Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 8:46 UTC (Fri) by dsommers (subscriber, #55274)
In reply to: Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget) by bojan
Parent article: Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Red Hat is surely and clearly involved in the GNOME project, and has been for quite some time. But your statement is easily understood that Red Hat *controls* the project. I would say that's a fairly unbiased statement.

In 2010 this GNOME census [1] presentation was given. And it surely puts Red Hat high up in the contributors list, but it is actually *not* the biggest player in this game all in all. Red Hat is given credit for 16.30% of the commits, while there are 16.94% of unidentifiable companies (I presume) and 23.45% of the commits were from VOLUNTEERS. These three groups sums up to ~57% of all commits to the GNOME project. Red Hat's contribution in this context is a little bit less than 1/3 of the top 3. And then you have ~43% of commits from contributors which is not among the top 3.

So to say that Red Hat is behind GNOME is fairly unfair to the majority of contributors. I'm sure Red Hat is proud of their GNOME contributions, but they probably don't want (or need) to take the glory from the other contributors as well.

[1] <http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/>

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 9:11 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (10 responses)

While Red Hat does not control the project, its minority stake is clearly big enough to have some form of veto power.

16,30 % of commits is huge and it undercounts all the work done by third parties because of their stake in the RHEL/Centos/Fedora ecosystem, all the work Red Hat employees declare as "volunteer" (but would they still be as interested in GNOME if they were not involved with it at work? when Nokia switched from GTK to QT lots of people in the Nokia ecosystem discovered they weren't that interested in GNOME anymore), all the synergies between Red Hat GNOME committers and Red Hat people working on other layers of the software stack.

Besides, the second big corporate partner is Suse (10,44%), but Suse customers ask it to diverge as little as possible from Red Hat core choices (they want the ability so switch supplier without retraining), any Red Hat divestment would be followed by a similar move Suse-side.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 10:03 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (9 responses)

Could you point out where Red Hat has veto power? Maintainers have influence, not companies. If companies hire maintainers they can influence, not by being a company.

That a maintainer can set direction for their module is pretty common.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 11:21 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (8 responses)

When you have enough influence, you have veto power. Though a project always has the possibility to ignore inconvenient stakeholders, and that typically does not end well (see xfree86, apache openoffice, etc).

The commit stats clearly show Enterprise Linux distributions have a key stake in GNOME. Together Red Hat and Suse pay directly for more than 25% of the GNOME work (not counting the work of affiliates). No other entity is ready to pay enough people to work on it, to manage more than 5% of commits.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 11:32 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (7 responses)

I asked to show where Red Hat has veto power. You assert this "vero power" again without showing any references.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:09 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (6 responses)

I replied with facts. You chose to ignore them. What's the point of your message exactly?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:27 UTC (Fri) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (3 responses)

I've asked various times to show proof of your assertion that Red Hat has "veto power" in the GNOME project. You show all kinds of things, but nothing which backs up your claim.

To be clear: The entity having veto power is GNOME board and GNOME release team. I am a member of the release team. I am pretty aware of the rules and how things are done.

I have never seen anything about "veto power". I've asked you to back this up various times, you haven't shown anything.

The only point you could make is that they've hired maintainers, as I said before. However, that is not "veto power".

So please back up your claims.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 14:23 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (2 responses)

Red Hat can veto by laying down the law and choosing not to use your version of Gnome in RHEL. Red Hat made it clear to you that Gnome3 shell was unacceptable, and you jumped. The recent course of events is, itself, proof of nim-nim's assertion. Red Hat is a billion dollar company, and not a hobby project. When they invest in a project like Gnome, they reasonably insist upon effective control. This does not necessarily mean that the control will be explicitly written into the bylaws. In fact, it's often best that the veto power *not* make it into the bylaws. But the power is, effectively, there. And that is no accident.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 22:41 UTC (Sun) by dag- (guest, #30207) [Link] (1 responses)

So you are basically saying that Red Hat has veto powers over what they put into RHEL. And that affects also how they customize the Gnome that goes into RHEL.

Makes sense, since that's what they have to support for the next 13 years (starting from GA).

But that doesn't mean Red Hat has veto powers over Gnome (either the project, or the source code). They may have influence, but influence is still not veto power...

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 22:53 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

10 years ago, I might have agreed that what the Gnome guys decided was more important than what was decided for them by higher ups.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:38 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link] (1 responses)

What facts? You state a direct link between number of commits and right to veto features, but offer no proof for such a link. Is there an actual example of a GNOME roadmap or release being explicitly dictated by the needs of Red Hat?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 18:45 UTC (Wed) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]

He isn't saying that there is some coded rule or bylaw, just observing that if 16% of the contributors refuse to do something, then its very very unlikely its going to happen.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 9:22 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (91 responses)

And where exactly did I say that it was _only_ Red Hat that was behind Gnome? I just said they were behind it. You numbers prove it rather neatly, actually.

Red Hat shipping Gnome in classic mode in RHEL7 is roughly the equivalent of Microsoft shipping Windows 8 in desktop mode, after spending all the years developing the tiles.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 14, 2013 12:56 UTC (Fri) by dsommers (subscriber, #55274) [Link] (90 responses)

> And where exactly did I say that it was _only_ Red Hat that was behind 
> Gnome? I just said they were behind it. You numbers prove it rather 
> neatly, actually.

