Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal
ajax at redhat.com
Thu Oct 8 21:10:16 UTC 2009
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is
> > equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora".
> It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the
> kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that
> way by the decision of the board?
They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that
are in Fedora CVS, sure.
If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than
others: some spins are more equal than others. I think that's manifest
from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the
various spins. I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a
positive thing for the distribution and the project.
Which is actually a series of points that deserve explicit awareness:
- there's a fedora project, and a fedora distribution
- unqualified "fedora" means the default spin of the distro
- the default distro is the primary artifact of the project
- changes to the project are not done in a vacuum, and are evaluated on
their benefit to the default distro
> > Besides that, empirically, this just isn't true, I think it's
> > detrimental to the project to completely abdicate content definition to
> > the user. This isn't just about having an "I don't care, pick one"
> > button, it's about making sure that the thing you get when clicking that
> > button is both consistent year to year and the best experience we can
> > offer.
> So in terms of our priorities consistency is where versus making sure our
> spins are offering features and functionality to our users?
I'm unable to answer this question. It's phrased as a dichotomy, where
I don't think that's the right model.
> > I have trouble thinking of a way that randomizing the desktop selection
> > every release would make a user's life better.
> I don't think anyone suggested randomizing it.
Fair, that's merely me extending the proposal. But either you're going
to change it at least twice, or you're (effectively) changing the
Either way, while I can see potential (albeit minor) benefit to the
proposal in relation to the project, I don't see any way it's positive
for the distro.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the fedora-advisory-board