I meant to cross-post this, but failed. So here's a forward -- see
below. I like Joe's ""Built for everybody, perfect for developers."
best of the suggestions so far. What do you think?
----- Forwarded message from Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> -----
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:49:04 -0500
> From: Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
> To: marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Cc: worksation(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: short slogans for fedora workstation ad to run (for free!) on stack
> X-Bogo25: H 0
> The Stack Exchange QA site runs free advertising for open source
> projects -- see
> With Fedora 21, I'd like to have separate ones for Workstation, Server,
> and Cloud, and particularly would like to run the Workstation one on
> the main Stack Overflow developer Q&A site (and Server on
> sysadmin-focused Server Fault). I think we'll try some with just the
> new logos and label, but I'd also like to see the response to some with
> a basic slogan. For Server and Cloud, I think the top-line text from
> https://getfedora.org/en/server/ and https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/
> will work, but for workstation, the slogan is:
> This is the Linux workstation you've been waiting for.
> which I also like, but, alone right next to "[logo] Workstation",
> having workstation in the text itself is awkward. Additionally, since
> the site is developer focused, I'd like to play up the developer target
> Anyone have suggestions for something that short or shorter which
> doesn't reuse the word workstation? We could even try one that has the
> more-general-user slant of the existing slogan along with one that's
> really tuned to the developer audience.
> Matthew Miller
> Fedora Project Leader
> marketing mailing list
> List info or to change your subscription:
----- End forwarded message -----
Fedora Project Leader
I have been working on a feature proposal for a while now to propose
cleaning up the wallpapers that we present to the user by default in
Workstation. It has been on the agenda for the last few meetings, but we
have run out of time in those meetings :(
Basically, the proposal is to clean out the wallpapers that we currently
present to the user, and just show:
1. The default fedora wallpaper for the release (the one created by the
Fedora Design Team)
2. The default wallpaper for the upstream desktop release (e.g. the
default GNOME wallpaper for the release of GNOME being shipped)
3. A new set of 15 alternative default wallpapers chosen from the past
Fedora supplemental wallpapers. The supplemental wallpapers are a set of
wallpapers (that change every release) that are included in the repos
for people to install and use. The idea here would be to choose 15 of
the best from all past supplemental wallpaper packages to be included by
So I just posted a blog (1) updating the world on some of the changes are expecting in Fedora Workstation 22. One of the features I would love us
to take advantage off is the 3rd party repository support that Richard Hughes has added into GNOME Software (2).
While the development of this feature came about due to requirements that came up as part of our work on the RHEL Workstation, it also addresses
one of the main the concerns that where raised when we last had a discussion about this in the Fedora space, namely that it creates a clear difference
between software provided by the Fedora project itself, and thus conforms to our policies in terms of packaging and licensing, and software
coming from a external source over which we have no real control or in any way endorse.
So there are still some practical challenges here. On one side I think the goal is that we want 'all' software you possibly can install on
Fedora available through the application (GNOME Software) that you expect to find all your software with. Especially due to being exposed
to Google Play, the Apple appstore, Steam, the Microsoft Appstore and so on, the mantra has clearly changed from the old idea of finding
software for your system through generic searches on the internet or by going to a brick and mortar shop.
On the other side some editorial oversight will probably be necessary due to potential legal risks for either Fedora, Red Hat or both. That said
we are used to dealing with such risks already through the processes we created for when people contribute software to the Fedora repository.
Also in terms of the previous discussions on this topic in the Fedora community, I think an important this time is that we have screenshots.
Silly as it seems I think this is actually a quite important thing as it helps everyone involved visualize what the feature would actually
look like, so we don't end up arguing over hypothetical problems or solutions. In general I think it is always easier for people to know
if they are fine with a solution when they can see what it actually looks like. So Richard Hughes blog post shows what it looks like know,
and we can of course make sure we can offer custom text etc. as we see fit.
So my proposal is that we as a working group come up with a unified proposal for how we would like to use this, how we would like the
process of adding applications to the 3rd party list and so on. The goal is of course to have something as transparent and open as possible.
So my suggestion is that we have an initial discussion about this on the next workstation meeting and based on what we decide there I be happy
to start drafting some documents outlining how this could work.
Dear Fedora users,
I have recently experienced a problem with the lxde desktop.
I have updated my linux machine from FEDORA 20 to FEDORA 21 Workstation
then I have installed lxde with the following command:
/yum -y install @lxde-desktop/
Since then, when I try to log out by selecting logout from the task bar
menu, nothing happens and my session keeps going on. If I select reboot
or shutdown from the same menu, it acts normally.
Previously, I was using FEDORA 20 with lxde and I never had any problems
with the logout.
Any help will be welcome.
Thanks in advance.
Just a quick notice: Martin has now built his adwaita-qt theme in
rawhide, so it is now much easier to try out. Please try and give him
Remaining steps for f22:
- Figure out the best way to make this the default theme for Qt apps on
- Install adwaita-qt by default
The gist is that on some systems, when Secure Boot is enabled, the
Window entry in the GRUB menu fails to boot Windows. If Secure Boot is
disabled, this GRUB entry works. This was proposed for Fedora 21 as a
blocker but was rejected because we don't have an explicit criterion
The final release criterion reads "The installer must be able to
install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows
installation and install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows
and Fedora." It doesn't grant an exception for Secure Boot, but it
also doesn't say it needs to work if Secure Boot is enabled. In fact,
we don't have a Secure Boot criterion at all anywhere, even in a
non-dual-boot context, so it stands to reason if we wouldn't block on
Secure Boot not working for Fedora, we can't really block on it not
working when booting Windows via GRUB.
Right now there are three bugs, three different kinds of hardware:
Samsung, Lenovo, Dell, all laptops. These bugs will be consolidated
into one (in-progress)
I don't know if the problem is a GRUB, shim, or UEFI firmware bug.
If it's a firmware bug, something of an autopsy report that firmware
OEMs could be made aware of might be useful, I just don't see how else
they'd even learn about this if bugs are filed with them that clearly
explain the problem.
And if it's not a firmware bug, should we be blocking on this until
it's fixed? And should there be an explicit Secure Boot criterion?
That second question might be of interest to the Server product also.
As explained here:
We want to move the input stack for xorg over to libinput, the plan
is to do this move gradually, starting with moving GNOME / the
desktop product over.
Upstream GNOME is already working on adding support for
xf86-input-libinput's configuration API, once that lands
xorg-x11-drv-libinput should be added to the Desktop's set of default
packages, hence this mail.
So 2 questions:
1) Any objections against these changes ?
2) Who will add the package to the default package set when the time