I just wanted to say that you to everyone who commented and provided Feedback on my last blog entry where I asked for feedback on what would make you switch to Fedora Workstation. We will take all that feedback and incorporate it into our Fedora Workstation 23 planning. So a big thanks to all of you!

So I came across this very positive review of Fedora Workstation on linux.com, although it was billed as a review of GNOME 3.16. Which is of course correct, in the sense that the desktop we are going to ship on Fedora Workstation 22 is GNOME 3.16. But I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight that when you look at Fedora Workstation it is a complete and integrated operating system. As I mentioned in a blog post about Fedora Workstation last April the core idea for Fedora Workstation is to stop treating the operating system as a bag of parts and instead look at it as a whole, because if we are to drain the swamp here we need to solve the major issues that people face with their desktop regardless of if that issue is in the kernel, the graphics drivers, glibc or elsewhere in your system. We can not just look at the small subset of packages that provides the chrome for your user interface in isolation.

This is why we are working on reliable firmware upgrades for your UEFI motherboard by participating in the UEFI working group and adding functionality in GNOME Software to handle doing firmware updates.

This is why we recently joined Khronos to make sure the standards for doing 3D on Linux are good and open source friendly.

This is why we been working so hard on improving coverage of Appdata metadata coverage, well beyond the confines of ‘GNOME’ software.

This is why we have Richard Hughes and Owen Taylor working on how we can improve battery life when running
Fedora or RHEL on laptops.

This is why we created dnf to replace yum, to get a fast and efficient package update system.

This is why we are working on an Adwaita theme for Qt

And this is why we are pushing hard forward with a lot of other efforts like Wayland, libinput, Fleet Commander, Boxes and more.

So when you look at the user experience you get on Fedora Workstation, remember that it is not just a question of which version of GNOME we are shipping, but it is the fact that we are working hard on putting together a tightly vertically integrated and tested system from the kernel up to core desktop applications.

Anyone who has been using Fedora for a long while knows that this change was a major change in philosophy and approach for the project, as Fedora up to the 21 release of the 3 new products was very much defined by the opposite, being all about the lego blocks, which contributed to the image of Fedora being a bleeding edge system where you should be prepared to do a lot of bleeding and where you probably wanted to keep your toolbox with you at all times in case something broke. So I have to say that I am mightily impressed by how the Fedora community has taken to this major change where we now are instead focusing our efforts on our 3 core products and are putting a lot of effort into creating stuff that is polished and reliable, and which aims to be leading edge instead of bleeding edge.

So with all this in mind I was a little disappointed when the reviewer writing the article in question ended his review by saying he was now waiting for GNOME 3.16 to appear in Ubuntu GNOME, because there is no guarantees that he would get the same overall user experience in Ubuntu GNOME that we have developed for Fedora Workstation, which is the user experience his review reflects.

Anyway, I thought this could be a good opportunity to actually ask the wider community a question, especially if you are using GNOME on another distribution than Fedora, what are we still missing at this point for you to consider making a switch to Fedora Workstation? I know that for some of you the answer might be as simple as ‘worn in shoes fits the best’, but anything you might have beyond that would be great to hear.
I can’t promise that we will be able to implement every suggestion you add to this blog post, but I do promise that we will review and consider every suggestion you provide and try to see how it can fit into development plans going forward.

I am following the discussion caused by Greg Kroah-Hartman requesting that kdbus be pulled into the next kernel release. First of all my hat of to Greg for his persistence and staying civil. There has already been quite a few posts to the thread at coming close to attempts at character assassination and a lot of emails just adding more noise, but no signal.

One point I feel is missing from the discussion here though is the question of not making the perfect the enemy of the good. A lot of the posters are saying that ‘hey, you should write something perfect here instead of what you have currently’. Which sounds reasonable on some level, but when you think of it is more a deflection strategy than a real suggestion. First of all the is no such thing as perfect. And secondly if there was how long would it take to provide the theoretical perfect thing? 2 more years, 4 years, 10 years?

Speaking as someone involved in making an operating system I can say that we would have liked to have kdbus 5 years ago and would much prefer to get kdbus in the next few Months, than getting something ‘perfect’ in 5 years from now.

So you can say ‘hey, you are creating a strawman here, nobody used the word ‘perfect” in the discussion. Sure, nobody used that word, but a lot of messages was written about how ‘something better’ should be created here instead. Yet, based on from where these people seemed to be coming the question I ask then is: Better for who? Better for the developers who are already using dbus in the applications or desktops? Better for a kernel developer who is never going to use it? Better for someone doing code review? Better for someone who doesn’t need the features of dbus, but who would want something else?

