#361 Authorize using "Fedora Atomic" as the umbrella term for ostree-based desktops
Closed: approved a month ago by amoloney. Opened 2 years ago by siosm.

Allow re-purposing the Atomic brand in Fedora to regroup all (rpm-)ostree based desktops variants (Silverblue, KInoite, Sericea, Onyx).

See longer proposal description in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicDesktops


Original issue title: Re-purpose the Fedora Atomic brand for unbranded rpm-ostree builds of Fedora

Original issue text:

During the discussion for fedora-release package split for Kinoite (see links below), Neal Gompa suggested that we revive the Atomic branding for unofficial/unbranded rpm-ostree based Fedora (desktop) variants.

The issue we have right now is that all rpm-ostree based Fedora variants have distinct branding (CoreOS, IoT, Silverblue and upcoming Kinoite). With a generic branding, this would mean that anybody building its own rpm-ostree variant could use the generic Atomic branding instead of having to create a distinct branding from day one or reuse existing branding that have another meaning. We could have Fedora Atomic (XFCE) or Fedora Atomic (Mate) for example.

This does not block the Kinoite change.

Links that created that discussion:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Kinoite
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/pull-request/172
- https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config/pull-request/199


IMO, rpm-ostree Fedora is still Fedora and separate branding goes against that. It should be totally fine to say "I'm using Fedora" and have that include rpm-ostree for example. So I'm not sure I see the need for "Atomic" in this.

It is not regular Fedora and does not behave as such. There are major behavioral differences that make it important for us to have distinct branding here so that when reports come in, we can easily see which variant they're coming from.

Personally, I'm here to change over time what Fedora is, not to maintain separate variants with distinct names. That's the maximally sustainable solution.

You can already generally identify rpm-ostree based systems from e.g. the OSTREE_VERSION field in /usr/lib/os-release - for automated bug reports that type of stuff can be injected, does that satisfy the concern?

At this point, reviving the Atomic name IMO would only add more confusion on top of an already confusing naming scheme and history.

We could have Fedora Atomic (XFCE) or Fedora Atomic (Mate) for example.

Aren't these what spins are for? So e.g. these would be spins of Fedora Silverblue. (I'm guessing this was probably already suggested during the Kinoite setup, so I might be missing something here.)

We're not currently supposed to use the Silverblue or CoreOS names for other flavors, so either each flavor gets its own name (as Kinoite is doing) or we get a "base" flavor name we can use generically for spins.

I do not speak for the Silverblue folks, but I don't think a Silverblue XFCE Spin would be a good name (or something easy to explain) so we can not really have Silverblue Spins and need a way to describe Silverblue variants.

I understand that the Atomic branding is complex so maybe we need another option.

At this point, reviving the Atomic name IMO would only add more confusion on top of an already confusing naming scheme and history.

I completely agree with that.

We could have Fedora Atomic (XFCE) or Fedora Atomic (Mate) for example.

Aren't these what spins are for? So e.g. these would be spins of Fedora Silverblue. (I'm guessing this was probably already suggested during the Kinoite setup, so I might be missing something here.)

I do not speak for the Silverblue folks, but I don't think a Silverblue XFCE Spin would be a good name (or something easy to explain) so we can not really have Silverblue Spins and need a way to describe Silverblue variants.

From my POV the Silverblue is a "build" of Fedora Workstation based on (rpm-)ostree and currently uses GNOME as Fedora Workstation uses it. So I would rather avoid using Silverblue for anything else.

Let me add @aday, @mclasen and @otaylor here.

OK, so it feels like we agree that:
- re-purposing the Atomic brand would be complex
- Silverblue is only for Silverblue as it is currently, which is why we created the Kinoite brand

Now, we can not ignore that we have other (unofficial) variants (and not just the ones I'm building), so we need an unbranded option for those or they will end up mis-branded as Silverblue. We also need that for counting to distinguish between official and unofficial ones.

I agree that we do not want to distinguish strongly between variants with and without rpm-ostree so I can probably re-create a PR for fedora-release to have an unbranded (Fedora Linux) but rpm-ostree oriented (polkit rules, etc.) sub package for those unofficial releases.

I don't see that we need a separate brand for this (and in fact it may be a net negative), but I understand that it's an important distinction for troubleshooting. (Separately, how many people are using unnamed ostree-based variants? It has to be vanishingly small relative to all other Fedora Linux variants). Would sgallagh's proposal in fedora-release 182 be sufficient for this?

I agree that this suggestion would resolve the immediate issue for me, leaving unofficial builds unbranded to keep things simpler. Closing this but feel free to re-open if more discussion is needed.

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue close_status updated to: no action needed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Well, IMO it is better to have one name for the Silverblue and other DEs.
It's more confusing to have different names.

v/r
Andi

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

5 months ago

I'll write a Change page to formalize the proposal there.

So, from a Council point of view, the approval is: authorizing "Fedora Atomic" as the umbrella term for ostree-based desktops (and possibly future evolution of that -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable).

Discussed in 2023-10-25 Council meeting.


We did not really discuss this because it came up in the last few minutes of open floor, but as I understand it, the ask being made to the Fedora Council is as follows:

Approval for "Fedora Atomic" trademark to be used as a collective name for ostree-based desktops.

+1

I also support this change and I am happy to see more consistency behind our ostree-based desktops.

Edit: I only saw the previous comments after I posted mine. :)

Whoops, I had forgotten to update the issue title and text here. This is now done based on previous comments. Thanks.

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue priority set to: Next Meeting (was: Needs Review)
- Issue tagged with: ticket-vote, trademarks

3 months ago

Gentle ping for the Council as we're waiting for an answer on this topic.

So, from a Council point of view, the approval is: authorizing "Fedora Atomic" as the umbrella term for ostree-based desktops (and possibly future evolution of that -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable).

+1

So, from a Council point of view, the approval is: authorizing "Fedora Atomic" as the umbrella term for ostree-based desktops (and possibly future evolution of that -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable).

+1 (again)

So, from a Council point of view, the approval is: authorizing "Fedora Atomic" as the umbrella term for ostree-based desktops (and possibly future evolution of that -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable).

+1

So, from a Council point of view, the approval is: authorizing "Fedora Atomic" as the umbrella term for ostree-based desktops (and possibly future evolution of that -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable).

+1

Weirdly, I received a mail from Aoife Moloney saying that this has been accepted but her comment is not listed here and the status of this issue has not been updated.

Not sure what's happening.

Sorry that was my fault - I closed and accepted too quick, we were waiting on a member to vote I think at the time. In any event this is approved so will update & close (again).

I am also +1 to this.

APPROVED (6, 0, 0)

Metadata Update from @amoloney:
- Issue close_status updated to: approved
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

a month ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata