I raised a question with the Board a couple weeks ago as to how we
should be branding the different releases. It's been clear that
different groups have different opinions on whether we should call
something Fedora Server 21 vs. Fedora 21 Server (and Workstation and
Cloud, of course).
I was asked by the Board to get input from each of the working groups as
well as marketing and branding folks. I'm sending this to each of these
lists, but PLEASE keep all replies on the devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
list or it will be impossible to keep track of the replies. (I've set
the reply-to header on this email; please try not to lose it).
A few specific comments that have been made on the Board ticket (to
avoid rehashing them).
* "Fedora Server 21" sounds like we've had 21 releases of Fedora Server
and we certainly haven't.
* Should we start all of the Products at version 1 and say "built on the
Fedora 21 platform"?
Anyway, we need to have a consistent branding decision made for the
release (and for the Ambassadors). So please come prepared to find a
consensus (not to win a fight).
On Oct 17, 2014 7:38 PM, Debarshi Ray <rishi.is(a)lostca.se> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:29:51AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:10:02AM +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> > > Also I don't think the "Upstream doesn't put a logo" is a good argument.
> > > We are not just distributing upstream. We are building a product
> > > (Workstation in this case) and we can decide on our own what's best.
> > Absolutely. We want to align technology and effort with upstream as best we
> > can, but our goals (and therefore needs) aren't dictated by upstream, and
> > sometimes they will diverge. A _cosmetic_ change like this isn't a big
> > divergence in any way ??? but *is* a big deal for Fedora.
> What I find troubling is that every few months there is this whole
> branding debate driven by a 'this is Fedora, our needs are different
> from upstream' ideology. Once it was the login screen, then it was
> the logo in 'about' or Settings -> Details, and now it is about the
> default shell chrome.
> I find it troubling that Fedora's need to exert its brand is increasing
> so quickly, and the lack of acknowledgement that such needs have been
> granted so far
From what I can gather the issue that is being encountered here is that Fedora Workstation is being marketed as a product, yet nowhere (highly) visible on the product is the brand. As grateful as we can be for being "granted" the ability to put the fedora logo in the details screen, this is the physical product equivalent of having the logo on the front of the user manual.
The workstation product has an additional hurdle to overcome because of the nature of upstreams. Any downstream looks essentially the same as us. Without some better, more visible reinforcement of the brand there is no differentiation between Fedora workstation and any other distribution using GNOME. If we rely on the visual style of the shell alone as our branding element, then to people that know what the shell actually is you are running GNOME, not Fedora Workstation. To people that don't know what the shell is, you are running something called "activities".
All other desktop OSes that have strong brands have identifying features on their desktops to reinforce their brand: Ubuntu, Windows, OS X, Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
> Beginning to look like a slippery slope.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154154 is a request to provide
a generic-release-workstation (sub)package in order to allow for
convenient remixing of a debranded Fedora Workstation.
It seemed odd that firewalld-config-workstation would require
system-release-workstation and if this were to be done we'd need to be
sure not to break Fedora composes. I was hoping to hear some comments
from the workstation group in the ticket.
With my design team hat on, I have been working on finalizing the branding
and logos for each of the products, and thought that because we are the only
product that is using the login screen, that to reinforce that to the
it is fedora workstation that is being used, the plain "Fedora" logo on
screen should be replaced with the Fedora Workstation branding.
here is a mockup of how this possibly would look with the greyscale
version of the
fedora workstation logo:
I've just had someone ask whether it was possible to increase the line
spacing in gnome-terminal. This particular gentleman has +3 corrective
eye lenses in both eyes for astigmatism and he says he finds it
difficult to use text intensive applications such as irssi in the
terminal. He says he's already tried increasing the font sizes etc., and
is using a font that has a large height difference between letters like
"a.c.e" and "b,d,g,h" for the time being.
Is there a setting for line spacing? I wonder if this is worth adding to
accessibility? From his account, it seems like only increasing the font
size isn't enough in all cases.
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
Hi marketing team/WGs,
me again - we're getting closer to Beta release. The readiness
meeting is just one week away from now, it would be great to have
at least draft prepared.
I see, Joe already created Beta announcement page.
Btw. it was excellent work on Alpha, with WGs and everyone else
being involved! I expect we don't need much updates from Alpha,
just a bit extend it with more features, more details.
Hi, folks. I'm checking the release criteria again for Fedora.next
compatibility, and there's an Alpha criterion with obvious issues:
When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the
installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops,
as well as the minimal package set. "
This was obviously written to the world where we had generic installer
images - the DVD, and intentionally-generic netinsts. We do not have
those things any more.
Do we want to dump this criterion entirely, or is there any of it we
would like to keep? For instance, would we consider it 'release
blocking' functionality for you to be able to do some/any of the above
from the Server and/or Workstation network install images *after
configuring the repos manually*? Particularly, the minimal installation?
I'm not sure F21 as currently conceived would offer an avenue for doing
an interactive minimal installation.
Basically, it comes down to: do we want to have a blessed method for
doing a network install of KDE and/or minimal? If so, do we want to
block releases on it?
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
Just wondering if there is still a simple way to change default
applications in Fedora in the interface. In the past (a long time ago IIRC),
it was possible to do this via the nautilus "open with..." dialog, but
it seems that this isn't possible anymore.
I do know it is possible to change the major default applications (Web
Browser, Mail Client, Image Viewer, etc) in the details screen in the
control center, but i am after the ability to, say, set Inkscape as my
default SVG application rather than EOG. I also know that it is possible
to change the mimetype manually in
/home/rlerch/.local/share/applications/mimeapps.list , but just
wondering if there is still a way for users to change this without
having to edit config files.
If this doesnt exist anymore, would this be suitable functionality to
propose for the Tweak Tool?
One thing that came up in the last meeting is that it would be good to
ensure that we have good app data for prominent qt apps. Today, I tried
to produce a list of such apps: