Rename "Aurora" to "Bluefin KDE" and "Aurora-DX" to "Bluefin-DX KDE"

As Aurora has been embraced as a part of Universal Blue and Bluefin projects, I am of the opinion that Aurora should be renamed to Bluefin KDE similarly to Fedora Atomic and Bazzite’s naming scheme.

I don’t think we need yet more branding names, and I’d rather we rename it now rather than let it be entrenched like the Silverblue and Kinoite branding.

As a secondary consequence, the getaurora.dev site will need to be renamed as well. Perhaps it redirects to projectbluefin.io/kde?

CC @NiHaiden @j0rge

4 Likes

oh no! please not more name changing!! :crazy_face:
[GetAurora] & [projectBluefin] appear to have much different styles and personally I enjoy the creative diversity this displays.

Similar with Bazzite, no?

IMHO. each of these “builds” cater to a specific user-base with a required toolkit and apps to facilitate their needs.

I think it is great these unique projects are developing under one single #universalblue umbrella.

for normality I use Fedora. with inspiration I use Aurora! @adinfinitum:fedora.im

1 Like

That’s why I think getaurora.dev could just redirect to projectbluefin.io/kde.

Then what happens when we have “Bluefin, but Budgie” or “Bluefin, but COSMIC”, etc? Are we going to change the category to “Bluefin and Aurora and Raven and Galaxy”? Are we really going to have a lot of names, that may not immediately obvious what it means?

I don’t even get how Aurora relates to KDE or Kinoite. OTOH, as soon as I read that it’s “Bluefin, but with KDE,” I immediately understand what it is.

In any case, the overall aim of Aurora seems to be “Bluefin, but KDE,” in which case it remains to be a battery-included sustainable cloud-native Fedora image (that also acts as uBlue’s non-gaming flagship image).

I’m not against having some fun with the image codenames, but for branding? I think it should all just be Bluefin.

I love it either, but the reality is that Bazzite is just mentioned as Bazzite. It’s a good, simple branding. Bluefin should also be like that.

Mind you, I’m not asking for an immediate change. I just want this discussion opened now rather than when it’s been years and we get a situation like Fedora’s Atomic vs Silverblue vs Kinoite naming.

yes I concur, discussion is a useful part of decision making. I was watching the rebranding issue in fedora and am a user of Kinoite myself, indeed it is how I came across Aurora-DX. Also I agree with the Atomic schema and actually wonder why it was ever altered in the first place!

the beauty of the OS is the uniqueness it provides the user, no?
the users association with a ‘style’ is what differentiates the users experience.

as a complete new user to Atomic systems and as a recent advocate for Fedora, I am aware that decisions are very much made for the betterment of the project and that my personal opinions are just that!

these are all great projects and have amazing folks involved, so whatever the naming, long may it continue.

Salud.

We’re not really growing the org at this point to add more end user images (if anything we’ve scaled back considerably!). We’re covering the major ones, though I think Bazzite will probably add a COSMIC one, that’s up to the bazzite folks.

There’s enough tooling and base images out there now that this isn’t really our problem to solve, we’re not looking to create a bunch of bluefins for each DE/window manager.

6 Likes

But that beautiful logo tho

5 Likes

I know it’s a pre-alpha and far off but has the thinking around COSMIC changed? In the “Happy 10 million! Plans for Fedora 40” announcement. About COSMIC: “Since it has a clear path to Fedoraization then it’s kind of a no brainer to make an image so people can follow along.” Is this no longer the case for a COSMIC Bluefin?

We’ll be making a base image out of it if Fedora is making one, like the other base images.

ublue-os/cosmic is the current alpha image that that post is referring to, it’s basically automatically building so it’s a good way to follow along.

By “the org”, you mean “Bluefin” org?

Regardless, the Aurora project started as a community project as well. Even if the Bluefin team has no plan to expand the project, my opinion is that it’s best to lay down precedents now instead of when someone already made “Bluefin with COSMIC DE,” and name them some funky stuff because they saw Aurora.

I think upstream has a good naming convention, “main edition is ‘Fedora Workstation’, everything else is ‘Fedora X’ where X is the DE or descriptor for the edition.”

I mean Universal Blue the org. Most of the things we set out to accomplish are completed so we’re not really expanding our scope with new images. These days we encourage people to copy the pattern instead of trying to expand the scope of ublue (see bluebuild, secureblue, etc.)

I don’t really have a strong opinion on what people call the things they make, I’ve been pretty vocal up to this point that none of this matters and that branding them as something different is just confusing people for no reason. The naming argument is taking longer than the actual transition lol.

2 Likes

I’m not too sure about that one, honestly. I’m indifferent. You already mentioned that Aurora started as a community project by myself and I picked the name back then because I thought naming my fork “Bluefin-KDE” (since Bluefin ) would be kinda lame, especially since I like picking random names even if they don’t have a real purpose other than to sound cool. And who would’ve thought that there was such a demand for a “Bluefin-KDE” variant.