It's very easy to do that interpretation from your first statement:

    The Gnome 3 "overview" is such a great invention that
    Red Hat (company behind Gnome) decided to leave it out
    of the default setup in their money-spinner. Yep, that
    is what I call a vote of confidence.

Here it sounds like you claim Red Hat carries the responsibility for GNOME 3, and even doesn't have the courage to bring the full GNOME 3 experience to their customers.

And that is what I reacted to. GNOME is a project, where Red Hat is a participant, pretty much on the same level as everyone else who wants to contribute. That Red Hat decides to not enable a new feature by default for their Enterprise customers, doesn't mean they don't have faith in it. But they obviously listens to their customers' concerns, and try to avoid upsetting them. And for customers who want that new experience, they can enable it when they are ready for it. That's something completely different than claiming Red Hat doesn't have faith in something.

If Red Hat hadn't had faith in the GNOME 3, why would they ship it at all? Why would they keep on contributing to the GNOME project?
(those questions are rhetorical questions)

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:32 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (70 responses)

> That Red Hat decides to not enable a new feature by default for their Enterprise customers, doesn't mean they don't have faith in it.

Now you are being hilarious. The whole paradigm of Gnome 3 is the overview thing. The new "distraction free philosophy" of the desktop or some such nonsense. It is considered so valuable by Red Hat that they decided to ship a cut down Gnome 2 look instead. Yeah.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 3:51 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (69 responses)

"The whole paradigm of Gnome 3 is the overview thing"

Says who? None of the design documents from GNOME project focus on this as a primary aspect.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:10 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (31 responses)

I see the 1984 mode is well and truly on. History being rewritten:

https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design#Activities_Overview
https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/FAQ#Why_no_windo...

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:28 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (30 responses)

Even the first link you provided shows that overview isn't the "whole paradigm. It is just one of the design elements. Other prominent ones include dash, notifications etc.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 4:55 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (29 responses)

Ah, yes. Another rewrite of history. The "distraction free" philosophy never happened. We all just imagined that:

https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design#Goals_and_advant...

The paradigm of Gnome 3 (which is to provide distraction free environment, whatever is that supposed to mean) absolutely depends on the existence of overview (in the mind of Gnome developers). In fact, dash is an artefact in overview only. Notification are just another type of overview (as you cannot see them in normal view at all once they magically disappear).

Coming back to the original point. Amazing efforts have been expended to provide this supposed distraction free environment, only to default to distraction abundant environment in RHEL7 (taskbar, applications, places, poor replacement for workspace switcher etc.) to poor users. I'm sure their heads are going to explode now, given they won't be distraction free. :-)

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:00 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (9 responses)

You are repeatedly drawing up a strawman. I suggest you read what I am replying to you rather than assume things I don't say just to argue against your own assumptions. I am asking you whether you can substantiate that overview is the primary paradigm of GNOME Shell as opposed to one of the design elements and it appears you cannot.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:40 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (8 responses)

I cannot help you if you cannot see this from docs and discussions that are publicly available. Also, I cannot help you if you cannot see that bringing back all the "bad" elements by default is essentially saying that the whole thing (overview, which enables "distracton free") was a mistake.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 6:56 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

http://extensions.gnome.org is one of the best parts of GNOME 3 and I would much less productive without it.

GNOME project provided classic mode (which itself is just a bunch of extensions) to meet the needs of users who prefer the traditional UI elements and this matches the nature of RHEL. It demonstrates the flexibility of GNOME Shell and power of extensions to virtually modify any UI element and they are much more easier to develop compared to the panel applets in GNOME 2.x. The proof is in the sheer number of extensions that do things GNOME 2.x never could and I use several of them.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:18 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

> http://extensions.gnome.org is one of the best parts of GNOME 3

Curious. A whole lot of GNOME devs back when extensions were introduced were saying they were against them, that they 'diluted the GNOME brand', that you should never rely on them and that they'd get broken as often as possible, and that they'd try to get them removed as soon as possible.

And now all of a sudden it's 'one of the best parts of GNOME 3'. I see some divergence of opinion here...

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:55 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm sure there are some GNOME devs who feel that way but that clearly isn't a majority or dominant opinion otherwise extensions wouldn't be hosted on gnome.org and Classic UI wouldn't be part of upstream.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 15:38 UTC (Mon) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, the designers of gnome 3 were pretty much against it (https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-Jun...), I think that does say something about their ideals. That they were overruled is great, but that that was necessary isn't good.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 23:16 UTC (Wed) by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628) [Link]

There was a notion that the default look of GNOME was something that should be distinguishable. I think we've sort of evolved from that. Extensions is a great 'get out of jail free' card'. It'll still be some time before we see some interesting extensions as to the myriad of extensions that implement a missing feature or add trivial ones.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:06 UTC (Sat) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link] (2 responses)

For whatever little it is worth, I really do prefer the distraction-free approach. Call it the tablet/phone effect: I suddenly discovered that windows suck and in general try to only run fullscreen applications these days. The experience is best with OS X, but GNOME 3 comes a very close second. My main gripe is that not all applications have integrated with the top toolbar (which can be configured to vanish away, leaving *all* screen space for applications).

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:16 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Lucky you. For the rest of us that have to see multiple windows at the same time (sometimes 8 or 9), this simply does nothing. Making a UI that does single tasking well is probably the easiest problem to solve. It has been done to death in the 90s.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 23:29 UTC (Sat) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I've found something similar. I used to have rules to tell KWin to hammer sizes, locations, etc. of windows to different workspaces. Now I use a much more fluid setup with XMonad which gets me the "full screen" by default, but also handles the "need a couple of things at once" scenario automatically. If you really want 100% of the screen for applications, you also need to get rid of those pesky window decorations ;) .

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:13 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (18 responses)

To answer your other incorrect assertion, distraction free primarily refers notifications and notifications don't require you to access the overview. You just move the cursor to the bottom (pressure sensitive) or press system + m key (acts as a toggle in GNOME 3.8). Also I use dash as a dock and don't access the overview for that. I rarely use overview at all. I never have heard any GNOME designers treat it as the primary design element and I even attended one of the earliest talks about it in person.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:44 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (17 responses)

No assertion, docs. Also, an extension that gives you the opposite of design goals (read about the evil taskbar), proves my point, not yours.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 5:56 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (16 responses)

By your own admission, you don't really understand why they call it distraction free anyway and it makes no logical sense at all why one would call overview as distraction free. Despite your claims, the docs don't show any connection between the two. Just so that you understand it better, design elements like the black chrome, symbolic icons and notifications are meant to minimize the focus on the chrome and draw attention to the application themselves. That is why it is called distraction free. From a personal perspective, while I like the symbolic icons, I think the notifications system needs some improvements.

The fact that GNOME Shell was designed to provide the flexibility to use a GNOME Shell extension hosted by GNOME project itself proves your point that overview is the primary paradigm? Also, the dash to dock just lets the user access the dash directly without the overview for users who prefer that model. It doesn't change the nature of the dash into a full blown panel or "taskbar".

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 8:55 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (15 responses)

Direct quote from shell design docs:

"The separation of the overview from the normal window view is a reflection of users' natural focus-switching behaviour. It aims to ensure that users are not distracted when they are occupied with a task and to give them quick access to a streamlined focus-switching interface when they need one. A key feature of the overview is that it allows a user to optionally appraise their current activities prior to making a decision on where to turn their focus to next."

Look, we can do this back and forth all day. Few facts:

- Gnome 3 stated some "design goals" (i.e. philosophy)
- classic mode confirmed this cannot always be followed
- Red Hat confirmed they will use classic mode by default

Conclusion: practical usability is far more important than forcing users' hand into nebulous philosophical claims. I agree.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 9:12 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Sorry, head, not hand.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 21:47 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (13 responses)

I am glad to hear that you agree with your own conclusions. Red Hat however just stated that they are shipping classic mode by default for continuity for enterprise customers. If they didn't think the default mode for GNOME Shell was useful, they wouldn't be funding it.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 6:51 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (12 responses)

Wow! So, the new UI is so good that the paying customers will be enjoying the benefits of the brokenness (according to shell design docs) of the emulation of old UI. Yeah, that makes sense.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 7:26 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (11 responses)

I guess you have no idea why Red Hat is funding Gnome Shell. Keep trying

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:08 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (10 responses)

Whatever the original reason was, they just said (money talks) that the overview UI isn't it.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:12 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (9 responses)

There is cognitive dissonance at play here when you ignore the part where the same money is funding GNOME Shell default mode as well.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:34 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

Red Hat made it clear to the devs that "modern" (LOL!) was not anywhere near usable enough to make it into RHEL7, after even so many years of development. They laid down the law. Red Hat has a responsibility to their customers to shield them from their Fedora children.

But the developers are still valuable enough to retain. Red Hat would prefer them not to leave in a snit.

You can try to argue against that. But isn't this all pretty obvious?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:37 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (7 responses)

No cognitive dissonance at all. They paid some folks money to go do things. These folks came back with a result. Red Hat said, sorry - our users are not going to be subjected to this (overview UI).

In the real world, occasionally when you fund something, you get a lemon. It happens. So, when you get handed that lemon, what do you do? You make lemonade (read: Gnome Classic).

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:43 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (6 responses)

If your assumptions are correct, they should only fund classic mode going forward. I doubt that.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 0:58 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (5 responses)

What a completely disingenuous comment.

If some random YouTube reviewer that didn't understand what classic mode was wrote that, I would say fine - the guy doesn't know any better. But you know better, because, as you pointed out out on these very pages, classic mode is just a bunch of extensions thrown together, so that the UI looks a bit like Gnome 2 (and this is what we are talking about here - the UI paradigm shipped by default in RHEL7).

