On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Onyeibo Oku twohotis@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 15:57 -0400, Ryan Lerch wrote:
The new GNOME shipped with fedora 20 has the awesome new ability to set different backgrounds for both the lock screen/shield and the normal regular desktop background.
Currently in f20 alpha TC4, we set the old f19 default background for the desktop, and a completely different pink, fan style design for the lock screen. IMHO, the defaults should behave the same as the f19, setting the default background for both.
thoughts?
I kinda like the bland grayish login background on F19. I suggest that stays the default. We can always brainstorm on alternatives.
Regards Onyeibo
design-team mailing list design-team@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/design-team
The lockscreen/login screen is the same grey texture. What Ryan is talking about is the image used for the lockscreen sliding "shield".
On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 13:28 +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
I kinda like the bland grayish login background on F19. I suggest that stays the default. We can always brainstorm on alternatives.
That is a misunderstanding.
The login screen stays with gray, which is the color we use to indicate 'system context'. What is becoming configurable in f20 is the screen shield. It was blue by default in f19, since it was using the same image as the default background. In gnome 3.10, the default upstream image is a pinkish sunburst image. I'll be the first one to admit that it takes some getting used to.
On 09/06/2013 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
<snip>
The login screen stays with gray, which is the color we use to indicate 'system context'. What is becoming configurable in f20 is the screen shield. It was blue by default in f19, since it was using the same image as the default background. In gnome 3.10, the default upstream image is a pinkish sunburst image. I'll be the first one to admit that it takes some getting used to.
Can the screen shield be made always off? I.e., I would prefer not to have it.
TIA
On 09/06/2013 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The login screen stays with gray, which is the color we use to indicate 'system context'. What is becoming configurable in f20 is the screen shield. It was blue by default in f19, since it was using the same image as the default background. In gnome 3.10, the default upstream image is a pinkish sunburst image. I'll be the first one to admit that it takes some getting used to.
Is it an svg bg? Maybe we can just pull out the pink color and make it a grey or blue fan.
~m
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is it an svg bg? Maybe we can just pull out the pink color and make it a grey or blue fan.
No, it's a png[0].
Maybe we should just replace it with the default GNOME background (given that we'll replace it with the Fedora wallpaper in the user session)?
[0] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-backgrounds/plain/backgrounds/Sunset.png
On 06/09/13 18:06, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The login screen stays with gray, which is the color we use to indicate 'system context'. What is becoming configurable in f20 is the screen shield. It was blue by default in f19, since it was using the same image as the default background. In gnome 3.10, the default upstream image is a pinkish sunburst image. I'll be the first one to admit that it takes some getting used to.
Is it an svg bg? Maybe we can just pull out the pink color and make it a grey or blue fan.
Something like this?
http://ryanlerch.org/Sunset.png
cheers, ryanlerch
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Ryan Lerch rlerch@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/09/13 18:06, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
The login screen stays with gray, which is the color we use to indicate 'system context'. What is becoming configurable in f20 is the screen shield. It was blue by default in f19, since it was using the same image as the default background. In gnome 3.10, the default upstream image is a pinkish sunburst image. I'll be the first one to admit that it takes some getting used to.
Is it an svg bg? Maybe we can just pull out the pink color and make it a grey or blue fan.
Something like this?
http://ryanlerch.org/Sunset.**png http://ryanlerch.org/Sunset.png
cheers, ryanlerch
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.**org desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/desktophttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Yes please
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:10:59PM -0400, Ryan Lerch wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPOmnLWY0Qg
Not that that's a bad thing. :)
On 09/06/2013 01:11 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
<snip>
Can the screen shield be made always off? I.e., I would prefer not to have it.
TIA
Anyone?
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 13:50 -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 09/06/2013 01:11 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
<snip>
Can the screen shield be made always off? I.e., I would prefer not to have it.
TIA
Anyone?
The shield is lowered when the user goes idle. You can inhibit that from happening, e.g. with
gnome-session-inhibit --inhibit idle --inhibit-only
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:32:49PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Can the screen shield be made always off? I.e., I would prefer not to
The shield is lowered when the user goes idle. You can inhibit that from happening, e.g. with gnome-session-inhibit --inhibit idle --inhibit-only
This will also prevent the screen from locking and prevent the monitor from going into power-saving mode, correct?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:32:49PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Can the screen shield be made always off? I.e., I would prefer not to
The shield is lowered when the user goes idle. You can inhibit that from happening, e.g. with gnome-session-inhibit --inhibit idle --inhibit-only
This will also prevent the screen from locking and prevent the monitor from going into power-saving mode, correct?
You can separate shield from locking in gnome control center. I.e. you can have a shield, but it doesn't have to lock the session.
Alas, you always have to have the shield. The only other option is to disable the idle detection (or inhibit it), which wastes energy (monitor doesn't turn off).
At home, I was used to bump the mouse to see my desktop. Now I have to drag or hit Esc. It's not that much difficult, of course, but if I do it twenty times a day, it becomes a bit annoying. The last time I tried, Bastion Nocera successfully ignored my requests to avoid lowering shield when session locking is disabled. It's trendy.
On the other hand, I saw Windows 8 recently and I couldn't find a difference. They copied GNOME's behavior perfectly. It felt like home :-)
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:32:49PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Can the screen shield be made always off? I.e., I would prefer not to
The shield is lowered when the user goes idle. You can inhibit that from happening, e.g. with gnome-session-inhibit --inhibit idle --inhibit-only
This will also prevent the screen from locking and prevent the monitor from going into power-saving mode, correct?
You can separate shield from locking in gnome control center. I.e. you can have a shield, but it doesn't have to lock the session.
Alas, you always have to have the shield. The only other option is to disable the idle detection (or inhibit it), which wastes energy (monitor doesn't turn off).
At home, I was used to bump the mouse to see my desktop. Now I have to drag or hit Esc. It's not that much difficult, of course, but if I do it twenty times a day, it becomes a bit annoying. The last time I tried, Bastion Nocera successfully ignored my requests to avoid lowering shield when session locking is disabled. It's trendy.
I'm pretty sure "Bastion" rejected the idea, instead of simply ignoring it :)
There's a gnome-shell extension to disable it.
On the other hand, I saw Windows 8 recently and I couldn't find a difference. They copied GNOME's behavior perfectly. It felt like home :-)
And that's how to disable it on Windows: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013667/8-worst-windows-8-irritations-and-how...
The reason why it's there is the same as why it's in GNOME, it stops touches/keypresses/mouse clicks from getting to the apps for the time when the screen turns back on. So it's a requirement for touch devices, as well as for desktops and laptops that lack touch.
At home, I was used to bump the mouse to see my desktop. Now I have to drag or hit Esc. It's not that much difficult, of course, but if I do it twenty times a day, it becomes a bit annoying. The last time I tried, Bastion Nocera successfully ignored my requests to avoid lowering shield when session locking is disabled. It's trendy.
I'm pretty sure "Bastion" rejected the idea, instead of simply ignoring it :)
There's a gnome-shell extension to disable it.
Oh, that's so great! It wasn't there when I was looking for it. Here it is: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/672/disable-screen-shield/
Thanks Bastion...er, Bastien.
On the other hand, I saw Windows 8 recently and I couldn't find a difference. They copied GNOME's behavior perfectly. It felt like home :-)
And that's how to disable it on Windows: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013667/8-worst-windows-8-irritations-and-how...
The reason why it's there is the same as why it's in GNOME, it stops touches/keypresses/mouse clicks from getting to the apps for the time when the screen turns back on. So it's a requirement for touch devices, as well as for desktops and laptops that lack touch.
One could argue that users are pretty used to and happy with mouse wiggling. But I don't mind that much, as long as there is the extension available. Thanks again.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:14:36AM -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
There's a gnome-shell extension to disable it.
Oh, that's so great! It wasn't there when I was looking for it. Here it is: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/672/disable-screen-shield/
I've found this to be a little buggy -- it doesn't always work, and sometimes when it does work, it seems to introduce a delay.
If those could be worked out, I think we should consider making this extension installed and enabled by default in Fedora -- we have had a number of user mailing list questions where people were clearly confused.
I think you missed the part of the thread where I mentioned how the current behaviour was necessary.
Installing and *enabling* extensions by default in Fedora, and deviating from upstream isn't something we'd consider.
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:14:36AM -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
There's a gnome-shell extension to disable it.
Oh, that's so great! It wasn't there when I was looking for it. Here it is: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/672/disable-screen-shield/
I've found this to be a little buggy -- it doesn't always work, and sometimes when it does work, it seems to introduce a delay.
If those could be worked out, I think we should consider making this extension installed and enabled by default in Fedora -- we have had a number of user mailing list questions where people were clearly confused.
-- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mattdm@fedoraproject.org -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On 09/17/2013 02:01 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I think you missed the part of the thread where I mentioned how the current behaviour was necessary.
Installing and*enabling* extensions by default in Fedora, and deviating from upstream isn't something we'd consider.
I thought FESCO had made it clear that desktop SIG does not have full control over the defaults ( which is why I went ahead and created Gnome SIG as in so it could be as upstream wanted it to be heck we could even default to btrfs and disable lvm and all the other generic useless stuff rsyslog,sendmail,cron etc we ship and enable by default )
1. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-spins/2013-July/003319.html
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:01:50AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I think you missed the part of the thread where I mentioned how the current behaviour was necessary.
You did say that, but I'm not buying it.
You said that it's necessary as a key-lock. I'm sure there are other ways to solve that which provide a less confusing user experience. And, in fact, it doesn't actually do what you say it is for -- keypresses go right through to the password screen. Ironically, the only thing which doesn't clear the shield are the modifier keys traditionally used to wake a system without causing problems (shift, ctrl, alt).
Furthermore, did notice that the Windows article you linked to is called "worst Windows irritations". Are we really at the point where we're bragging about having the same irritations as Windows? (And apparently that while Windows has an option to disable the behavior we rely on buggy third-party extensions?) I don't think you really mean that, do you?
Furthermore, while having a good experience on touch devices will become more important as touch-enabled laptops become mainstream, I really don't see that as the primary target for Fedora Desktop for a while now.
I think it's time for a redesign. I'm not a UI designer so I'm not going to pretend to prescribe the details, but as it stands now, it's really not great. If an upstream redesign isn't in the near future, let's make it right for our users now.
Installing and *enabling* extensions by default in Fedora, and deviating from upstream isn't something we'd consider.
You're mistaken here. It's definitely something we can consider.
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:13 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 09/17/2013 02:01 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I think you missed the part of the thread where I mentioned how the current behaviour was necessary.
Installing and *enabling* extensions by default in Fedora, and deviating from upstream isn't something we'd consider.
I thought FESCO had made it clear that desktop SIG does not have full control over the defaults ( which is why I went ahead and created Gnome SIG as in so it could be as upstream wanted it to be heck we could even default to btrfs and disable lvm and all the other generic useless stuff rsyslog,sendmail,cron etc we ship and enable by default )
You created a gnome sig ? Thats fascinating, but about as useful as me creating a server sig. Who is in it ? What does it do ?
On 09/17/2013 04:08 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:13 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 09/17/2013 02:01 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I think you missed the part of the thread where I mentioned how the current behaviour was necessary.
Installing and *enabling* extensions by default in Fedora, and deviating from upstream isn't something we'd consider.
I thought FESCO had made it clear that desktop SIG does not have full control over the defaults ( which is why I went ahead and created Gnome SIG as in so it could be as upstream wanted it to be heck we could even default to btrfs and disable lvm and all the other generic useless stuff rsyslog,sendmail,cron etc we ship and enable by default )
You created a gnome sig ? Thats fascinating, but about as useful as me creating a server sig. Who is in it ? What does it do ?
It will be delivering the Fedora Gnome Spin
JBG
On 09/17/2013 11:07 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 16:33 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
It will be delivering the Fedora Gnome Spin
How will the "Fedora GNOME Spin" differ from the default "Desktop" product?
That discussion is off topic for this mailing list so I suggest you subscribe to [1] and take that discussion there.
JBG
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
On 09/17/2013 11:07 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 16:33 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
It will be delivering the Fedora Gnome Spin
How will the "Fedora GNOME Spin" differ from the default "Desktop" product?
That discussion is off topic for this mailing list so I suggest you subscribe to [1] and take that discussion there.
On the contrary, I think it's entirely appropriate to ask why, if we already have a desktop spin and corresponding SIG(ish) that is based on GNOME and contains a large number of upstream GNOME developers why we would have a second spin with 95% overlap, what it's trying to solve, and what the differences would be. Is it expected that they would merge efforts? Diverge further? Are those working in upstream expected to be involved in both? (Or did they even want both?)
Bill
Matthew Miller (mattdm@fedoraproject.org) said:
Installing and *enabling* extensions by default in Fedora, and deviating from upstream isn't something we'd consider.
You're mistaken here. It's definitely something we can consider.
