On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Very cool news. I look forward to the SIG, the spin and seeing Fedora
>> on even more cool devices :-)
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/moblin_reworked/
>
> Here's what's not clear.... is intel going to look to talk with us
> about making this part of the larger Fedora project or is it going to
> be a downstream derived distribution that will include components such
> that it can not carry the Fedora name?

I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their
target market.

> Or are they planning to just
> leverage the existing Fedora distribution bits and do their own thing
> in a way that isn't aligned with existing Fedora contribution
> guidance?

Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software
(which I like) but which
isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.

> Have I missed a discussion concerning Moblin interaction
> with Fedora in the "project" sense? If I have please point me to it so
> I can read up.

No idea.


> A number of questions spring to mind, chief among them whether the new
> Moblin can be incorporated under our secondary arch policy? How
> different is the Atom processor anyways? If they are serious about
> making this more attractive to developers, I think we need to have a
> serious discussion about whether or not the technical work they are
> doing can and should live under the Fedora project umbrella.
> Can/Should Moblin be the part of the Fedora project aimed at mobile
> devices? Sharing to some extent policy, best practices guidance, and
> contributor-base. Or should it sit outside our project completely?
>
> -jef

Good luck.

--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their
> target market.

There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora process.
The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member
The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user
The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor.

If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I
personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they
can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure
the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we
can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how
they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort.

> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software
> (which I like) but which
> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.

I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see
any specific items which are problematic. I believe I even ran into a
statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they
are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get
it' when it comes to our view of kernel work.
http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23

The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one
of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in
the moblin 2 playground. Honestly, we just don't know enough about
why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the
commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. There are hints in the
moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get
motivations and intents correctly prioritized. Dirk's blog seems to
indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a
completely blind jump.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their
>> target market.
>
> There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora process.
> The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member
> The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user
> The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor.
>
> If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I
> personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they
> can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure
> the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we
> can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how
> they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort.
>
>> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software
>> (which I like) but which
>> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.
>
> I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see
> any specific items which are problematic. I believe I even ran into a
> statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they
> are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get
> it' when it comes to our view of kernel work.
> http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23
>
> The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one
> of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in
> the moblin 2 playground. Honestly, we just don't know enough about
> why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the
> commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. There are hints in the
> moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get
> motivations and intents correctly prioritized. Dirk's blog seems to
> indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a
> completely blind jump.
>
> -jef


What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.


--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 12:33 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:

> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.

RPM development is kicking into high gear now, just look at rawhide (or
the related threads on this very mailing list). One of the notable
coming changes are the improved compression methods.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.


I do not trust technical laypress articles to be accurate as to
motivating prioritizes for any decision. Nor should you. We have the
ability to have an open transparent dialog with Moblin, and we should
not react to the interpretation of an article writer who is looking to
attract eyeballs.
I have come to expect technical laypress articles to
be..sensational...and to note the most controversial of statements
because they are controversial and not because they are the most
important. I would not hold up The Register as a bastion of
journalist integrity. I find, like most technical laypress, that
articles are highly editorial in nature, and are not designed to be
unbiased accounting of 'facts' or anything resembling investigative
reporting.

Until Dirk or another Moblin member is actually communicating directly
with a Fedora community representative, who is looking to understand
the Moblin prioritizes that underlie their decision making, I'm not
going to assume the article accurately portrays the fundamental
decision making process Moblin has gone through for moblin 2.0. Some
decisions were made to move to basing Moblin 2 off of the Fedora
kernel..that's the only thing I'm taking away from that article.
Beyond that, I view the rest as subtle spin on the part of the
Register staff to sensationalize the announcement. Especially the bit
about RPM since it was not a direct quote attributed to Dirk.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
>> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
>> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
>> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.
>
>
> I do not trust technical laypress articles to be accurate as to
> motivating prioritizes for any decision. Nor should you. We have the
> ability to have an open transparent dialog with Moblin, and we should
> not react to the interpretation of an article writer who is looking to
> attract eyeballs.
> I have come to expect technical laypress articles to
> be..sensational...and to note the most controversial of statements
> because they are controversial and not because they are the most
> important. I would not hold up The Register as a bastion of
> journalist integrity. I find, like most technical laypress, that
> articles are highly editorial in nature, and are not designed to be
> unbiased accounting of 'facts' or anything resembling investigative
> reporting.
>
> Until Dirk or another Moblin member is actually communicating directly
> with a Fedora community representative, who is looking to understand
> the Moblin prioritizes that underlie their decision making, I'm not
> going to assume the article accurately portrays the fundamental
> decision making process Moblin has gone through for moblin 2.0. Some
> decisions were made to move to basing Moblin 2 off of the Fedora
> kernel..that's the only thing I'm taking away from that article.
> Beyond that, I view the rest as subtle spin on the part of the
> Register staff to sensationalize the announcement. Especially the bit
> about RPM since it was not a direct quote attributed to Dirk.
>
> -jef


