Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...

[Tejas Dinkar]

OK, I agree with Brian J Smith for 99% of everything he wrote.

My Contradictions are inline though.

If I haven't quoted it, assume bjs++

PS: It appears bjs misunderstood a lot of this. When Alo Tsum mentions
standards, he means 'Everything you can install must be 100% open
source'.

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 02:13 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:51 -0400, Alo Tsum wrote:
> > The reason being is if people are starting to use Linux in their homes
> > and they are comfortable with it, employers will be more likely and
> > willing to deploy a operating system which is different in many ways
> > to windows on the interactive level.
> 
> No, you have it backwards.  Windows came into the home because of
> business.  Just like DOS, 1-2-3, WordPerfect, etc... before it.

Actually, MacOS is really popular now, cause apple went around giving it
at huge discounts (or maybe even free) to a large pile of schools.

I agree here, reach the casual users first, then, when the casual users
grow into hardcore users, they bring their preference of OS with them

I use linux at home, as do most of our ambassadors, and most of us have
little or no commercial interest in it at all.

> Installing Fedora Core on a bare hard drive is _easier_ than Windows.
> Installing Fedora Core into a dual-boot is _easier_ than Windows.
> Installation has _never_ been the problem.  Why?
> Because 99.9% of home users get their OS _pre-installed_!

Yeah, more or less.

Installing Linux being hard is an urban legend, more or less (and gentoo
isn't helping ;)

95% of all FC installs are real easy, but there is still the 5% that
fails hard because of non complaint hardware.

There really isn't much developers can do, not because they couldn't
crack the hardware's drivers, but because it is impossible to locate
every peripheral possible, and hack on it.

As our user base increases, we get more hardware supported (and more
kernel bloat ;)

> > and upgrading needs to be fail proof from version to version.
> 
> Fedora Core upgrades _easier_ than Windows too.
> Heck, even Service Packs or Hotfixes to Windows.
> I'm trying to find out what you are "comparing" to here?

I think he means between cores.

Upgrading FC4->FC5 is miserable, when just core packages are used. Throw
in 3rd party apps, code build from source (on a devel box), and that is
enough to b0rk pretty bad.

But this is a fedora think, not a linux one. And you can resist
upgrading, by choosing to stick with legacy, if it IS an issue.

I'm sure that this particular issue is NOT a problem for a home user,
but rather an enterprise one.

> > Previously installed drives with personal user data needs to be able
> > to be retained without fail from upgrade to upgrade if the user isn't
> > doing a clean install.
> 
> Okay, you've got to be _kidding_me_ here!  _All_ UNIX systems have "home
> directories."  It is 100% _absolute_ and _all_ programs save config
> files and data to it!

Anyone who has used UNIX before knows that you should mount /home on
it's own partition. I'm not sure if the FC installer does this (never
auto partitioned), but this will let you keep everything between
upgrades, down to your wallpaper.

> > Now I would like to move on to "partnerships" Fedora project should
> > look into making "partners" or some other creative term to define
> > other Linux projects and organizations. In this partnership Fedora
> > will tightly enforce standards which will ensure that any software
> > created to run on fedora is following say the OIN and the GPL
> > standards to the letter to ensure an user friendly and secure/stable
> > operating system that runs smoothly.

Are you saying we should build some trap which will not allow us to
install any proprietary app?

Or ban Adobe from creating rpms?

People like oracle build rpms for RHEL which are completely closed
source.

And people like Red Hat earn a living from Oracle on RHEL.

We can't ban closed source software. We must accept them to live
together.

Fedora will not distribute it, but they will not disallow others from
getting it either

> The GPL does _not_ guarantee anything.
> In fact, open source does _not_ guarantee anything.

Well, it guarantees freedom ;)

> > If Fedora project implements such a model,
> 
> What "model"?  I honestly don't know what you're looking for.  You're
> making assumptions that are incorrect -- about Linux, about Windows,
> etc...