It evolved to where it stands today, with it’s own identity, branding and such. I think changing the name now is not the best idea since people probably already associate “Aurora” with what is now, instead of as a Bluefin-KDE. Yes, the base is shared by both Bluefin and Aurora (big thank you to @m2Giles who made that happen), but apart from that the desktop choice dictates it’s application choice (KDE Apps instead of Gnome ones and such). And I honestly like the idea of a shared base (made maintenance much easier) but a different identity and what it wants to accomplish.

My 2 (or 3) cents. :v:

6 Likes

I like the different names. Makes it so people can run with branding and give things their own identity.

Besides if it expands in the future we can debate then. The biggest barrier for expanding is having people actually use and maintain those different environments. And the repo is set up for a person to easily fork and experiment with their own build.

I like the names. I like that a person can say I run X. Not X with Y desktop environment.

2 Likes

All my apologies if i hurt someone saying this but it would be sad to loose the beautiful Aurora logo to a dinosaur ! I think Bluefin is the best distro ever but the dinosaur made me use Bazzite instead even if i like Bluefin more.
So i agree about the proposition of this post but i would rather change Bluefin to Aurora gnome or something similar instead.

3 Likes

Keeping a different name also leaves the door open for potentially diverging from Bluefin in the future. May it would be in a big way or a small way, but the moment they change something in a way that’s bigger than just the KDE vs Gnome differences it would be weird to call it “Bluefin KDE.” Aurora still has some independence they can work within similar to how Bazzite chooses to do things differently than Bluefin. With the uBlue scope already restricted and Aurora covering off the last major use case for these images, I think we’re good.

Also, the Bazzite answer is that everything is Bazzite, regardless of what you’re using. You will only be presented the Bazzite KDE image because that is the flagship and is considered Bazzite in its default state, but if you use any other spin it’s Bazzite with X - you add the DE in conversation as the differentiator. That also works, but Bazzite is maintaining all the images, whereas Aurora is coordinating with Bluefin to use the Bluefin repo. It’s a different scenario.

3 Likes

I think the naming is a mess, and most things can be done post-first-boot, aka “onboarding”.

I would rather understand “uBlue GNOME” and “uBlue KDE Workstation” than “Aurora DX”. What’s DX? DirectX? Comes with it?

This is my approach:

uBlue GNOME Workstation                                     
  │     │       │                                           
  │     │       └─► Edition
  │     │                                                   
  │     └─► Desktop manager                         
  │                                                         
  └─► Distribution name                                     

What editions are? Well, you have:

  • Desktop: The close-to-vanilla experience, no fancy apps but enough to work anywhere.
  • Workstation: The developer experience, aka “dx”, with some additional tools.
  • Gaming: What’s known as Bazzite.

For example:

  • uBlue KDE Gaming
  • uBlue GNOME Workstation
  • uBlue GNOME Desktop

Problem solved.

3 Likes

This entire thread seems to be about solving a problem that doesn’t exist. :smile:

The name of our products are Aurora, Bazzite, and Bluefin, we purposely keep the jargon out of the names.

2 Likes

your naming scheme wouldn’t work because that assumes that only workstationy thing bluefin or ublue will ever support is development and thats just not realistic to think, in future we could add a researcher focusted version or something like that, also those names are too long (way too long) and kinda mechanical/robotic and just yell ENGINEER MADE THIS one word names or in DX case 2 word makes it much more catchy and much more easier to parse from human perspective also it hooks users way easier then uBlue Gnome Desktop

I think that having something like “uBlue Gamer” would render more people using it (as, the name implies what is for) than Bazzite and hope media outlets pick up the name on the title for SEO purposes.

But, hey, do you do. If that is hitting your metrics, what the hell do I know. I just wish I could find Bluefin before I found it by accident on a distro ranking video.

1 Like

That’s a hard no from me, we basically own the word Bazzite from an SEO standpoint, and have huge media outlets sharing that name, plus over 2 million pulls. Changing now would be akin to changing Twitter to X.

4 Likes

FWIW Bazzite is exactly why I started this topic. Outside of our community and immutable communities, pretty much everyone just says Bazzite. It’s great branding and SEO. I wanted that out of Bluefin as well.

I think Aurora’s name and website is cool, but having more branding and names just make it more complicated. So just make it a sub-page or category under Bluefin or something - and for any alternate Bluefin, just do a Manjaro and list in under Community Edition.

Besides, “Bluefin and Aurora” is the only category that’s different. See the Categories sidebar. “General, Bazzite, Bluefin and Aurora, UCore, Contributing, Framework Laptops, Site Feedback” Is it supposed to be one category, or is it supposed to be two different things?

Edit: see Bluefin/Bazzite for Framework laptops - #7 by Matt_Hartley and we’re already treating Aurora as just “Bluefin but KDE” anyways. Might as well just consolidate everything in one name and one site for easier branding, SEO, and discovery.

1 Like