There are some very good points here being made, I have assigned myself to this issue, but of course would like to hear from the community about their experiences with multiple desktops. I Quote:
This article is currently included in the “Adding and managing software” category, which would be mostly visited by users new to Fedora.
Installing multiple desktop environments side by side is an advanced topic that, while technically possible, would normally be discouraged for most scenarios and especially to new users who are not comfortable (yet) fixing conflicts and compatibility issues on their systems.
The existence of the article in this (starter) category implies that it is a common practice to undertake this, and that the Fedora community perceives it as a more or less trivial undertaking. The introduction text also underlines this using wording like “you can easily try”.
@litemotiv has made some very good point as to why a new user shouldn’t embark on this but also on the placement of such a tutorial. My personal opinion is this could be a HowTo or a Wiki article with it’s copmplexities better explained and some gotcha’s or pitfalls.
Quote:>
It might be advisable to either:
Remove this article from the official documentation since it is an advanced experimentation topic that doesn’t really belong in main/official documentation.
As an alternative, move it to a different category such as “Usage and customization” with the addition of a clear warning that installing multiple Desktop Environments may cause unforeseen performance or stability issues and to proceed with caution.
I would personally be in favor of the first option, and not make the instructions in this article part of the official documentation.
It’s a good discussion to have around the project for new user experience, and also for contributors on placement, scope of a Quick Doc, Wiki, HowTo, Proper Documentation.
I would love to hear from you all on this as i know many of you test out many configurations and builds and have experience with different DE’s.
I’ll avoid to repeat here, but rather link where I suggested again[1] that the Wiki should ideally both more clearly communicate its actual purpose and be cleaned up accordingly.
Of course one may disagree with that suggestion and that’s fine. Contingent one agrees though, then the discussed guide is user-facing and therefore, in my opinion, does not belong to the Wiki.
Furthermore, the idea of multiple DEs coexisting might be a bit more advanced or tricky, but it can be a very valid use-case, like for a shared (eg family) system where different users have different DE preferences.
All things considered:
I completely agree that a warning should be placed accordingly regardless, because mixing and matching DEs can indeed bring up issues
Given the two suggested options I would find the second one a better fit
Given a well structured implementation of such category, there’s opportunity to host more issues/topics that appear to be “somewhat problematic” for their current placement, eg things like that Spotify (snap) conversation[2] or any similar that might come up in the future.
Hey there, I appreciate the contribution. I somewhat missed that post as I have been dealing with laptop/tablet issues.
I wholeheartedly agree
The multi DE systems are in my opinion a more advanced user use case. There have been discussions on this in the past on multiple threads where the ideal situation would be to have a User for 1 DE and a seperate user for the second DE. I still think it’s hard to pull off and can be tricky. I don’t think this is a New User experience at all.
Interesting, I have no clue who would need to be involved with that, but either way it would be great to meet and work with other members who help bring this together. Reorganizing some Docs can prove more helpful than removal.
Could you provide a little more detail here, I might not be understanding it correctly.
Let me start by saying — just to be clear — I absolutely agree that the guide in question (multi-DE setup) is not a begginer topic. What I do not agree with, is that this same guide does not belong in the official documentation at all. For example, SE Linux, kernel and booting, virtualization etc are not addressing begginer use cases either. But they still, rightfully belong right there, couple of clicks away in the Docs.
That said and out of the way, let me explain the Spotify example and what a new format could be. (*Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that the following are just rough ideas rather than well thought out implementations with hours of thought).
There could be a sub-category level template “Unconventional Use-Cases”. This would appear on-demand in the top level categories, to encapsulate relevant to the top category issues that are generally discouraged. The usage of word template here is very intentional — it implies a pre-existing structure to follow!
Very rough template example:
# Disclaimer/Warning:
Fedora discourages this because of X and Y reason.
# Use-Case
While this is discouraged by Fedora,
a user might still want to do this because it accomplishes X or Y goal.