On the one hand, we do make minor deviations in Fedora from upstream packages all the time, whether it's changing kernel configuraitons, adding secure boot support, having different systemd presents, or many other things.
On the other hand, I would like to think, with the number of common developers that work both in Fedora, on RHEL, and in upstream, that we should be able to leverage Fedora user's concerns in a way that we can accomodate expanded usage cases in upstream itself.
Bill
On 09/18/2013 03:57 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
On the contrary, I think it's entirely appropriate to ask why, if we already have a desktop spin and corresponding SIG(ish) that is based on GNOME and contains a large number of upstream GNOME developers why we would have a second spin with 95% overlap, what it's trying to solve, and what the differences would be.
If you dont see the benefit in having this already then it's no point in explaining it because you would not understand or have already made up your mind how you see this.
Is it expected that they would merge efforts?
That highly depends how you look at this and how we ( as an project ) decide to proceed forward for the next 5 - 10 years.
Diverge further?
That's depended on FESCO as has been proven as well as how we proceed further as a project.
Are those working in upstream expected to be involved in both? (Or did they even want both?)
They can if they want to as is with anything, nobody is forcing anything upon anybody here nor am I asking or expecting anyone to do any additional work here.
I suggest next time you guys go witch hunting you actually bother to read the SIG description which should have answer at least some question that was being asked here and I suggest as I have suggested before that you take this discussion to the relevant mailing list if you want to discuss this further.
JBG
----- Original Message -----
On 09/18/2013 03:57 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
<snip>
Are those working in upstream expected to be involved in both? (Or did they even want both?)
They can if they want to as is with anything, nobody is forcing anything upon anybody here nor am I asking or expecting anyone to do any additional work here.
I suggest next time you guys go witch hunting you actually bother to read the SIG description which should have answer at least some question that was being asked here and I suggest as I have suggested before that you take this discussion to the relevant mailing list if you want to discuss this further.
Which is linked from, hmm, here, because it wasn't in any of your e-mails to the list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Gnome
" The Fedora Gnome spin is maintained collectively by the Gnome SIG but should essentially be following upstream module set for any given release starting with 3.10 and only add packages that greatly enhanced that end user experience run on top of btrfs filesystem on modern ( UEFI ) capable hardware. "
Well, we don't use btrfs because it's not ready yet, and integrating better with UEFI is already on the road map for GNOME, or at least to provide boot options in the settings. That includes work on settings (obviously), but also very likely grub or gummiboot, the installer, systemd, etc.
Having to maintain a separate spin isn't going to help us free time to work on this, and even if we are frustrated by some technical decisions that end up being made for us, we plough on, and try to provide better experience all the time.
A separate spin doesn't help.
Cheers
On 09/18/2013 10:48 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Having to maintain a separate spin isn't going to help us free time to work on this, and even if we are frustrated by some technical decisions that end up being made for us, we plough on, and try to provide better experience all the time.
Try yes succeeding no...
First nobody talked about you having to maintain anything or in other words add additional work to the workload that you already have.
The idea that I have personally in my head ( thou community that builds around Gnome SIG might take a different direction ) is making a venue for people to have fun with Gnome, try,test pod probe,poke experiment, explore and enjoy the last years of desktop as we know it.
It also can be used for practical purpose like for example it could be a perfect venue where the more invasive changes in Gnome ( like wayland integration ) might be introduced first time before exposed to the broader "consumer desktop" community. ( dd if=/dev/sdX of=/path/to/your.iso o create an iso to test if people prefer that )
So I'm not so sure we will be releasing a "spin" in that sense we traditionally are used to, as in as an iso file limited to iso sizes and what not hogging resources from releng,qa, infra that too me not only takes out any kind of experimental flexibility but it would take out all the fun of it as well and bury that under bureaucracy and I personally dont see that as an way forward in 5 years time.
My first it's to scratch is to shave of all the legacy cruff that Gnome is carrying with it in the distribution and fix things ( dependency ) in the process ( so the same result can be achieved via traditional means anaconda/lorax what not ) so I can see it for what it really is and where we are at ,not something that is buried under 20 years of *nix.
