zequence at mousike.me
Tue May 26 08:43:27 UTC 2015
On Fri, May 22, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Ross Gammon wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 09:43 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Len Ovens wrote:
> >> Concidering the changes in the menu... are we also considering putting
> >> photography into the graphics meta? In other words are we going to align
> >> metas/workfows with menu or just let the menu be what works and do
> >> workflows differently?
> >> --
> > Good question.
> > IMO at least publishing may just as well be under graphics.
> > Any reason to why photography shouldn't?
> Or avoiding the question of whether photography is graphics or not :-)
> Assuming all metapackages are installed with a fresh install, it would
> only be people adding metapackages to a standard desktop Ubuntu flavour,
> or removing metapackages (to remove a particular package) that would
> suddenly wonder why things are in different metapackages than expected,
> or popping up in unexpected parts of the menu.
> Small problem? To me it is more important that the menu is intuitive.
We could go even further, and add a bunch of new meta packages for the
sub-categories we are working on.
So, if we decide to go with only three main categories - audio, video
and graphics, we can have pretty much one meta for each sub-category. I
think this would make it easier for people to find certain software too
using Ubuntu Software Center, or our own installer.
Photography would still be its own meta - additionally new metas would
appear, such as 3D graphics, 2D graphics, etc.
For audio/video players, it might be enough to just have
It would also mean we can fine tune each "workflow"/category, so that we
make sure we really have the best possible tools and utilities for each
area of multimedia production.
More information about the ubuntu-studio-devel