In terms of the platform development, the horse has bolted. Gnome 3 is the new platform (the one Red Hat are behind anyway), so they have to work with what they have (i.e. paid to be built). Saying "only fund classic mode going forward" is a complete nonsense statement for an openly and dedicatedly open source company like Red Hat. And you know it.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:05 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

Aha, now you begin to see my point. Red Hat is a dedicated open source company and it is foolish to say money talks and only commercial enterprise customers matter. Commercial validation is important but community is relevant to the conversation as well.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:15 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (3 responses)

Your point is that what Red Hat decided to ship as a default UI in RHEL7 is not a reflection on the value of the new, overview based UI. I completely disagree with that point. It is a value statement. If they saw great value in this new paradigm (which they helped finance), they would be happy to shout from the rooftops that they "nailed it". Hey, Microsoft sure did that with tiles.

Red Hat will continue to finance open source because they think they can get what they want cheaper that way. This, however, does not mean that everything they get a as a result will be to their liking. Or that they will risk exposing their _paying_ customers to it. This is where money talks.

Of course, you know all this. You are just trying to defend you position with disingenuous statements now.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:18 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

"Your point is that what Red Hat decided to ship as a default UI in RHEL7 is not a reflection on the value of the new, overview based UI"

Not all all. I explicitly said commercial validation is important but the focus on only that is too narrow and reeks of proprietary vendors and you need to understand and ack the community value as well.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:44 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

What you actually wrote is this (i.e. exactly what I paraphrased above):

> If they didn't think the default mode for GNOME Shell was useful, they wouldn't be funding it.

Clearly, based on a alternative default UI choice in RHEL7, default mode (overview paradigm) is not what they find useful. Otherwise, they would be promoting as the "best since sliced bread, what Microsoft did with tiles, kinda thingy".

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 18, 2013 1:49 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

I understand your argument but find it a sad and narrow perspective. I am just reminded of Solaris and CDE. Hopefully the Linux community on the whole has a broader view of things.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 10:17 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link] (36 responses)

@rahul They(gnome) don't focus overview as the primary aspect. But that's the main thing that everyone(users) is irritated about gnome-shell.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 16:46 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (35 responses)

Everyone? That is categorically false statement. Let's not go overboard.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:06 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (30 responses)

It's certainly a notably popular Gnome3 show-stopper. Hadrons123 makes a good point.

How ironic. We've had this conversation before... about KDE4. But you were defending KDE, and saying that Gnome2 had been just as disruptive. I maintained that Gnome2 was always reasonably well done, if slightly spartan, at first, but that KDE4 was just terrible. Gnome3-shell is worse than anything which has ever come before. Gnome2 is as polished as ever. I haven't kept up with KDE4. But if it came down to Gnome3-shell or KDE4 for my users, and KDE4 didn't pan out for some reason... then.. well... there's always FVWM2 and AnotherLevel. (And no, I can't believe I said that. ;-)

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:11 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (29 responses)

Good that you noted that I have argued for KDE 4 and just as I predicted, KDE 4 has settled down and users have accepted it. I distinctly remember how disruptive that GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 transition was for many users till several revisions later. Many users deflected then and among those who stayed some apparently have become such huge GNOME 2 fans that GNOME 3 UI model is a problem for them. 3.8 apparently has convinced some users that GNOME Shell isn't such an issue after all. I suspect we will see more of that with time.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 17:47 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (11 responses)

Gnome 1->2 was disruptive in the same kind of way that Bluecurve was. A simplification that the die-hards didn't like. And Sawmill was just crazy with options. Granted, the Gnome devs of the day went a little far. But whereas Gnome 2 opted not to provide, KDE4 couldn't provide, back when we discussed this before. The Gnome2 desktop adapted to users more than the users adapted to the desktop.

OK. So I'll make another prediction. Gnome-shell will adapt or die. File that away and hold it as a hole card for some future year. As a pessimist, I'm generally pretty happy to be proven wrong. ;-)

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:06 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (10 responses)

That is a pretty lame prediction. It essentially restates the basic premise of evolution.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:25 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (9 responses)

Rahul, Rahul... I'd have expected better. You predict that users will adapt to Gnome3, and claim they have adapted to KDE4. I predict that Gnome3-shell will have to adapt to users, rather than the other way around, and make no claim regarding KDE4, at this time. That's not a restatement of the basic premise of evolution. I do agree that something akin to the principles of biological evolution are involved. I disagree with your particular application.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:32 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (8 responses)

You seem to have trouble following. Let me break it down for you. KDE users who were upset by KDE 4 seemed to have embraced it much more with incremental improvements in KDE 4.x. Now you can argue that it is KDE 4.x that adopted to users and not the other way around as well but the end result is just the same. More users using an desktop environment they weren't quite happy with before.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:18 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (7 responses)

Keeping in mind that I'm making no particular claims about KDE4's history after we last spoke about it, long ago... you now have a desktop environment which maintains the name "KDE", and a set of current users. I was a fan of a desktop named KDE back in the late '90s. It morphed a bit throughout the 2000's. And then disappeared. Are you saying that a desktop named KDE is back with more or less the same set of users? Does it matter if they are the same? Or will any old set of users do? I'm not being facetious here. Does it matter, do you think, if you please existing users, or dump them and find others? It matters to the users, of course. But should it matter to the developers?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:32 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (6 responses)

I think it should and atleast to me, it does. You can sometimes trade existing users for new users especially if you think you have a shot at capturing a new segment earlier on but often, your long term users engage with you a lot better than new users. Bug reports from users are much as a validation for me as kudos are because I love the fact that users are using the software I helped develop or maintain. This is especially true if you are voluntarily working on anything.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 20:08 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

Very nice post, Rahul. Very honest. Probably a good time for me to stop and say that I have always respected you and your work, and consider you to be an Internet friend, of sorts. I only spar as a hobby. ;-)

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 20:24 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Thanks. I don't argue with people as much as I argue about technology and I enjoy doing that because it challenges notions and gives everyone an opportunity to learn and of course, it is nothing personal. I will be happy to ack that I agree with anything if I do.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 22:09 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

:-)

That's why I happily transitioned from KDE3 to KDE4.

I gather a lot of KDE's troubles were because KDE 4.ZERO was pushed onto users, when the devs were quite open that ".0 status means the API is frozen", not that KDE4 was ready for real use.

Cheers,
Wol

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 21:38 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

That is the usual rationale cited for the 4.0 release but it is clear that many users didn't expect that and 4.0 release announcement didn't mention it either. That was one of the reasons for the initial backlash and 4.1 announcement did include such a note. Chalk it up to lesson learned.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:47 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

In hindsight release 4.0 should have been the one with the codename "Krash", not 3.9something.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 23:51 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

To be fair, only the most enthusiastic had KDE 4.0 pushed onto them. Indeed, some of us have avoided KDE 4.x almost completely until now. Apparently, KDE 4.x is quite usable provided that one is prepared to adjust it somewhat to behave as one might expect.

As I pointed out elsewhere, perhaps the most significant problem for the KDE and GNOME developers is not what these environments can do or support but how they are delivered to users by default, especially when those users expect something else and are not willing to experience a learning curve for the sake of it (maybe because they're only getting version upgrades infrequently, not at every opportunity, and thus experience the resulting big paradigm change as a sudden shock).

Still, I think it is regrettable that only as various environments reach their x.7 release or so (where x is the controversial major version number) are they regarded as picking up from where the previous major version series left off.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:29 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link] (1 responses)

@rahul
Disclaimer:
If you think I 'm personally attacking you, I am really sorry if it came out that way. Its not my intention. But I always liked you for your contributions in fedora and massively respect your involvement. But the LWN "gnome-is-always right/everyone loves gnome-shell" posts of yours is misleading. I am using fedora f19 with XFCE.

>KDE 4 has settled down and users have accepted it.

If there was a choice people shall opt for it. Shoving down the throat with an not-so-interesting interface is what gnome users are facing right now.
You always argue that gnome UI is loved by everyone and try to project that the people who doesn't like it are a minority. Well honestly its not the case and you tend to use the freedom of speech to high-pitch your opinions on others on every other gnome-shell issue case. I always find some gnome-devs who doesn't disclose their position coming into support gnome-shell as well, at LWN. For all the love you have with gnome-shell try googling "I hate gnome-shell" without the quotes. There are like 2 dozens of threads in every linux forums about how they hate gnome-shell. I hardly find as much threads about how "I love gnome-shell" anywhere even with gnome 3.8.
There is very good chance that you might argue that forums are wrong place to look for statistics or info. I do understand that, but there are not many options out there.

>3.8 apparently has convinced some users that GNOME Shell isn't such an issue after all.

Do you have any base for your assertion?
If people don't talk about it, either they are done talking or already moved on to something else.
If gnome-shell is not such an issue why red hat is opting for a classic mode? (please save your self some time of implying how gnome-shell classic mode is also the gnome-shell, we already know that fact.)

> I suspect we will see more of that with time.
You are expecting us to get convinced and not bitch about gnome-shell?

>That is a pretty lame prediction. It essentially restates the basic premise of evolution.
I have lost lot of features in gnome apps in the last 2 years and I had to switch to XFCE. If that's evolution so be it.
There are alternatives in fedora as well with MATE/cinnamon.

>sbergman27 : Gnome-shell will adapt or die.
Its already adapting to red hat with classic mode. You can't market modern gnome-shell to workstation guys. Red hat knows that very well. They refer that "they want continuity in interface for a customer moving from gnome 2 to gnome 3".

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:37 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

"But the LWN "gnome-is-always right/everyone loves gnome-shell" posts of yours is misleading"

Let me stop you right there. I don't think GNOME Shell or GNOME is always right at all. They have made a lot of decisions which they themselves recognize as wrong and reverted and some I still think they have a long way to go but when I see people pretending that some change is universally hated or has no chance at all, I step it to point out, that isn't the case (be it KDE 4, GNOME 3 or Anaconda UI) and I am willing to take the heat for it. I don't expect that "bitching" about anything will solve any of your problems but hey, it is a free world.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 13:57 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (11 responses)

GNOME 1 to 2 was disruptive because GNOME 2 had very different code, and was initially quite buggy. The UI framework was unchanged though, other than that it focused on simplicity.

Further, the UI changes in GNOME 2 came about *BECAUSE OF* systematic, semi-scientific HCI testing, initiated by Sun, which led to a coherent HIG for GNOME. The GNOME people had objective *EVIDENCE* that the GNOME 2 UI changes significantly improved things.