# Practicality
Here's are the actual practical implications you might encounter while trying to do that thing we don't really suggest you do. Keep an eye open for it. Here is a preparation/contingency plan (eg a snapshot-rollback plan) in case things go south
# Guide
Here is how you do it
Now this becomes applicable to both (and possibly others) issues.
→ Adding and Managing Software
→ → Unconventional Use-Cases
→ → → Using Multiple DEs
→ Adding and Managing Software
→ → Unconventional Use-Cases
→ → → Installing Apps from SnapCraft
To be fair. . . I’ve been around in some capacity since before that and had absolutely no clue that was a thing. I’m sure many people did not. The Wiki is not very discoverable from my experience.
I think moving it away from a Quick Doc to The Doc instead would be better served for beginners, new to Fedora/Linux Users.
I’d be up for even rewording or restructuring it to better point to it’s potential difficulty and overall experience.
I feel that both the quick and main docs should ideally contain as few articles as possible that require specific warnings or disclaimers. If it’s a potential risky thing to try out, it’s not really something you should want to advocate at this stage. These areas should be the safe and stable part of someone’s Fedora journey. Exceptions might be a few inherently risky but sometimes necessary operations like updating grub or kernel settings for compatibility or recovery.
While i do feel there should be a place where other advanced tinkering and experimentation topics can be found, an article in a secondary wiki, blog or similar might feel more suitable. It doesn’t have to be information that is curated and maintained in the main documentation. There is already so much information to digest for (new) users.
Honestly, I have not had too deep a thought on it since I have had hardware/software issues these last two weeks. It’s slowed me down some.
In General, I think the placement of certain write ups affects the Beginners experience and perceived functionality.
I look around some of the Fedora Docs page, there are categories that have deeper more proper Documentation feel to them. Quick Docs does not fit the scope for such a document. It’s overall difficult to troubleshoot and implement properly, which the current write up does not cover.
Which leads me to have some neutrality in this, since I agree a better worded and implemented Document could do it some good as well.
I personally have stated that I do feel it’s a higher difficulty to maintain and implement. I think we fall in to the “Linux is about customization” rabbit hole too much as a selling point, without weighing the potential issues and difficulty in maintenance which wrecks user experience. It’s learning to crawl before you walk.
All in all I wanted to have this discussion, because from experience I know the community has had to help, or get help from this very topic. Opening this up to have a discussion is healthy. I think a lot of good can come from this and encourage engagement.
I chuckle, because I agree wholeheartedly. We could end up with a situation where all the Quick Docs have disclaimers which in essence is a failure for a quick documentation.
I think the very hard ones could have a accompanying Forum Post, since Triage would be more readily available ?
I’m with you on that. I must confess I struggle where to publish a new article every time I start on a new idea. At least, three pages (different repos in two Git forges) are candidates for my new articles.
It can be challenging, I have a dynamic approach to things I write, I tend to ask myself
What’s the write up on
Who’s the target audience ( novice, intermediate, advanced )
Delivery ( Because you have to Deliver ! )
This topic was always going to be difficult, because the Doc is not badly worded and in practice works. it’s the repercussions of doing such a thing that is a red flag for me. There are numerous issues here and there about it, and numerous approaches on a potential solution to it.
This is a interesting take, and I like it !
I really enjoy the detail and structure here. To me it makes sense on many levels.
@beattb I’d like to invite you to join Pagure as well. Your contributions will be useful for us moving forward.
Also, apologies to all I have been having hardware/software issues but the latest round of updates might have fixed me up
Being a new (Linux and Fedora) user, I have to say: I would love to be able to easily switch DEs in order to try them out. I settled for KDE because it seems closer to my experience with Windows. I frequently ready blog posts about new features in other DEs and sometimes I think, “it would be cool, if I could try them without re-installing my operating system”.
Linux is often advertised as “you have the choice of your desktop” (while other OS give you no choice) - but if switching means re-installing the complete OS, then it’s not such a big choice in my opinion.
I sometimes think that the barrier to choose a DE upfront without knowing what consequences that brings is in fact a hindrance for a wider Linux adoption.
Switching desktop is a convenient option for users who want to try out without reinstalling each and every Spin. It certainly has limitations. Loading GNOME on KDE Plasma could have undesirable screen tearing and freeze. That’s why we put a disclaimer.
I am slowly watching the Flock talks (sadly the Live timing doesn’t work for me so I selectively watch some of them at my own time), and I really liked some remarks[1] made by Kevin Fenzi during the Live FESCo session. The statement in the context of the Flock talk addresses concerns about AI/ML, but I think it nicely complements what I what I was thinking about addressing in this case.
[…] A large part of Software Engineering isn’t writting the code, if you look at the percentages of time, you know, you spend… a lot of Software Engineering is: “What is the problem? What is the problem I’m trying to solve?”
I think this hits the nail on the head here.
It’s not that any of those guides we are discussing aren’t useful.
I think, personally, we are looking at the tree and missing the forest…
I don’t think the struggling of finding the correct place for an entry/article/guide is because it can be useful or fitting in a lot of places — that goes without saying for anything that deserves a write-up.
And I don’t think that removing or moving, or rewording the DE case would make any of it less confusing.
I think, those are the symptoms… I think the problem we are facing here is that the current undermining structure of the Docs is so shaky that there isn’t a single, clear, correct place to put a write-up in.
It has definitely passed my mind but, to be totally honest, I’m somewhat dissuaded by the fragmentation issues that are being discussed in the other thread. Thankfully another Flock talk, that of Matthew Miller, drew an outline of a more hopeful future. But I guess it’ll take time to come to fruition if it does at all.
I understand that. I thought about it myself before those conversations were had, but at the same time I wanted to contribute.
So what should I do? Wait around for a solution, or start the work and let the future sort itself out. This is like: “Upgrade my GPU or Wait for X”
Either way the Docs need work. More help is needed.
In my opinion, the way the Fedora User Documentation is currently organized, and what is actually offered in terms of available topics, a Fedora Desktop (be it Workstation edition or any of the available spins) user primarily goes to read how-tos in the QuickDocs section/repo.
Therefore, I would say more advanced, desktop-related topics (such as the one in question) should have their place in QuickDocs, certainly only within specific chapters.
The available chapters might also need an overhaul, a challenging task though.
That does make sense, and I interpret a lot of what @beattb has laid out as such.
I’m glad this conversation is being had.
Hmm, not if they are laid out by levels of experience? or other methods
It’s incredible to me that the Containerized workflows haven’t figured out a way to set up a Namespace, Container for the whole DE. . . We skipped that and just said “Put the whole system in a Container instead”. Clearly a business related move, but it would have been more Desktop friendly to have the Containers encapsulate the Desktop, allowing you to have any DE you want without harm to the system.
Maybe it’s just easier at that point to have files be accessible to whole systems instead of just a DE.
Unfortunately, Linux is advertised as whatever the speaker wants it to be. . . Which is actually a negative from my point of view.
I can’t speak for others, but here is where my personal insistence of “advanced QuickDocs are still QuickDocs” comes from, from my perspective. I share this in hopes that it might help us communicate better the different perceptions we probably have of the same thing, and therefore on what exactly are we disagreeing.
My understanding is (and please do correct me if my assumption is wrong) that you perceive Quick Docs as “beginner Docs”. Instead, try to think of them as “Goal Oriented Guides”.
The QuickDocs Landing Page reads:
This is a collection of short HOW-TO and FAQ-style documentation for Fedora users.*Use the navigation menu on the left to find an area of interest, and under that, solutions to your specific problem.
It doesn’t matter what the goal is — it could be as simple as configuring an additional keyboard layout, or automating snapshoting and rollback on dnf transactions — as long as the goal is very clear. Then the Quick Doc lays out a very structured path to making that (the goal) happen.
I chuckle, because I agree wholeheartedly. We could end up with a situation where all the Quick Docs have disclaimers which in essence is a failure for a quick documentation.
