A proposal to switch Fedora Workstation's desktop

A proposal to switch the default desktop for Fedora Workstation from GNOME to KDE Plasma largely went over like the proverbial lead balloon—unsurprisingly. But the conversation about the proposal did surface some areas where the distribution could perhaps be more inclusive with regard to the other desktop choices available. The project believes that it benefits from being opinionated and not requiring users to make multiple decisions before they can even install the distribution, but there is a balance to be found.

For Fedora 42

The change proposal was posted to the Fedora devel mailing list on behalf of the feature's owners (Joshua Strobl, Marc Deop i Argemí, Troy Dawson, Steve Cossette, Alessandro Astone) by Fedora operations architect Aoife Moloney on April 2. In short, it proposes to "switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma" for Fedora 42, which will come in roughly a year. As one might expect, it reads like an advocacy piece about the Plasma desktop, extolling its virtues while not denigrating GNOME at all. The idea would be to swap the positions of Plasma and GNOME, keeping the GNOME edition as a separate version that would still be release-blocking; new installs would get Plasma by default, while upgrading existing systems would not switch the desktop.

The date of the post did not help with its initial reception. It was first posted on the Fedora wiki April 1, but was announced a day later on the list. That led Richard Hughes to wonder if it was an April Fools' Day joke; if so, "it's a weird one, and a day too late". Tomas Torcz thought the proposal made sense because Plasma seems "more technically advanced than GNOME", thus he did not think it is a joke. Feature owner Cossette agreed that it was not a joke; despite the timing, "the proposal is 1000% serious". He followed that up with some more information about the thinking of its proponents. For one thing, it was never meant to knock down GNOME; the real goal is rather different:

The overall spirit of the CP [change proposal] is that we think KDE, and to some extent the other spins too, need a bit more visibility on the website. At the very least, Gnome and KDE should be up front on the frontpage.

[...] We've been discussing it in Matrix, and we can't seem to reach a consensus as to what is the best way to initiate the discussion procedure. Figured a change proposal was probably a decent way to "kick the hornet's nest", so to speak.

But Kevin Fenzi objected that giving the two desktops equal billing would simply lead to confusion; what would be needed is a way to describe the differences to new users "in a quick enough way that they won't decide it's all confusing and go do something else". Kevin Kofler thought there was a fairly straightforward way to raise the visibility of Plasma and other spins without confusing users. He suggested that the first "option" be a big button that users who hate options can click (hyperbolically: "I HATE OPTIONS, JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING WITH NO OPTIONS!"); it would download the GNOME workstation edition for x86_64. Below that would be alternative desktops for the various architectures, then specialty choices, such as mobile versions and Fedora Labs, and so on. The advantage is that the big button at the top will cater to the users Fenzi is concerned about and "will give them a desktop environment designed exactly for them".

Fenzi said that could simply be turned on its head, so that the "Download Workstation" button was at the top, followed by other options—which is more or less what is there now. The current Fedora home page (from the Wayback Machine, since it may be changing) shows the five editions, Workstation, Server, IoT, Cloud, and CoreOS, toward the top, each with its own logo, short description, download link, and "Learn More" button. After that come the other options, Atomic desktops, Spins, Labs, and Alternative (ALT) downloads, each with a description and "Learn more" link. Kofler said that the arrangement places Plasma (and other desktops) behind editions, such as IoT, Cloud, or Server, that may well be irrelevant to the users Fenzi mentioned.

Cossette acknowledged Fenzi's point about confusing users, but suggested that choosing between two desktops was not such a huge barrier, especially in comparison to the decision on which of a huge number of Linux distributions to try. Adam Williamson pointed out, however, that the outcome of the Fedora.next initiative back in 2014 had specifically overhauled the distribution to make it "much more focused and less of a choose-your-own-adventure, specifically including making the download page much more opinionated". Michael Catanzaro said that while the changes made have been "key to the success of Fedora over the past 10 years", there may still be room to raise the profile of Plasma on Fedora:

But there is a continuum of strategies we can use to promote our default desktop over other options, and I wonder if we've erred too far in favor of Fedora Workstation and against Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop here. The Plasma spin is much "bigger" than the other spins, it's of comparable quality to Fedora Workstation, and it is release blocking. It just seems strange to relegate it to a secondary downloads page regardless of how popular it is, while the non-desktop editions (some of which are frankly relatively niche) get featured very prominently.