Then build an "Gnome recipe" as I call it with that gone on top of btrfs and the core/baseOS ( which uses in essence modified Kay's installer script as an installer for that recipe ) and store that and other "Gnome recipes" in a repo on github. ( Download that recipe, swap out couple of package for wayland components boom "Gnome wayland recipe" rename the script upload it to the repo and share it with the world )
Somewhere in the future we might come up with a native Gnome/gtk "stick it" app which you can download those recipes, select and "stick it" to your usb stick and share with your friends since there seems to be marked for that ( who would not want run Linus desktop for a week and see how it feels, well I know that I would not want to do that but I'm pretty sure his "fans" would like that ) .
Approaching it this way gives us ( the Gnome SIG community ) the freedom to "play" and have "fun" with Gnome without adding an additional load on our infrastructure and have us worries about Dennis coming and tackle us in our sleep or me having to smack myself in the back of my head wearing my QA hat while social networking the Gnome experience ;)
And those "recipes" can be easily altered/adjusted for the other *DE encase we as an community in large would like social networking the entire Fedora Desktop Experience
In anycase if you dont want participate in that effort simply dont.
JBG
The issue I see is that you have gnome@lists.fedoraproject.org -- I fear nearly everybody who really wants desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org will wind up on yours by mistake. (That's certainly where I'd go.)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:13:09PM +0000, "J??hann B. Gu??mundsson" wrote:
I thought FESCO had made it clear that desktop SIG does not have full control over the defaults ( which is why I went ahead and created Gnome SIG as in so it could be as upstream wanted it to be heck we could even default to btrfs and disable lvm and all the other generic useless stuff rsyslog,sendmail,cron etc we ship and enable by default )
Ok, so let me get this straight. You created a GNOME SIG because pressing Ctrl or Alt or Shift doesn't raise the curtain?
Cheers, Debarshi
On 09/19/2013 01:38 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
The issue I see is that you havegnome@lists.fedoraproject.org -- I fear nearly everybody who really wantsdesktop@lists.fedoraproject.org will wind up on yours by mistake. (That's certainly where I'd go.)
That's not a bad they since they probably would get better welcome there then on this list.
JBG
On 09/19/2013 04:54 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
Ok, so let me get this straight. You created a GNOME SIG because pressing Ctrl or Alt or Shift doesn't raise the curtain?
Creating a 'GNOME' SIG is rather passive-aggressive, but this isn't fair either. This is an example of causal reductionism of a much more complex problem in that the current Fedora userbase consistently takes issues with defaults and decisions made 'upstream.' You could attempt to reduce the problem to any single one of the ongoing controversies (lock screen shields, no minimize, suspend vs. shutdown, etc. etc.) but the whole problem is much more than the sum of its parts.
These recurring threads are a negative signal. They are symptomatic of a bigger problem - lack of open communication. I understand it is an inconvenience to sit down and write out a problem statement, thoughts behind various ideas explored in order to solve the problem, and a rational explanation of why the chosen solution was chosen and what users can expect ahead of time when you are working at breakneck pace and trying to get the tech designed and implemented in a timely manner. Doesn't constantly dealing with threads like this suck away the time you need to do the awesome work you do as well, though? Why not take the time you would spend dealing with threads like this and invest it in putting together some outlines of whatever is happening those Google Hangouts and IRC discussions that the majority of the Fedora community is not party to, so that there's a bit more context around the changes (users are ALWAYS resistant to change) available before folks start assuming the worst in the current vacuum of information and get whipped up into a froth like this? (git commit messages and the expectation that users who don't work on GNOME have jhbuilds of the development code really don't help.) Oh, and make sure these explanations actually land on Planet Fedora, and not just the upstream planet?
Also, consider that maybe folks like Johann need a place where they can safely experiment and learn from tweaking things without disturbing anyone else. Maybe through that experimentation they would end up reverse engineering the current 'frosted glass' decision-making process and come out with a practical understanding of why upstream made the decisions it made.
I don't think calling the SIG the 'GNOME SIG' makes sense though, especially since that's an upstream community's name. I would think it'd be better named, 'Desktop Playpen SIG,' 'Desktop Customization SIG,' or something like that.
Not that my opinion matters here.
~m
On 09/19/2013 07:47 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
That's not a bad they since they probably would get better welcome there then on this list.
That's not a very nice or productive thing to say.
~m
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
On 09/18/2013 03:57 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
On the contrary, I think it's entirely appropriate to ask why, if we already have a desktop spin and corresponding SIG(ish) that is based on GNOME and contains a large number of upstream GNOME developers why we would have a second spin with 95% overlap, what it's trying to solve, and what the differences would be.
