Foreword
Mattdm, thank you for sharing Fedora’s desktop environment usage graph. That was useful in formulating my opinion on the proposed change.
Background Disclaimer: I sysadmin 10+ Fedora Kinoite/KDE-Spin workstations and donate to the KDE community.
Recommendation
In its current form, I would recommend the proposal be changed, edited or withdrawn. This is not a commendation of Plasma or the proposal’s authors, but rather a strong belief that a lesser problem is being addressed via the proposal.
Rationale for questioning
In 2024, the world has decided that a majority of the funding/labor/attention that is being spent on open-source desktop environments (Linux-targeted) is focused on two entities, namely GNOME and KDE Plasma. This focus is not guaranteed, nor can it be. The proposal in question indirectly reflects the sentiment that as technologies ebb and flow in their forward looking nature, Fedora (as a project) should response accordingly by changing its “banner.” That could be argued as true, given the project’s stated mission, but is a “banner” change an accurate response given the skilled innovations in both of the aforementioned desktop environments? Over what window of time do we judge? An organization can quickly loses its identity if tangible elements change repeatedly within too short of an interval (even if the action is justifiable to the stated technical mission).
Seeing a problem
People have needs and they are different. Plasma and GNOME are meeting needs, demonstrating high degrees of innovation, and are the recipients of global mindshare. Fedora has acknowledge this by granting both release blocker status, but this understanding is not shared visibly in the presentation layer. KDE Plasma has the same weight as XFCE or LXDE, a spin. Only a deeper dive into the project reveals the truth. This proposal’s comments shows that members of the community feel that this presentation is preventing people from finding something of value, a great Plasma distribution.
A brief personal aside: My team actually avoided Fedora for years because the Fedora site gave off the impression that GNOME was the sole focus and that the KDE Spin was a mere courtesy gesture. In reality, this was a very incorrect impression to hold as Fedora hold one of the best Plasma implementation on the market today.
Is there an answer?
Yes and no, but this proposal is not it. Wisdom shows that GNOME and Plasma need each other at present. The two paradigms operate in tandem. GNOME offers the world an “ideal” where purposeful simplicity creates functional accessibility (a leader). KDE Plasma offers a “framework” for creating functionality based on the unique demands of its user (a servant).
I doubt a DE will ever exist that is both “a servant and a leader” in nature, so the Fedora project will have to deal with the hand it is dealt. I can not provide a complete answer, but I would respect any decision to elevate Plasma’s visible standing within the project’s image. This also extends to any initiative which provides “guidance” to aid new users in finding their correct Fedora experience. The project’s challenge would then be how to keep its identity cohesive if it has separate parts of equal concern.
Closing
Fedora is a distribution of Linux that is in a class of its own. I am happy to be a Fedora Kinoite user and want to do what I can to help the project thrive. Fedora implemented underlying technologies that have changed my view of systems (rpm-ostree, systemd, dnf, btrfs, flatpak, selinux, wayland, pipewire, cockpit, etc…). Even if people don’t know these techs are there, I believe they are better off living on top of them. The last thing I want to see is desktop environment issues blocking people from having a better life. Hopefully someone smarter than I can find a way for both Plasma and Gnome to accessible to the right people.
-ChrisHRD