globally useful vs. useful for the distribution (was: Re: ubuntu bulletproof x)

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at
Mon Sep 3 05:43:29 UTC 2007

On 03.09.2007 07:04, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On 9/2/07, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora at> wrote:
>> Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>> On 9/2/07, Douglas McClendon <dmc.fedora at> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Yes, I know redhat has learned well from microsoft, that the way to be
>>>> successful is to let others do the expensive trailblazing, and then only
>>>> copy the trails that led to success, rather than those that led to
>>>> failure.
>>> Feel free to ask some kernel maintainer how much Canonical contributes
>>> to the kernel.
>> And what percentage of lines of code in fedora is the kernel?
>> kernel != distro.
> I'm glad you point that out. Seems like things Fedora do are more
> globally useful than what Ubuntu does.


And that's at least *afaics* not only true for Kernel-Space, but for
other areas as well.

> Since, for example,
> advancements to the kernel help everyone, advancements to the Ubuntu
> distro help mostly Ubuntu.

Agreed as well. But I think we in Fedora-Land should put "advancements
to the Fedora distro" *a bit higher* on our todo-List as well, as
especially those things are what make a distro cool and "nice to use"
(and thus influence the decision what distro to use).

Faster system-start comes to my mind (which in parts is globally useful
as well), support for encrypted filesystems in the installer, real
"minimal"-installs, avoiding unnecessary dependencies/bloat , avoiding
broken deps in the repo, Partition resizing in the installer and lots of
(often small) similar things.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list