Comments: IN DEPTH: Fedora 10 Preview

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:17:53PM +0000, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>   
>>> If "features" and "first" are hurting because of where we are in the
>>> calendar compared to the Ubuntu release, allowing them the chance to release
>>> their new distro first and to receive a lot of credit for new features when
>>> reviewers and press don't understand where the upstream work is being done
>>> (in Fedora, for example), then Fedora Marketing should ask the Fedora Board
>>> to think about altering our "May Day" and "Halloween" release targets by a
>>> little bit, so that Fedora's cycle finishes before Ubuntu's.
>>>       
>> I don't know that this is necessary. I think in the last two release
>> cycles (8 & 9) we made significant progress in tackling this, and
>> looking around comments etc from the time, people were starting to
>> recognise that Fedora was *the* distribution* for innovation. We just
>> need to be more proactive in our shouting about features, much earlier
>> in the release cycle (e.g. as soon as features start getting approved
>> by FESCo, become vaguely testable).
>>
>> Saying that, I don't think it would hurt to release at a seperate time
>> to Ubuntu, as we're never going to compete with an end-user orientated
>> distribution in various media outlets (even more technical ones give
>> far less precedence to development than they do businesss
>> deployments).
>>     
>
> Moving our releases earlier also increases stress for stabilizing the
> integration of new upstream packages that are also on time-based
> release schedules.  In fact, I think it would have the opposite effect
> intended and hurt Fedora on the aspect of stability.  We already have
> to overcome a (IMHO mistaken) perception that Fedora is too rapidly
> developed to be stable.
>
>   
I agree here moving our releases earlier than Ubuntu or any other 
GNU/Linux distro
out there does not solve this issue.
> Our slightly later release this time around was mostly beyond our
> control.  But there are some good side effects that have fallen out of
> the later release, one of them being OpenOffice.org 3.0, which we're
> the first distribution to feature.
>
>   
We also have little nuggets here and there that have not been getting 
any press
covering like s-c-p.

Highlighting them ( Side to side comparison to other OS clients like 
Windows and OS-X )
along with interview with the maintainer and *why* he chooses to use 
Fedora etc. should help there.
> I think that competing in release time with Ubuntu is probably not as
> productive as spending more time talking about our features earlier in
> the development cycle.  I think we improved that work substantially
> during this release, and should continue to do so during the Fedora 11
> cycle.
>   
> Press moves in long waves, and we shouldn't expect to see as a result
> of these improvements Fedora suddenly springing to press prominence
> over Ubuntu.  However, I've noticed a number of articles coming out
> during our pre-release cycles, some of them concerning Ubuntu's
> release, that point out the upcoming Fedora 10 as also having those
> features.  That shows we're starting to have the effect we want.  Now
> we need to redouble those efforts, to which I think Jon's also
> alluding.
>   

I would rather want to see articles mention that it *comes from Fedora* 
where it applies
instead of Fedora *also* has this feature..

Correcting user/articles is the way to go I think.

Comment where we can where it originated along with  sending
correction to editors might help correcting this *issue*.

I also think we need to follow through features being introduced in the 
release cycle..

Perhaps like after a feature has been accepted an interview with 
maintainer about
what it does what he hopes to accomplish etc.. along with an status 
update in beta and the big review
( what he accomplish, what went wrong, whats happening in next release 
etc ) in final.

JBG

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: johannbg.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/attachments/20081110/85ca6950/attachment.vcf>