If you dont see the benefit in having this already then it's no point in explaining it because you would not understand or have already made up your mind how you see this.
...
They can if they want to as is with anything, nobody is forcing anything upon anybody here nor am I asking or expecting anyone to do any additional work here.
I suggest next time you guys go witch hunting you actually bother to read the SIG description which should have answer at least some question that was being asked here and I suggest as I have suggested before that you take this discussion to the relevant mailing list if you want to discuss this further.
That's nice.
I had come from looking at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/GNOME which is 6 year old dead weight.
In any case, what I saw with this SIG creation was:
- someone who hasn't participated deeply in discussions in this corner a lot previously - someone who *specifically* said that the GNOME-centric focus was detrimental to the project as a whole
creating a SIG to work on GNOME, without (AFAICT) consulting with the community working on GNOME, or even having any of them as first members.
I mean, sure, your SIG page describes some stuff at a technical level as release goals. But ffrom what you described, I'm left to assume either 1) you feel that GNOME deserved a specific GNOME-branded thing outside of the desktop, and perhaps the 'desktop' should go away or 2) you felt the 'Desktop' SIG/community wasn't properly serving either GNOME users or the greater Fedora community and should be reorganized and run in a different manner.
If those are the goals, then setting up, in essence, a fork without discussing with those working on GNOME currently strikes me as an awfully passive-agressive (and unlikely to succeed) way to accomplish those goals, and so I'd ask why it should be done that way.
If those aren't the goals, and it's merely about doing some technical experimentation, I'd ask why that *can't* be done in this context, and what problems prevent that - again, forking off a community to produce 95% the same thing seems an awfully inefficient way to do that.
Hence, the 'why' question.
Bill
On 09/19/2013 02:55 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
I don't think calling the SIG the 'GNOME SIG' makes sense though, especially since that's an upstream community's name. I would think it'd be better named, 'Desktop Playpen SIG,' 'Desktop Customization SIG,' or something like that.
I've been a Gnome users since days of the helixcode and this is Gnome and we are not ashamed or trying to hide that fact under the label "Desktop" and this is done right and out of respect towards the community and in accordance with how the other DE as it should have been done from the start.
What is, what always has been and always will be wrong is to have something called "Desktop" or "Default Desktop", "Default Workstation" quite frankly it is and and always has been dictated by RH what it is and will clearly be continued to do so since all the RH employees had signed up to the WG nomination page before the community even knew of it's existence.
The fact is that we have 7 other desktop environments which community members are working on and just been cause they are not part of the Red Hat desktop team or not being paid to work on their desktop environment and do not suffer from the Gnome tunnel vision they do and should get equal presentation and equal opportunity to advance themselves with in our community.
And if something should be done in our upcoming changes it would be to kill the default desktop, merge the desktop list with gnome list and give the Gnome community the freedom instead of tying their hands "generic default" which does not work for anybody or proxy control them through FESCO decision.
There the Gnome developers could keep the "traditional spin" going while the Gnome community members have the tools to play around without interfering with that ( which is what I'm currently working towards ) because in the end of the day they will need a vibrant community surrounding themselves if they are going to pass their own release testing matrix.
QA wont be doing that laber work for them.
JBG
On 09/19/2013 03:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If those are the goals, then setting up, in essence, a fork without discussing with those working on GNOME currently strikes me as an awfully passive-agressive (and unlikely to succeed) way to accomplish those goals, and so I'd ask why it should be done that way.
Because the desktop community is not and never has been "welcoming" to community.
If you think they have been then I must say many of them have an odd way of showing it.
JBG
On 09/19/2013 11:36 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
I've been a Gnome users since days of the helixcode and this is Gnome and we are not ashamed or trying to hide that fact under the label "Desktop" and this is done right and out of respect towards the community and in accordance with how the other DE as it should have been done from the start.
It's GNOME if you're using the upstream GNOME, but I think your intention to not use it as upstream ships it is pretty clear in which case using GNOME from a trademark point of view is problematic.
What is, what always has been and always will be wrong is to have something called "Desktop" or "Default Desktop", "Default Workstation" quite frankly it is and and always has been dictated by RH what it is and will clearly be continued to do so since all the RH employees had signed up to the WG nomination page before the community even knew of it's existence.