Fair enough. I await better information.


--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:46:26 -0800
"Jeff Spaleta" <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Hans de Goede
> <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> wrote:
> > So Jeff, your always good with words, do you feel like contacting
> > Dirk Hohndel?
>
> If I could find reliable contact information. But I think we have a
> Board member, Karsten, at OSCON who can face-to-face with him this
> week.
>

also if you need help feel also free to contact me; for one Dirk sits
on the other side of a cube wall from me, and for another I'm also more
or less involved in Moblin 2.0

--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

also if you need help feel also free to contact me; for one Dirk sits
on the other side of a cube wall from me, and for another I'm also more
or less involved in Moblin 2.0


It would be nice if you can get someone from Intel to talk and tell us
what's their plan beyond tidbits we have been getting from the press.
What can Fedora as a project do to interface better?


Rahul


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their

>> target market.

>

> There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora process.

> The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member

> The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user

> The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor.

>

> If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I

> personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they

> can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure

> the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we

> can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how

> they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort.

>

>> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software

>> (which I like) but which

>> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.

>

> I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see

> any specific items which are problematic. *I believe I even ran into a

> statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they

> are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get

> it' when it comes to our view of kernel work.

> http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23

>

> The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one

> of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in

> the moblin 2 playground. * Honestly, we just don't know enough about

> why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the

> commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. *There are hints in the

> moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get

> motivations and intents correctly prioritized. *Dirk's blog seems to

> indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a

> completely blind jump.

>

> -jef





What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that

was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking

many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has

been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.

Let me respond on this point. Probably i am the wrong person to tell* this but rpm4.6, in rawhide, have now lzma payload support via liblzma.* Suse rpm4.4.2.xxxxx have the same support, so have, from more time along iirc, rpm5.org.


Regards

*
--

Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine

( www.pembo13.com )



--

fedora-devel-list mailing list

fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

2008/7/25 yersinia <yersinia.spiros@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their
>> >> target market.
>> >
>> > There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora
>> > process.
>> > The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member
>> > The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user
>> > The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor.
>> >
>> > If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I
>> > personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they
>> > can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure
>> > the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we
>> > can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how
>> > they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort.
>> >
>> >> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software
>> >> (which I like) but which
>> >> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.
>> >
>> > I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see
>> > any specific items which are problematic. I believe I even ran into a
>> > statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they
>> > are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get
>> > it' when it comes to our view of kernel work.
>> > http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23
>> >
>> > The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one
>> > of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in
>> > the moblin 2 playground. Honestly, we just don't know enough about
>> > why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the
>> > commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. There are hints in the
>> > moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get
>> > motivations and intents correctly prioritized. Dirk's blog seems to
>> > indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a
>> > completely blind jump.
>> >
>> > -jef
>>
>>
>> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
>> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
>> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
>> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.
>
> Let me respond on this point. Probably i am the wrong person to tell this
> but rpm4.6, in rawhide, have now lzma payload support via liblzma. Suse
> rpm4.4.2.xxxxx have the same support, so have, from more time along iirc,
> rpm5.org.
>
> Regards

Okay. Thanks for the further info on this. Maybe the RPM devs need to
have the marketing team whip up an anti FUD campaign.


--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list