I've asked here several times before, where are the HCI studies that justified the GNOME 3 UI changes? Not yet received a pointer to any such studies.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 16, 2013 17:49 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (10 responses)

GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 issues wasn't about a differences in codebase or stability as much as it was about the substantial UI changes and all the different configuration options in GNOME 1 that didn't exist in GNOME 2 and most of which never came back. As for HCI studies, I suspect you already know the answer. It was a one off thing funded by Sun because they wanted to replaced CDE.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 13:16 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (9 responses)

That HCI studies on GNOME 1 were funded by Sun for some reason in no way answers the question:

Where were the HCI studies on GNOME 2 that provided the objective evidence and rationale for the GNOME 3 UI changes?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 16:52 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (8 responses)

HCI studies in GNOME 1.x won't explain GNOME 3 changes anymore than it would explain KDE 4 changes. GNOME 3 changes were driven via the current GNOME Design team.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 16:56 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (7 responses)

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do have such a great compulsion to have the last word that you must reply even with such ridiculous off-the-point answers?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 17:18 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (6 responses)

I gave you a pointer to the team driving the changes so that you can ask them about the process directly. Did you find that too obtuse for you?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:10 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (5 responses)

It's a really simple question, with no reference to GNOME 1 or KDE required:

Where were the HCI¹ studies on GNOME 2 that provided the objective evidence and rationale for the GNOME 3 UI changes?

There's no need for a politician-like evasive answer, just "I don't know of any" or "Here's the link: ..." will do.

1. Or any other systematically obtained data or evidence.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:19 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

Let me try again for the last time. I am aware of some usability studies but I don't know if they have been published online. If you really want to know, you should talk to the people involved rather than asking here randomly and hoping the relevant designers will see and answer you.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:21 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (3 responses)

Ah, so now you know of studies, but can't tell me anything about them. Can you give me the contact details of a person involved in such a study so I can contact them?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 20:45 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

Again, you are insisting on asking the wrong person. You have to talk to the GNOME designers involved.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 21:04 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

Oh come now. Yesterday you didn't seem to know of any studies, except the Sun one on GNOME1 that led to the GNOME2 HIG:

Posted Jun 16, 2013 17:49 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram
… As for HCI studies, I suspect you already know the answer. It was a one off thing funded by Sun

Today you seem to claim you do know of some relevant to the GNOME2 → GNOME3 changes. So, as you have only just learned of them, you must have this information close to hand. Why be so unhelpful as to refuse to pass along a more exact pointer to something that surely must be almost at your fingertips?

In other comments in this article you seem willing to go into detail about and/or are quite confident you understand: what the design decisions were for the GNOME3 UI; what you have heard from the GNOME designers; why RedHat fund GNOME; etc. Why suddenly would you become so coy on the evidence question?

As of this point, there is still no answer to my question:

Where were the HCI studies on GNOME 2 that provided the objective evidence and rationale for the GNOME 3 UI changes?

with any pointer to any objective evidence.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 21:12 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

You are confusing the context of what I said and jumping to conclusions. You were talking about the Sun HCI study in GNOME and I pointed out that it was a one off thing funded by Sun because they replaced CDE. I honestly don't have any further information to provide to you.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 21, 2013 19:26 UTC (Fri) by strycat (guest, #91546) [Link] (2 responses)

KDE 4 is still a long way away from being the working DE that KDE 3 was. We've only "accepted" KDE4 because Gnome (2, 3, whatever version) still sucks more than KDE4 and the "Trinity" fork seems to still be just one or two people working on it.

Many of us recognize that because KDE is less popular than Gnome it just doesn't have the manpower to have good viable forks and alternatives grow. Gnome on the other hand has legions of coders who have made everything from Gnome Classic to Gnome Cinnamon.

So for us KDE people we're stuck with either using the inferior KDE 4, switching to the even more inferior Gnome, or go with something that is being maintained by just one person.

I accept these are the choices, but please don't say we've accepted KDE 4.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 21, 2013 20:39 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

There are a lot of us who have accepted KDE 4.

As someone who's been running it for several years before 4.0, I have to say that I don't know what is missing from KDE 4 that was there in KDE 3

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 25, 2013 19:27 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Multi-key shortcuts? (Sure, not hugely important, but I have them in Emacs so I want them on my desktop! Also I have huge fanout of literally hundreds of shortcut keys and I don't think I can fit them into the keyboard with single keys without using up all my bucky bits just on KDE shortcuts, leaving none for Emacs.)

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:36 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link] (3 responses)

Do you have any valid statistics to disprove it?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 18:55 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

Let me get this straight. You claim that everyone hates it without providing any reference to back it up and now you want to provide proof when I disagree? Alright. Let's do that.

