Naming on os-tree based variants

I actually disagree with this.
People expect consistency, and if it a project does not provide it, it will be quickly be tagged as “non sense” or “badly managed”/“badly thoughtout”.

The problem is that is not precise enough to distinguish Silverblue from Kinoite.

The common basis here is Fedora, not Fedora Atomic. The fact that Silverblue & Kinoite share rpm-ostree, etc. is not really the point: it’s all Fedora.

We use a code names to distinguish Fedora variants, just like we use Fedora Server and Fedora Workstation where it’s the exact same tech underneath but a different set of default packages, a different experience.

Silverblue & Kinoite are different user experience and they also differ from the Workstation and KDE Spin experience even though they are close.

I think the question we should ask is: why do we need different names?
if we need to have different names to ensure that a person can search on a search engine their distro name and find shell commands that apply to them, Kinoite and Silverblue are similar enough to share the same name.
In the other hand, if the same person should be able to find a tutorial for the GUI, then Silverblue and Kinoite require different names, at least different enough that a search engine can discriminate the results.

1 Like

But that’s not how language works at all!

We deflate the potential of our language and words if we adhere to too much consistency and cause too much length. I’ve pointed out how application of specific rules can establish hierarchy and grouping in our offerings… important when you have enough offerings to overwhelm and confuse, as we do. Overwhelming and confusing is possible with consistent naming schemes, especially if they are so long as to be difficult to utter and too long to capture a reader’s attention, and so similar (due to the consistency) that the diff between offering names is minimal:

Fedora Atomic Foo
Fedora Atomic Bar
Fedora Atomic Baz
Fedora Atomic Qux

Nobody is going read all of that repetition, either out loud or in their head unless they’re being paid to as a narrator. We simply don’t process language that way - we seek shortcuts. So having a naming scheme like this is effectively not much different than


Which I think we are all against. Or even worse it could mean


And that’s 10x worse still. Where as you have something like

Fedora Atomic Baz
Fedora Atomic Qux

Suddenly it gets a little more interesting. Why are Foo and Bar singletons while the latter two have Fedora Atomic. You can play with the visual arrangement of these. You naturally get a feeling of some order/hierarchy going on, and it can spark some curiosity and asking of helpful questions intuitively.

1 Like

I think the question we should ask is: why do > we need different names?

1 Like

I’m an active Fedoran, I also maintain the “Vauxite” Xfce variant of immutable Fedora. I personally think it’s superfluous to have separate names and branding/logos for each immutable variant. The meme that @duffy shared above resonates with me. We don’t have separate unique names, branding, and logos for the Fedora Spins and Labs. I think it would be efficient to have the ostree family categorically distinct from regular Fedora, and united under the current Silverblue logo, as the logo symbolizes ostree rather than a specific desktop or window manager. In the poll posted by @jflory7, I voted for Fedora Silverblue family with DE/WM modifiers for variants, but I’d be equally satisfied with bringing back the “Atomic” name. I think this makes the variants specific enough for reviewers and also doesn’t add a bunch of ridiculously arbitrary naming/branding/logos.

Anyway, that’s my three cents, for whatever it’s worth. :slightly_smiling_face:


Just adding my two cents here:

I think it’s interesting to look at the current naming scheme to know how we might want to manage new editions.

The current naming scheme for classic variants is as follows:

  • Fedora Workstation
  • Spins
    • Fedora KDE
    • Fedora XFCE…

As I understand it, the “Fedora Workstation” edition was intentionally singled out to emphasize the fact that it’s the main edition, which is going to receive the most support and attention.

Based on the “Silverblue” and “Atomic” naming schemes, I think the same pattern could be used for OSTree editions:

  • Fedora Silverblue
  • Spins
    • Fedora Atomic KDE
    • Fedora Atomic XFCE…

This would allow us to keep the flagship “Silverblue” brand name that people are used to, while using descriptive naming for the rest, and avoiding the proliferation of custom names.

Putting all of this together, this could look like:

  • Classic
    • Fedora Workstation
    • Spins
      • Fedora KDE…
  • Atomic
    • Fedora Silverblue
    • Spins
      • Fedora Atomic KDE…

The “Classic” and “Atomic” categories would clearly convey the idea that Fedora Silverblue is part of the Atomic lineup, without butchering its brand name.

This would put the Classic and Atomic lineups at the same level, thus easing the transition to an “Atomic first” approach in the future by renaming Classic spins to “Fedora Classic X”, and later dropping the “Atomic” name altogether.

Of course, this proposal only covers the workstation lineup of Fedora editions.

IMO, other editions like Server and IoT should be separated into their own category, as mixing the workstation and server lineups might be confusing for new users, and the “Atomic” naming scheme doesn’t make sense for specialized editions where immutability is already implied, as in CoreOS.

another one misspelling Kinoite! Feels good ;D

I agree totally that the names need to become normal and resemble the used Desktop, as well as “this is the solid system most users should prefer”. At the moment these Distros are very much hidden away.


  1. Fedora
  2. “its atomic/immutable/image-based”
  3. Desktop

I think to make it shorter you have to leave something out. I dont think you have to, Fedora Atomic KDE sounds fine, but maybe there needs to be a new name for Fedora+OSTree