Re: DE discussion summary

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Before everyone jumps to conclusions I think a big step is being skipped and overlooked.  One of the biggest problems is that Linux desktop projects make preference oriented decisions like choosing blue because they find it pleasing over orange or whatever, purely qualitative.  Or then it's the social factor, because we don't want to upset our friends by choosing another project or system.  This has to stop, qualitative and political/social reasoning is not going to get a result that has any real meaning in the real world.  

You need to consult statistics, conduct exhaustive user-surveys and make a data driven decision.  I was shocked that despite the fact that this mailing-list is loaded to the brim with engineers I was the only one who ever quoted any precise statistics. Those statistics showed a desktop marketplace that's not aligned at all with the default desktop being discussed here.

Can you please present your case using actual statistics and analysis so we know it's a sound decision?








 


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 21:26 +0100, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:29:25PM +0100, Lukáš Tinkl wrote:
> > Dne 10.2.2014 12:09, Richard Hughes napsal(a):
> > >On 10 February 2014 10:02, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>I find the idea that the long and historic relationship between GNOME and
> > >>Fedora could turn around so quickly like that to be very strange
> > >
> > >The fact we're even considering asking the question "which DE do we
> > >want to use for workstation" is just crazy. I think we're kidding
> > >ourselves if we want to try and answer that question honestly when the
> > >biggest backer of the project by several orders of magnitude has
> > >several hundred engineers working full time on GNOME and lower parts
> >
> > I think you've made a typo here (hundreds???)
>
> This is not a typo.  If you consider not just GNOME but the lower
> parts of the stack on which GNOME relies (as Colin wrote), it is
> actually hundreds.  Of course, some of those lower parts of the stack
> are likely shared by many DEs, in varying amounts, but it's still
> accurate.

It's clearly *not* accurate, though, to use the 'desktop plus underlying
stack' number for GNOME, but only the 'desktop' number for the other
desktops. That's obviously an unviable comparison.

It's either say, what, about a dozen(?) vs. two or three if you just
consider those working actually on the desktop, or "a dozen" plus
"hundreds" vs. "two or three" plus "hundreds". You can't get away with
comparing "a dozen" plus "hundreds" against "two or three", as Richard's
mail did:

"the biggest backer of the project by several orders of magnitude has
several hundred engineers working full time on GNOME and lower parts
of the stack that GNOME uses. If I remember correctly, we have about
two employees on all of KDE, and one on XFCE. None on LXDE. None on
MATE."
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora KDE]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux