"What is the Fedora Project?"
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Thu Oct 15 18:51:05 UTC 2009
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that.
No one said we were advocating for it. And I think that's been a source of
misunderstanding. I'm saying, given what our STATED goals are this is what
If we want to change our goals then we should do that.
> I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for
> software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we could
> still do a much better job for *them.*
>> my short answer to this is easy:
>> newest != stable.
> Newest - 1 != stable either, since it gets abandoned in 6 months. Older than
> that != stable as well, since it's abandoned. I used to run rawhide. I
> retreated to newest release. Should I now retreat to newest release - 1 and
> update every 6 months to newest release - 1?
> If that's the case, totally fine, but I think then we need a little bit of
> rebranding. I don't think people like feeling that they are behind the curve,
> especially if they are your target user of techie! E.g. current model:
> 'Rawhide' = Rawhide = dear lord, no.
> 'Newest release' = F11 = hope you've got a thick skin.
> 'Newest release - 1' = F10 = okay, i can handle this.
> to this:
> 'Unstable Development' = Rawhide = dear lord, no. (no releases)
> 'Stable Development' = F11 = hope you've got a thick skin. (releases)
> 'Newest Release' = F10 = okay, i can handle that. (releases)
> You're not changing anything you're doing then, just renaming things. Just an
> idea; may or may not be the right problem to be solving.
>> Think back to RHL days. Remember the 'avoid the .0' strategy that A LOT
>> of people adopted?
>> Every fedora release is more or less a .0. THAT IS BY DESIGN OF OUR GOALS.
> There is no x.1 then. There is nothing to use unless you want operating your
> computer to be a Sisyphean running-up-the-escalator-the-wrong-way affair. How
> does my tolerating that benefit Fedora though? There's no system for me (or
> others) to easily allow Fedora to reap any benefit of my blood; I just bleed
> in the corner, in vain. 
> So, if our target is people who are willing to submit themselves to pain for
> Fedora's benefit, our top priority should be building tools to reap the most
> benefit from their sacrifice , making it dead simple to identify and
> report the issue and follow up when the developer needs more information to
> fix the problem.
> All in all, it does sound like *I'm* not a target user for Fedora. In fact,
> it sounds like (please please please please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> Fedora you and Mike are pushing for is not meant to be used as a productive
> desktop by anybody, rather it's meant to be a laboratory setting they submit
> themselves to for the benefit of science and progress!
Actually Mike and I aren't really pushing for it - we ARE pushing for us
to be realistic about our goals vs what we are actually achieving.
You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else:
Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos.
why, you ask?
b/c they want something that a lot of people spent a lot of time making
stable and they want it secure and updated.
and they want it all for free.
More information about the fedora-advisory-board