > KDE should not be a top level Product. In my opinion, Fedora should only
> > produce the currently listed 3 Products and not more. Otherwise we get
> > back at square 1 where we have too many offerings and nobody knows what
> > makes a supported Fed
On 21.03.2014 13:24, Christian Schaller wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Miller"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:59:01 PM
Subject: Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Fri, M
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:59:01 PM
> Subject: Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 20
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth
> product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new
> product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be
> ... I guess we should speak m
On 03/21/2014 10:02 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
There is also a proposal for a "Fedora Plasma" product based around KDE.
I'm
personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology
showcase masquerading a
- Original Message -
> On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > There is also a proposal for a "Fedora Plasma" product based around KDE.
> > I'm
> > personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology
> > showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point,
I would like to mention that DE spins are very important with regard to the
ARM7 arch. Gnome shell may or might not be working in arm so kde and the
other DE spins are really important. Mostly kde from a QA perspective. As a
primary architecture I feel this deserve extra considering. Arm QA is base
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > Workstation might implement easy installation of alternative desktops in
> > the GNOME Software app at some point.
>
> Urgh. This is just moving the problem from the installer/media selection
> to the
> sof
- Original Message -
> Workstation might implement easy installation of alternative desktops in
> the GNOME Software app at some point.
Urgh. This is just moving the problem from the installer/media selection to the
software installer. Just what would we gain by doing that given that there
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:27:45PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> I would like to see more focus in Fedora. And to me, having these 3 core
> Products is a good way of doing that. Instead of saying that everything
> in Fedora is equal, we would now say that these 3 products are the main
> deliverable.
On 03/19/2014 01:35 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:29:24PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora,
>> both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make
>> sure KDE is fully functional before ro
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:29:24PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora,
> both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make
> sure KDE is fully functional before rolling out a Fedora release.
Should this (the relea
On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> There is also a proposal for a "Fedora Plasma" product based around KDE. I'm
> personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology
> showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point, and I'd like to be
> convinced that this
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:52:07PM +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ?
We had a big discussion about this last month. General consensus is that we
don't see spins going away, at least in the near future.
The Fedora products are intended to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/19/2014 07:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ?
>
> The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be
> at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ?
>
Fedora Products
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ?
They still exist.
> The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of
> users of other DE's in Fedora.next ?
Workstation uses GNOME as the default D
46 matches
Mail list logo
