FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-12-2010, 10:56 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> -snipped--
>
> If I can be indulged.
>
>> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
>> stubborn
>
> It's not the endusers fault,
> they have bad infracture.

Oh, so it's our fault?

> and use Fedora
> Because that is what they want.

I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
choose, as can they.

> *(and even worse try to change it)
> They also want to learn,
> maybe eventually be in a position
> to give back to the Fedora Community,
> and floss in general.

They can give back with any other distro as well, that fits their needs better.

> *instead of
>> using what fits their needs.
>
> Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?

Obviously not.

>> Next time i buy a car, i will buy one who gets upgrades on a regular
>> base, but hard for me to get it in my country. I will then complain
>> and cry until they start to support me well.
> *Sure i could buy a
>> different car that's older and needs just a bit oil from time to time,
>> but hey, this is a free world, i can change anything.
>>
>
> Apples and Oranges.

Nope, just a perfect example not software related.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 11:12 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy<frankly3d@gmail.com> *wrote:
>>> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>> -snipped--
>>>
>>> If I can be indulged.
>>>
>>>> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
>>>> stubborn
>>>
>>> It's not the endusers fault,
>>> they have bad infracture.
>>
>> Oh, so it's our fault?
>
> It's just life, in all it's forms.

Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
can't choose everything.

>>
>>> and use Fedora
>>> Because that is what they want.
>>
>> I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
>> choose, as can they.
>
> They have, Fedora

Perfectly, so why do they complain then?

>>> * (and even worse try to change it)
>>> They also want to learn,
>>> maybe eventually be in a position
>>> to give back to the Fedora Community,
>>> and floss in general.
>>
>> They can give back with any other distro as well,
>
> True.
>
> that fits their needs better.
>
> So you say.

Well, all that complaining in this meag-threads makes it obvious that
Fedora doesn't fit their needs, don't you think

>>> * instead of
>>>> using what fits their needs.
>>>
>>> Maybe Fedora is what fits their needs?
>>
>> Obviously not.
>
> You can't make that call for them.

See above.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 11:17 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
>

It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to
take advantage of Fedora more. While you can always brush off any
suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to
recognize that there is room for improvement. If we didn't care about
people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and
LZMA compressed RPMS So claiming that users with such systems should
just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to
accommodate such users.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 11:27 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
>>
>
> It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
> parts. *If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
> churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
> mirrors etc) *of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to
> take advantage of Fedora more. *While you can always brush off any
> suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to
> recognize that there is room for improvement. * *If we didn't care about
> people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and
> LZMA compressed RPMS *So claiming that users with such systems should
> just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to
> accommodate such users.

I agree there's room for improvement.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 11:42 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> --sniped--
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so it's our fault?
>>>
>>> It's just life, in all it's forms.
>>
>> Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
>> can't choose everything.
>
> Bringing it back to dialup.
> Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
> CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
> Fedora 1, CentOS 0

CentOS was just an example, i'm can't tell if CentOS has a
netinstall.iso. If not, would be a improvement.
Other distros have for sure. Such distros with very low updates.

>>>>> and use Fedora
>>>>> Because that is what they want.
>>>>
>>>> I want a lot myself. Doesn't mean i can have everything. But i can
>>>> choose, as can they.
>>>
>>> They have, Fedora
>>
>> Perfectly, so why do they complain then?
>
> They are doing the best with what they have.
>
> "http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f12/en-US/html-single/#sect-Release_Notes-Welcome_to_Fedora"
>
> Should we ask the community, to change our community focus:
>
> "Fedora is a community of people, who come from well developed
> lifestyles. Have access to high-speed internet, do not download,
> or feel you belong unless this is satisfied.

I like that you said *ask*. What happens right now with our community?
Do they feel like they are asked? No. People who think they know what
our users want, deciding right now that Fedora will change into. Yes,
i wrote *think they know*. They don't know, they just guess. It seems
they guess because *they* want it like that. Even a poll (yes i have
read all the posts if the poll is good or bad) has shown, that our
users want's something different that those decider guess.

>>>>> * *(and even worse try to change it)
>>>>> They also want to learn,
>>>>> maybe eventually be in a position
>>>>> to give back to the Fedora Community,
>>>>> and floss in general.
>>>>
>>>> They can give back with any other distro as well,
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> that fits their needs better.
>>>
>>> So you say.
>>
>> Well, all that complaining in this meag-threads makes it obvious that
>> Fedora doesn't fit their needs, don't you think
>
> What doesn't fit their need is the infracstruture,
> not the distro.

I guess you mean their infrastructure. Well, since they can't change
their infra, they want us to change into something that fits their
infra instead of choose something that fits already into their infra.

Look, it's not like i can't understand your point. Though we're
spinning around in circles and there's not one argument *why*, should
we change. There are lots of distros out there, exactly fulfilling
those needs. Why "kill" something beautiful like Fedora just to be
another such distro. Nobody really needs that.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 11:56 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> You'd be looking at a typical peak of around 5 months between upstream
> release and Fedora release, with an average of more like 2-3 months,
> which is a lot different from the 6 months that keeps being repeated as
> the waiting time for something new.
>

I don't think this calculation is right. Assuming the conservative
updates perception, we can't have a drastic change in F-13 right now.
A drastic change will have to wait until F-14, which is in November.
So the peak time as of now is 8 months. I think 6 months is a
reasonably good estimate for an average.

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 08:31 PM
Matthew Woehlke
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
>> similar distro isn't for them.
>
> I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> working out a method that satisfies more users.

Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
Peopleč use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
identity, then peopleč won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.

(čnot everyone, true, but we've shown that there /are/ such people)

Personally, I know I would rather use Ubuntu (larger user base) than
Fedora, if it weren't for Fedora's leading edge policy.

I am curious why the folks on the 'stable' side think that throwing out
one of Fedora's distinguishing qualities to make us look more like
Ubuntu will give us more users. Usually you don't win people over by
imitating the competition, but by offering something unique.

Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
uncontributing leaches.

Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.

+10 to that!

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 08:35 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
> lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
> you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
> and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
> uncontributing leaches.
>

So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 08:54 PM
Matthew Woehlke
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
>> lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
>> you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
>> and the ones you are going to attract are more likely to be
>> uncontributing leaches.
>>
>
> So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
> users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.

Yes.

Interesting how you define users as people that give a warm fuzzy
feeling to packagers. Great! Looks like they just contributed something
:-). Bug reports, testing, even sending kudos are forms of contribution.
I'm thinking of people that silently consume without giving anything
back whatsoever, or worse, consume and complain without giving back
anything positive.

I had gotten the impression that Fedora wanted people that would be
actively involved, that would contribute testing, documentation, ideally
even code... more than just statistics and a warm fuzzy feeling. But I
guess I am wrong.

(Heh, I just noticed today's .sig... oddly appropriate.)

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Time to get out the marshmallows...

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 08:56 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:31 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> >> similar distro isn't for them.
> >
> > I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> > working out a method that satisfies more users.
>
> Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
> Peopleč use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
> identity, then peopleč won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.

Even if we were to institute a more conservative update policy, we
wouldn't necessarily actually sacrifice Fedora's leading-edge nature.

Point The First: Ubuntu's update policy is really extremely
conservative. To a rough approximation they update almost nothing. They
do security fixes. You have to argue really, really hard to get any kind
of bug fixed, though. None of the proposals made so far is anywhere near
as tight as Ubuntu's policy.

Point The Second: post-release updates are not the be-all and end-all.
At release time, Fedora is generally more cutting-edge in at least core
components than the time-equivalent Ubuntu release (and Mandriva, and
SUSE, and yadda yadda). Case in point - F12 and Ubuntu 9.10 are more or
less contemporaneous, yet F12 shipped with newer versions of many
components, notably X server. (We're the _only_ major late-2009 cycle
distro to have shipped X server 1.7, everyone else shipped 1.6). So even
if both followed exactly identical update policies, Fedora would still
be the more 'cutting-edge' release.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:47 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org