I think said individual wants to turn Fedora into Red Hat.

Free software, with support available, and a guarantee.

This isn't about to happen, we aren't going to hire people for support.

3rd party vendors are welcome to do this however. They are allowed to
charge to support Fedora.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I believe BobJensen does something like
this. He ensures that boxes with Fedora run 100% for his clients, and he
charges for it.

Fedora won't provide support, but we won't stop you from going to any
other 3rd party for support.

That's open source.

> > I should also mention that those software development groups that do
> > not comply could be offered as Fedora extras so the community still
> > has choices which is really part of the appeal of Linux.
> 
> Comply with what?

I think our friend here is advocating proprietary software in extras.

Not going to happen, sorry... Next topic.

> > Now say a "ambassador" from Fedora can start making the rounds to Dell
> > and other companies and attempt to get them to start offering this
> > FREE Linux distribution on some of their PC models, which would also
> > allow for lower prices on the retail side for them (ie Dell, Gateway
> > etc.) as the OS is FREE and that cuts down on cost which the end user
> > ends up incurring.
> 
> *BUZZ* WRONG!  THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!
> Have you ever heard the Microsoft term, "per-model licensing"?
> Please, _please_ read up on this.

This is one of those lose-lose situations.

When windows is on, we are forced to pay extra for the software.

When there is no os on, then that is a ground of promoting piracy.

If we FORCE linux/fedora on it, then it is as bad as having windows, as
it simply is against freedom.

But, that being said, it is in the project's interest to request Dell to
put fedora on their boxes. On the other hand, Dell already KNOW linux is
free, you aren't telling them ANYTHING new.

This is an interesting topic, but I'm leaving it for now

> > Fedora project could basically offer technical support certification
> > and training to Dell staff as an example so they (the PC manufacturer)
> > can then take over supporting the platform for their end users, which
> > also equates to revenue for these companies in the long run because
> > they can offer extended tech support to end users at a premium.
> 
> Do you know what's _involved_ with building a training/certification
> program?  If not, get involved with LPI!

And not only that, everything changes every 6 months.

If you tried editing your yum.conf now, it will be really different from
what it looked like a year ago, in FC2

Remember, between then an now, everything moved to yum.repos.d

> > With the software being a open and free model we still have to realize
> > with a flurry of hodge podge coding and no standards insight
> 
> Whoa!  Great job!  You've managed to insult the projects.
> 
> No offense, but in working on _mission_critical_ defense and financial
> systems code for about 9 years of my career, I can tell you, with great
> certainty, that open source is _very_robust_ and _very_standardized_.
> 
> The problem isn't coding and no standards -- that's Windows' problem!
> Open source projects are _far_better_!

You obviously haven't looked at the code for OpenOffice.org (not that I
understood it ;)

Of course, that is a closed source program that became open, so doesn't
count.

And further, at least we HAVE the source, and we can change it, and I
know there is a huge effort going on to clean it up. So yes, we have
things a lot better

> Yes, I agree the home user is bombarded by software written largely by
> incompetent, oursourced or H1B Visa Indian, Irish and Israeli
> programmers who have had virtually _little_ (if any) exposure to any
> formal software development or engineering processes, let alone don't
> care about the software they write like the passion of open source.

Excuse me?

This is not only terribly rude and offensive, it is also innacurate.

Perhaps, you should look up some indian open source Contributors.

>From Sirtaj, one of the founding members of KDE,
Rahul, here on the Fedora Board,
The founder of Anjuta (which is named after his wife)
Shreyas S (gnome developer, ex maintainer of evo for mac until his mac
was pried from his hands)
Satish (writes a hell of a lot of kernel modules, and heads the Red Hat
bangalore offices)
Sankarshan
Runa B
Gopal Vijayraghavan, Lead developer of dotgnu,

and I could go on for a while

This comment is simply racist.

Tejas Dinkar