To disprove your claim, all you need is a sample of one but you can go beyond that very easily. Look at Fedoraforum polls on which UI majority users preferred.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:23 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, I dislike Gnome3. And I'd certainly never foist it on my users. I'm not sure Fedora Forum is the right place for such a poll. Fedora users, by definition, are content with alpha-grade software.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 15, 2013 19:28 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

That is hilarious. As someone who has dealt with bug reports across hundreds of packages, let me assure, Fedora users expect and demand a lot more than you assume.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 6:12 UTC (Mon) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link] (18 responses)

Users speak, nothing happens. Redhat speaks and all of a sudden we have classic mode. What more proof do you need. Nobody else could get there ideas into the GNOME club. They were just shouted down. Sorry but that's the way it is and a reason why I stopped using GNOME years ago. If you don't like that people leave "show them the code" but don't criticise them for not using your product.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 14:52 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (17 responses)

You don't think Classic mode is a result of feedback from users, do you think that the idea came down on stone tablets from on-high via Redhat? This whole conversation is ridiculous, GNOME creates a well-executed but divisive new UI, they slowly complete it and flesh it out while listening to feedback from users and implement a Classic UI mode to cater to those users, the Internet explodes in sarcastic flames about how they have failed to be true to their vision ... LOL WUT? Would everyone prefer they didn't take feedback and criticism and improve? If the Classic UI was some sort of Redhat-only fork (which they could certainly do) and not an official part of stock GNOME then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on but clearly enough GNOME developers are interested in a Classic UI that it has happened.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 15:50 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (2 responses)

"""
and implement a Classic UI mode to cater to those users
"""

It's really too bad we don't have user polls available here. The Gnome3 shell and Fedora folks have managed to alienate most of Gnome's user-base. Sure, one can point to current Fedora users as a source of people who are not quite so averse to Gnome3 shell. But Fedora's user share has, itself, dropped precipitously since its inception of Gnome3 shell.

I would never have guessed, 5 years ago, that the entire Linux desktop effort would self destruct in just a few years. Unity. Gnome3 shell. It's a wasteland out there today. Gnome 2.32 is as excellent as it ever was. And the Mint/Cinnamon/Mate guys are doing their best with limited resources.

On Unix/Linux servers, everything's a file. But aside from that, on the Linux desktop, everything's a phone.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 3:18 UTC (Wed) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link] (1 responses)

Yup. And that is where I suspect GNOME 3 came from. A few years ago the iPad dropped on the world, Microsoft was about to unleash Metro and the GNOMEs got a real bad case of tablet envy.

What a difference a few years make. Apple didn't turn the Mac into an iProduct, Microsoft is watching Windows 8 become the biggest failure since Windows ME (Bob is still their biggest bomb though.) and GNOME3 utterly failed to convince anyone it was a viable desktop. I was asking a long time ago whether RedHat would be dumb enough to try passing it off on their actual paying customers. Now we know the answer, no they aren't.

With a little luck, perhaps the madness that befell our industry is passing. Microsoft is restoring the Start button and if they don't provide an actual menu behind it other certainly will. Now we know it will be at least RHEL8 before GNOME Shell could be inflicted on corporate Linux desktop users and by it might not even exist. People might finally be realizing that desktops and tablets are not interchangable. Ubuntu still hasn't figured it out, but they are trying really hard to get on tablets so maybe Unity will work for em.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 20, 2013 17:02 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

My suspicion is more 'Yuck, Nokia dropped GTK for QT! Intel is investing in clutter! The ingrates! We'll prove them wrong by making a better interface than them!' (plus a lot of wishful thinking like 'fixing evolution bugs is hard, let's make a browser launcher and let Google take care of the problem. The people that get interviewed do JS and CSS.')

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 22:19 UTC (Mon) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you are rewriting history here.

GNOME 3 was released in 2011 and we are now all of a sudden seeing a working Classic UI.

Not so long ago GNOME devs were talking about dropping fallback/classic entirely (yeah, because everyone loves shell so much).

You can see how people would think that RedHat is far more influential to GNOME than actual users right?

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 17, 2013 22:31 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Developers always have more influence than users on the direction of the project but "fallback/classic" is a confusing thing to say because they aren't the same thing. GNOME developers wanted to drop fallback mode because a number of components were starting to depend on clutter and wouldn't work properly in fallback mode. Fallback mode also required maintaining additional components like GNOME Panel. Classic mode doesn't have those issues.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 1:47 UTC (Wed) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link] (11 responses)

Yes it came down on stone tablets from Redhat. There was huge reaction from users, but nothing happened. They were just labelled malcontent. Take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics total connections to repositories. Fedora lost almost 1/2 of it's users when it switched to GNOME 3 and it has not recovered. Redhat does not want that to happen to RHEL.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 2:00 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (9 responses)

"Fedora lost almost 1/2 of it's users when it switched to GNOME 3 and it has not recovered. Redhat does not want that to happen to RHEL."

You should be very careful with asserting number of users. The statistics page you are linking to makes this disclaimer

"Currently, there is no reliable way to determine the total number of Linux users, or even count the total number of users of any Linux distribution which does not have a mandatory per user registration process."

Fedora has also changed how it tracks connections so you will have to have a lot more qualifiers to add. Besides, a substantial number of RHEL customers don't run GNOME at all.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 3:56 UTC (Wed) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link] (3 responses)

> Besides, a substantial number of RHEL customers don't run GNOME at all.