And what is ‘better’ anyway? Greg keeps calling for concrete technical feedback, but at the end of the day there is a lot of cases where the ‘best’ technical solution, to the degree you can measure that objectively, isn’t actually ‘the best’. I mean if I came up with a new format for storing multimedia on an optical disk, one which from a technical perspective is ‘better’ than the current Blu-Ray spec, that doesn’t mean it is actually better for the general public. Getting a non-standard optical disc that will not play in your home Blu-Ray player isn’t better for 99.999% of people, regardless of the technical merit of the on-disc data format.

Something can actually be ‘better’ just because it is based on something that already exists, something which have a lot of people already using it, lets people quickly extend what they already are doing with the new functionality without needing a re-write and something which is available ‘now’ as opposed to some undefined time in the future. And that is where I feel a lot of the debaters on the lkml are dropping the ball in this discussion; they just keeping asking for a ‘better solution’ to the challenges of a space they often don’t have any personal experience with developing in, because kdbus doesn’t conform to how they would implement a kernel IPC mechanism for the kind of problems they are used to trying to solve.

Also there has been a lot of arguments about the ‘design’ of kdbus and dbus. A lot of lacking concreteness to it and mostly coming from people very far removed from working on the desktop and other relevant parts of userspace. Which at the end of the day boils down to trying to make the lithmus test ‘you have to prove to me that making a better design is impossible’, and I think that anyone should be able to agree that if that was the test for adding anything to the Linux kernel or elsewhere then very little software would ever get added anywhere. In fact if we where to hold to that kind of argumentation we might as well leave software development behind and move to an online religion discussion forum tossing the good ol’ “prove to me that God doesn’t exist’ into the ring.

So in the end I hope Linus, who is the final arbiter here, doesn’t end up making the ‘perfect’ the enemy of the good.

Some years ago I bought myself a new laptop, deleted the windows partition and installed Fedora on the system. Only to later realize that the system had a bug that required a BIOS update to fix and that the only tool for doing such updates was available for Windows only. And while some tools and methods have been available from a subset of vendors, BIOS updates on Linux has always been somewhat of hit and miss situation. Well luckily it seems that we will finally get a proper solution to this problem.
Peter Jones, who is Red Hat’s representative to the UEFI working group and who is working on making sure we got everything needed to support this on Linux, approached me some time ago to let me know of the latest incoming update to the UEFI standard which provides a mechanism for doing BIOS updates. Which means that any system that supports UEFI 2.5 will in theory be one where we can initiate the BIOS update from Linux. So systems supporting this version of the UEFI specs is expected to become available through the course of this year and if you are lucky your hardware vendor might even provide a BIOS update bringing UEFI 2.5 support to your existing hardware, although you would of course need to do that one BIOS update in the old way.

So with Peter’s help we got hold of some prototype hardware from our friends at Intel which already got UEFI 2.5 support. This hardware is currently in the hands of Richard Hughes. Richard will be working on incorporating the use of this functionality into GNOME Software, so that you can do any needed BIOS updates through GNOME Software along with all your other software update needs.

Peter and Richard will as part of this be working to define a specification/guideline for hardware vendors for how they can make their BIOS updates available in a manner we can consume and automatically check for updates. We will try to align ourselves with the requirements from Microsoft in this area to allow the vendors to either use the exact same package for both Windows and Linux or at least only need small changes to them. We can hopefully get this specification up on freedesktop.org for wider consumption once its done.

I am also already speaking with a couple of hardware vendors to see if we can pilot this functionality with them, to both encourage them to support UEFI 2.5 as quickly as possible and also work with them to figure out the finer details of how to make the updates available in a easily consumable fashion.

Our hope here is that you eventually can get almost any hardware and know that if you ever need a BIOS update you can just fire up Software and it will tell you what if any BIOS updates are available for your hardware, and then let you download and install them. For people running Fedora servers we have had some initial discussions about doing BIOS updates through Cockpit, in addition of course to the command line tools that Peter is writing for this.

I mentioned in an earlier blog post that one of our goals with the Fedora Workstation is to drain the swamp in terms of fixing the real issues making using a Linux desktop challenging, well this is another piece of that puzzle and I am really glad we had Peter working with the UEFI standards group to ensure the final specification was useful also for Linux users.

Anyway as soon as I got some data on concrete hardware that will support this I will make sure to let you know.