Edition?

He suggested that since the Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop spin occupied a singular position among the spins (and various other kinds of Fedora releases), it could perhaps become an edition of its own. The "Workstation" name and branding should not be used for it, and the distribution would "continue to steer undecided users towards Fedora Workstation", but it would make Plasma easier to find and present it "more prominently than it is today". Beyond that, the Fedora Spins could be positioned higher on the home page—since those options are not mutually exclusive, both could be done.

Neal Gompa, who is a member of the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) and the KDE SIG, wondered why the options could not be "Fedora GNOME Workstation" and, reusing the current name, "Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop". But Andreas Tunek pointed out that using GNOME in the name of the Workstation edition is concerning because it may imply the existence of other Workstation editions to some, which is not the case at all. Kofler said that he was not sure that he bought that argument, however.

FESCo member Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek agreed with Catanzaro's idea that the Plasma spin become an edition. He did not see that having a second choice would be disruptive to the Fedora Workstation edition. Like others, he thought that the web site needed some reorganization. Gompa seemed concerned that the change would simply move the KDE version in with the editions, but Williamson noted that is actually a big change:

Being an Edition is a very significant thing, though, as we conceive of Fedora more widely than just the download page. We put a bunch of hoops in the way of IoT and CoreOS becoming editions, and there are hoops in the way of Silverblue becoming one (or, you know, wherever we go with that path in the end).

Jędrzejewski-Szmek said that his assumption was that the proposal would be changed to create a KDE Plasma edition, following the Edition Promotion Policy. Overall, it seems that KDE Plasma would qualify, with one possible exception:

The only sticky point is whether KDE desktop serves a different purpose than Workstation with GNOME. I'd say it does: desktop preferences are like religion, and people don't just switch (except when they do).

More discussion

A parallel discussion of the change proposal took place on the Fedora discussion forum after one of the owners, Joshua Strobl, posted it there. That discussion progressed on similar lines, with some highly in favor of a switch, while others were strongly opposed—still others wondered whether it was an April Fools' joke. Cossette clarified that the proposal was not aimed at removing GNOME, but, of course, the proposal wording itself seemed to advocate in that direction, which was confusing.

Fedora project leader Matthew Miller suggested a path for the change proposal owners—and the wider KDE SIG that they are members of—to take, starting with contacting the Fedora Workstation working group to see if there is any interest in switching to, or better supporting, Plasma. In the likely event that does not go far, looking into a promotion to an edition would be the next step, he said. In the meantime, Miller asked that the change proposal be withdrawn, or that FESCo defer action on it, until that process could play out. Gompa, who is also a member of the Workstation working group, said that he would rather see the discussion continue. Since the proposal targets Fedora 42, "there's a very long timeframe to figure things out".

Yet another proposal owner, Troy Dawson, filed an issue with the Workstation group on April 12. As with the change proposal, the issue suggested replacing GNOME with KDE Plasma in the Workstation edition for Fedora 42. If that was not of interest: "we would like to talk with the Fedora Workstation Group about possible ways to promote KDE to Edition level status in Fedora". That set off a lengthy discussion, in the issue thread and over several Workstation meetings, that continues as of this writing. On May 6, Catanzaro summarized the status:

I think we have a rough consensus that:

• We do not want to use Fedora Workstation branding for KDE
• We still want Workstation to be the "default" choice (i.e. we don't want them to be viewed as equal) (Neal [Gompa] does not agree with this)

But, even after spending the entirety of the May 7 meeting discussing the issue, the group has not come up with an official response. Catanzaro said: "I know you've been waiting a while (sorry!) and we want to finish this soon, but this is also too important to rush."

That's where things stand now. The discussion has mostly run its course at this point; along the way it included various comparisons of the two desktops and their ease of use for newcomers (as opposed to the Linux-savvy), rehashing the decision on continuing X11 support for Plasma, and more. Based on what we know, a switch to Plasma for Fedora Workstation in Fedora 42 (or any release in the foreseeable future) seems vanishingly unlikely. On the other hand, more prominence for the Plasma spin (or, probably, edition) is something we are likely to see—perhaps even well before a year goes by.