I would tend to modify that to say that any conclusion based on such polls are not supported by the poll methodology and numbers.
And without addressing the issues (and that includes some of the really hard issues) all of Flathub cannot be accepted into Fedora as they exist today.
I’ve been drafting a statement with input from Rob McQueen, which was the statement we agreed on during my embargo period. I think everyone deserves that statement.
How do we do that? Is there some particular metadata field that would could make better use of to ensure the words you need show up in the application catalog UX in a way that will help you make a decision?
Assuming that variants of the same application from multiple flatpak remotes are going to continue to exist. What needs to change to make the user experience better for you, so you can identify which variant is the one you want?
I ask, because right now its not clear to me where that sort of contextual information to help you make a more informed choice can be added in a way that is user visible.
Hey Jef, great to meet you and thanks for you response. I do have some ideas, some stemming from a User Experience event I was a part of and also more general experience. I’ll put it together and post on this thread.
Tbh, this is indeed a pain point for Fedora…it is probably best that users are made aware of issues pertaining to missing proprietary codecs and runtimes ahead of time for the software available in the Fedora repos.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a section in Quick Docs dedicated to software with known issues or missing functionality (and the details of what and why) due to the FOSS-only implementation?
It might be another good opportunity to drive users to Quick Docs and maybe even an opportunity for contributions to be made there for users to add things they notice that are not currently widely known (pending the usual review and approval process of course).
This is a very large misunderstanding. I am not speaking against FOSS, I am saying that we all need to be honest with one another about certain real world limitations that exist, creating frustrations for new users on the platform and how that can turn away people because they have an expectation of functionality. If people know ahead of time whether to use a fedora flatpak or a flathub flatpak I see a path of less frustration. The entire purpose of documentation for an OS is to list what works, how things work, and how to better let the user handle their affairs on that given OS.
So now I ask of you, what will you say to the person who wants to listen to music that they own and paid for that is in a format that requires proprietary codecs to playback? To watch videos to catch up on the daily news and status of financial markets, let’s say for example on yahoo finance (there are more websites out there) - only to see that the video will not play.
Or maybe that person is a streamer, video editor, or content creator that relies on certain proprietary codecs to encode videos. How will they automatically know that they either need to perform some more steps to get things working, or use a flathub flatpak?
Is it really wrong to let that person know what the problem is and how they could go about fixing it?
I am only making a suggestion to improve user experience at the end of the day. Don’t make this into a FOSS or anti-FOSS debate.
I’m also a strong advocate for FOSS, but that’s not the main point of discussion here. What’s really being debated is whether Fedora should create unnecessary Flatpaks by repackaging FOSS apps that are already available on Flathub. In my opinion, that’s a definite NO. It’s just redundant work that wastes resources where none are needed and introduces a ton of potential issues.
Regarding Fedora’s stance on proprietary software, I believe the focus should be more on educating users rather than limiting their options. For example, Fedora already includes a post-installation prompt that allows to enable third-party software but It’s optional, it would be good to include a brief explanation of what that means. The reality is that most users aren’t going to be okay without that repository. I’d even argue that 99% of Linux users, who are already a minority (less than 5% of the population), won’t accept such limitations. It’ll only drive them to more restrictive distros like Ubuntu, and Fedora could end up becoming niche, like Parabola Linux.
The best solution is to give users the option and educate them. Personally, while I use FOSS as much as I can, I’m not about to stop watching MP4s from my childhood or give up my Steam games. I make exceptions, and I’m sure Fedora leadership does too. The goal should be to educate and offer freedom of choice, not lock users into a corner where they’ll migrate to Ubuntu, turning Fedora into a marginal distro.
In case it was missed.
I’d would argue that if a F(L)OSS application is distributed with dependencies that are encumbered with IP, pre-compiled binaries, or have unclear Licenses, then there is still value to have a rebuild. And don’t get me wrong, there are cases in Flathub where this doesn’t happen (I do maintain a couple of ‘em), and I would agree that re-packaging those would be waste of time.
As an example, I from my side prefer to use Fedora’s OBS distribution. But I agree with the point that @hamrheadcorvette brought earlier, that neither the Fedora side is transparent enough to differentiate itself when we have a Flatpak alternative to Flathub (being this a Fedora policy problem or a Flatpak design issue is a whole other discussion), nor the current Flathub validations and packaging guidelines are strict enough to trust that our packaging standards are being fulfilled.
I feel than more than just a “FOSS-only filter”, it would be ideal to have a way to certify which packages actually fulfill our packaging standards. Ideally most of this process should be automated (even for package reviews we have the `fedora-review` app), or require for the manifest file to keep working if the base image is changed to a Fedora one. Also, having a Fedora reviewer adding a stamp of approval would make a better argument to justify moving away from wasting time rebuilding something that is in a good, and allocating that time in rebuilding things that we need.
Thanks @boniboyblue for forwarding that statement post 
I kinda wish I had seen that portion of the GUADEC video series earlier lol…
as it quite clearly defines the direction atomic will go in the not too distant future; along with a few technical issues that still need to be worked out.
(skip to 3:28:29 in the video)
Seems like some things I said relating to docs is unnecessary and a moot point now that there won’t be a long interim period. I thought Flathub becoming a more default option for atomic would be a ways away…like Fedora 48-50 …but it seems much closer now…perhaps Fedora 44-46 depending on how things go.
I’m really glad to see progress being made on so many fronts 
…perhaps also in the near future, the in-progress Nova drivers for Nvidia hardware will be available for testing/use: