On 8 December 2014 at 16:17, Mike Pinkerton <pseli...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > We could have decided to double-down on growing that enthusiast >> segment, but, first, that's not what the people who showed up to do the >> work decided; and second, I actually think we continue to serve the >> hackers and tinkerers very nicely with the spins and nonproduct option. >> What we're not doing is expanding >> > > I'm not suggesting that Fedora not expand into a new market segment. I'm > simply suggesting that you not abandon existing users in order to do so. > > That works in a standard commercial environment where you are able to get the original users to 'give payment' which helps continual funding that work. However in a volunteer organization.. if people don't do the work, then it isn't going to get done. And there is always a lot of work in keeping something going from release to release. > I also think you're also kind of setting up an argument against >> something no-one is for. "Secure by default" is a not a well-defined >> term, >> > > I can't quite parse that, but I think you are intentionally > misunderstanding what I wrote. "Secure by default" might not be a detailed > specification, but it is certainly understood as a general user > expectation, one that I think Fedora has heretofore generally met. > > No, even in the security community.. it has no single idea. I have spent more time getting multiple teams to define each's version of "secure by default" so that they quit arguing that the other guys aren't that way.. I don't agree with how the firewall is setup on workstation, but I have seen multiple definitions that match "secure by default" that it still meets. -- Stephen J Smoogen.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