You shouldn't assign responsibility for that to Red Hat. You can assign it to me and the Fedora board. We made the call to have a single default download on the website, and we call it the 'Fedora Desktop' or 'Default Desktop' on www.fedoraproject.org rather than 'GNOME Desktop.' This was as per the board's goals to make Fedora easier to consume from the website. We didn't want the jargon of desktop environment names making Fedora harder to understand and download.
You can read all about how this happened and the details here: http://iquaid.org/2013/09/04/defining-self-identity-for-an-open-source-proje...
The fact is that we have 7 other desktop environments which community members are working on and just been cause they are not part of the Red Hat desktop team or not being paid to work on their desktop environment and do not suffer from the Gnome tunnel vision they do and should get equal presentation and equal opportunity to advance themselves with in our community.
Don't they already all have their own SIGs and spins already? So what is the problem exactly here?
And if something should be done in our upcoming changes it would be to kill the default desktop, merge the desktop list with gnome list and give the Gnome community the freedom instead of tying their hands "generic default" which does not work for anybody or proxy control them through FESCO decision.
The way you're structuring your rhetoric here is concerning. The GNOME community of developers are right here on this list telling you they don't understand why you are making a GNOME list, so who are you intending to 'free?'
There the Gnome developers could keep the "traditional spin" going while the Gnome community members have the tools to play around without interfering with that ( which is what I'm currently working towards ) because in the end of the day they will need a vibrant community surrounding themselves if they are going to pass their own release testing matrix.
What is the difference between 'GNOME developers' and 'GNOME community members' in your own words? Maybe that's where I'm having trouble following you?
~m
On 09/19/2013 04:07 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/19/2013 11:36 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
I've been a Gnome users since days of the helixcode and this is Gnome and we are not ashamed or trying to hide that fact under the label "Desktop" and this is done right and out of respect towards the community and in accordance with how the other DE as it should have been done from the start.
It's GNOME if you're using the upstream GNOME, but I think your intention to not use it as upstream ships it is pretty clear in which case using GNOME from a trademark point of view is problematic.
I see that you are also one of those individuals that did not bother to read [1]
Accept that fact that this is coming to be and take your witch hunt elsewhere.
This is my last response to this thread.
On 09/19/2013 12:19 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
I see that you are also one of those individuals that did not bother to read [1]
I did, in fact, read it, so I'm not sure why you think I did it. People ask questions to confirm their understanding. Apparently I misunderstood something but you've chosen not to explain.
Accept that fact that this is coming to be and take your witch hunt elsewhere.
What witch hunt? I'm not a witch hunter. Halloween is too far away anyway. What would I do with a witch if I caught it? Put it in inkscape and scribble on it?
~m
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
On 09/19/2013 03:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If those are the goals, then setting up, in essence, a fork without discussing with those working on GNOME currently strikes me as an awfully passive-agressive (and unlikely to succeed) way to accomplish those goals, and so I'd ask why it should be done that way.
Because the desktop community is not and never has been "welcoming" to community.
If you think they have been then I must say many of them have an odd way of showing it.
Well, that's why I asked. If you're trying to fork the community because you don't like how it's currently operating or the Board decisions that came to cause it to be labelled this way, and say "it should have have been done [this way] from the start", then say's why you're doing it. Don't hide behind "oh I want to build an upstream thing with btrfs and XYZ", if your goal is "I want the spin with GNOME to operate more like other SIGs in a more public manner, and I want it demoted from the 'desktop' branding." (which is what I'm reading here.)
If you think asking what the motiviation is and questioning whether the proposed idea is the best way to do it is a witch hunt... well, can't help much there.
Bill
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:42:15PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 09/19/2013 03:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If those are the goals, then setting up, in essence, a fork without discussing with those working on GNOME currently strikes me as an awfully passive-agressive (and unlikely to succeed) way to accomplish those goals, and so I'd ask why it should be done that way.
Because the desktop community is not and never has been "welcoming" to community.
If you think they have been then I must say many of them have an odd way of showing it.
That hasn't been my experience at all, either in Fedora or upstream. I've approached GNOME contributors in both places numerous times with questions or concerns and they always get treated respectfully. I tend to approach assuming good intentions, and that seems to work well.
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Bastien Nocera -
Bill Nottingham -
Clyde E. Kunkel -
Debarshi Ray -
Elad Alfassa -
Florian Müllner -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Kamil Paral -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Clasen -
Michael Catanzaro -
Máirín Duffy -
Paul W. Frields -
Ryan Lerch