"What is the Fedora Project?"

Seth Vidal 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. [1]
> 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 [1], 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.

Not rhel.


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 mailing list