Why do you bring RHEL here? Its totally irrelevant to Fedora statistics.

> Fedora has also changed how it tracks connections so you will have to have a lot more qualifiers to add.

Like a million? Maybe.
Still the usage statistics are low.

I would say significant number of Fedora/Ubuntu users ran away to Linux mint and Arch Linux.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:10 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

" Why do you bring RHEL here? Its totally irrelevant to Fedora statistics."

It appears you missed the context. I am replying to a post that talks about both RHEL users and Fedora statistics.

"Still the usage statistics are low."

Fedora statistics on that page cannot track usage or users but only unique IP connections directly made to the public mirror manager for updates. Nothing more. There are dozens of different ways that these numbers can be undercounted or overcounted. It can vaguely show some general trends. Don't try to read too much into it.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:25 UTC (Wed) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link] (1 responses)

Well even if its under-counted it can't possibly be more than a million. If its over-counted its still low usage.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:37 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Maybe but I think you missed the point which is that these numbers are quite fuzzy and as I have noted in another post, mirror manager changes could very well explain the difference. Infrastructure knew that these were fuzzy numbers and Fedora Board asked Legal if a yum feature that enabled more accurate tracking could be enabled by default and the answer was that, it was risky due to international privacy laws and it was a costly process to quantify that risk and Fedora as a project decided we didn't want to do that. Even assuming that there is a significant change in these numbers, it is pretty hard to pinpoint the reason for that. Fedora as a distribution certainly doesn't try to judge usage by these numbers. Fedora project is planning to run a survey shortly which might help provide some answers.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:04 UTC (Wed) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link] (4 responses)

That disclaimer may hold for determining absolute numbers but look at the trend leading up to fedora 14 and after fedora 14. A 50% change is not noise. Forums are not noise. A lot of people won't or can't use GNOME 3.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 4:24 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (3 responses)

Again, I am not sure that conclusion can be made from the statistics page. For instance, IIRC around that time, Fedora switched from a direct mirroring system to a tiered system and doesn't get as much load on the master mirror as a result and it might affect the IP count as well.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 15:43 UTC (Wed) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link] (2 responses)

If that metric is so bad, why still show it on the wiki?
Hosting it on the official wiki with a small disclaimer is poor marketing.
It should be taken down, immediately since it is giving such a bad rapport to the distro.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 16:51 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

It has a rather big and prominent disclaimer. You just chose not to read it.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 17:14 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

It's a poor marketing tool because its _not_ a marketing tool. Marketing had nothing to do with these numbers.

In an effort to inhabit your headspace, and to have some empathy for your point of view...I'm going to go ahead and horribly misuse an analogy similar to the way you are misusing these numbers in a sincere effort to communicate with you at your level.

Stop trying to use a turkey baster to put gas in your car. Turkey basters are not gas cans... in the same way these stats are not market penetration numbers.

The small unfeeling reptilian part of my brain would be overjoyed if Fedora was doing a mandatory phone home to get solid numbers for client usage..like Canonical introduced in 2010 in oem pre-installs when it started to require the canonical-census package be installed and active. Which interestingly enough we've never actually seen the data from that market penetration tool publicly discussed or even cited as part of marketing materials before it was taken out back and shot. Funny that. Or not so funny that depending on your sense of humor I guess.

But the evolved human part of my brain, the part that cares about other people and not just calculation accuracy, balks at the idea of tracking fedora clients. Just because we have the ability to track, does not make it ethical to do so. Oh yes something like a fedora-census application that was installed by default and pinged the fedora mothership every day would be an absolutely fantastic market analytics tool and at the same time be an absolutely horrid affront to user privacy. And with that trade-off in mind, I'll live with the ambiguous fedora unique ip numbers and the untrendable nature, thank you very much.

That being said, I've invested a non-zero amount of time trying to squeeze useful information out of the fedora numbers as well as other public datasets. Getting a handle on any real-world usage of any linux distribution is an impossible problem at the moment. Made worse by the fact that default user agent strings in firefox and chrome don't list linux vendor any longer. There is a reason why "unknown linux" is the highest linux population in the wikimedia stats for over a year now. The default user agent strings are just not unique enough any longer to see the difference between active linux desktop releases. Everything comes up as "unknown" because the vendor is no longer typically encoded in the useragent string. Wikimedia will count active opensuse and fedora release clients as "unknown linux" unless a user delibrately changes the default user string. I've know of no statistically significant way to trend a specific distribution flavor in day-to-day sampling interactions let-alone attempt to trend relative penetration of one distro to another. Every single set of numbers I've seen have gaping head wounds in the viability of the methodology to provide sensible estimates.

Red Hat discloses RHEL roadmap (TechTarget)

Posted Jun 19, 2013 8:45 UTC (Wed) by kigurai (guest, #85475) [Link]

The "Total connections to repository" is on the other hand the only statistic on that page that agrees with your assumption.

Also notice that the repository count took a just as big skydive between Fedora 8 and 9 as well.

Looking at the unique IP's to connect to fedoraproject.org there is nothing that indicates that Fedora has lost users. Just to take another metric as "counter-proof".

If you try hard enough, anything can be shown by statistics. :)