Linux is not about choice [was Re: Fedora too cutting edge?]

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:14:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 01:57 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > My personal understanding of fedora was that a package was accepted as
> > long as it was free software, usable in fedora, and decently integrated.
> > Isn't it still the case? 
> 
> Sure, live free or die etc. But you cannot expect maintainers of core
> packages to simply bend over just because you think it's l33t to e.g.

What do you mean exactly by 'bend over'? I don't expect maintainers of
any package (what is a core package?) to do anything, but I don't expect
them to block or cause problem to somebody wanting to add a new kernel
to fedora (as long as that new kernel addition is done in a sound
technical way).

> have a non Linux kernel. Moreover, I'm pretty sure, by just reading your
> mails, that you don't realize what using a non Linux kernel even
> entails.

Indeed. This was an extreme example to avoid getting in the technical
argument, but keep talking on the organisational issues.

> > In fact there are already guidelines and FESCo rulings that in my opinion 
> > went in that direction (precisely, and if I recall well, the fnord and 
> > another package of Enrico that were linked statically against uclibc,
> > and even he demonstrated that there was a performance gain and no
> > security issue they were knocked down). I think that it was a wrong
> > decision, but if it is for corner case it is different than if it
> > becomes the rule.
> 
> Ooo.. here's the "it's in the guidelines so do as I say" card. Annoying.

Hum, maybe I wasn't clear, but I actually meant that FESCo should have
left Enrico link statically his packages. So I said the reverse...

> Seriously. People. What the hell happened to simplicity and building a
> free OS for the world that just works? Is the state of Fedora really in
> such a bad shape that people think it's necessary have craptastic
> options like "what kernel would you like today?". Seriously, things like
> that is just masturbation and we in Fedora should be above that. 

It is not masturbation, it is about what is acceptable or not in fedora,
from the point of view of a contributor. It is absolutely not related
with the shape of fedora.

> I feel
> that people wanting this are treating Fedora like it's a playground for
> their Toy OS ideas. 

You shouldn't make such assumptions. There are many reasons to have
diversity and freedom to add anything. I could tell mine, but I don't
think it is relevant. Point is do we allow any package to go in, be it
for fedora contributors to use fedora as 'a  playground for their Toy OS
ideas' or for any other reason.

> Playing classic cards like "RH vs. community" and
> "this or that committee says so" to justify their "ideas". It's
> seriously tiring. Is this what Fedora is becoming? Because if it is,
> I'll find something else to spend my time on.

Forget the "RH vs. community" stuff, rereading my mail I indeed said
that but it was a mistake, and it isn't the issue here. It is mainstream
fedora (a simple fedora that just works) versus freedom to add anything
that is free software and works (even if not very well integrated).

--
Pat