On Tuesday 09 December 2008 10:55:53 am Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I have no idea. We cannot rely on mere impressions for
making such decisions and I know of no hard public hard
data. Enthusiasm doesn't determine how many people work
on something full time. Paying
On Monday 08 December 2008 08:49:20 am stan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is not what Fedora once was meat to be.
Please, let's have some perspective here. Fedora becomes
what the people doing the work want Fedora to become. And
the users of Fedora know what Fedora is meant to be
Neither specifically. Just that, if someone has to
work on a product or
part of the product, full time, then a commercial
organization would
only do it usually if customers are willing to pay for
it, now or in the
near future. Enthusiasts, by their nature,
pay with their time instead.
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
I mean (as an example) I would like to see Fedora shift focus to Qt
and KDE, but that isn't going to happen, not because there are rules
against, just because there is no one to push the work necessary for
that, and I am not yet capable of it myself.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Uh, we would very much be willing to do that in KDE SIG. It's not going
to happen because there is pressure from above to focus on GNOME, not
because the manpower to focus on KDE is not there (which is not the
case).
I think, you are being
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Isn't that what is meant by pressure from above?
I don't see how having more resources alloted to something counts as
pressure from above. Let's say I prefer fluxbox or Xfce. Should I feel
pressure because more resources go into other desktop environments? I
don't
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 09:49 -0700, stan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
but you don't want to do
the work to get it there. In other words, you want to
direct the work of those who do the work. Hey, you have a
great future in management waiting for you. :-)
Pardon,
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
My strong impression from reading the newsgroups
is that a large majority of enthusiasts are using KDE,
despite the fact that this is not the default.
I have no idea. We cannot rely on mere impressions for making
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:55:03 -0600 (CST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has to be kept in mind that people who are satisfied
with something rarely express their satisfaction avidly.
This means that those with a problem or issue or desire
to see something change will predominate the
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would smolt be a reasonable place to consider mining for data on the
distribution of use is on the various DMs? Doesn't it report the active DM?
Or, if not, should it?
I would caution you about doing any popularity data mining without
I have no idea. We cannot rely on mere impressions for
making such decisions and I know of no hard public hard
data. Enthusiasm doesn't determine how many people work
on something full time. Paying customers do.
Do we pay for Fedora?
We don't pay for Fedora. So how can Paying customers
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I have no idea. We cannot rely on mere impressions for
making such decisions and I know of no hard public hard
data. Enthusiasm doesn't determine how many people work
on something full time. Paying customers do.
Do we pay for Fedora? We don't pay for Fedora. So how
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Isn't that what is meant by pressure from above?
I don't see how having more resources alloted to something counts as
pressure from above.
Well, I take it that Redhat is the above in this case,
and if they choose to allocate more resources to Gnome than KDE
then that
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 04:13:45PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Thus, we are able to use the Fedora Project...
So you respond to my statement of what _Fedora's_ objectives are with
a statement of what _RedHat's_ objectives are?
Is the fact that they explicitly refer
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is not what Fedora once was meat to be.
Please, let's have some perspective here. Fedora becomes
what the people doing the work want Fedora to become. And
the users of Fedora know what Fedora is meant to be because
they use it every day. The statement(s)
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:49:20 -0700
stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, it is good that you care enough about Fedora to
offer suggestions, but if you don't help implement those
suggestions you shouldn't be offended or angry if they
aren't followed.
It's kind of a circular, symbiotic
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:49:20 -0700
stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, it is good that you care enough about Fedora to
offer suggestions, but if you don't help implement those
suggestions you shouldn't be offended or angry if they
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:24:13PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:49:20 -0700
stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, it is good that you care enough about Fedora to
offer suggestions, but if you don't help implement those
suggestions you shouldn't be offended or
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 09:49 -0700, stan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is not what Fedora once was meat to be.
Please, let's have some perspective here. Fedora becomes
what the people doing the work want Fedora to become.
No, Fedora became what people made it.
My impression is,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 09:49 -0700, stan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is not what Fedora once was meat to be.
Please, let's have some perspective here. Fedora becomes
what the people doing the work want Fedora
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:41 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 09:49 -0700, stan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is not what Fedora once was meat to be.
Please, let's have some perspective
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
I mean (as an example) I would like to see Fedora shift focus to Qt
and KDE, but that isn't going to happen, not because there are rules
against, just because there is no one to push the work necessary for
that, and I am not yet capable of it myself.
Uh, we would very
I am really frustrated by some of the things that I hear said on this
board. Specifically when someone comes on here and touts the Fedora is
bleeding edge software and if it isn't stable enough for you, go get
another distribution.
That is NOT the intent of Fedora. Fedora is NOT by
because it gives me a chance
to try to bust the NUMBER ONE MYTH about Fedora -- that Fedora is just
a beta for RHEL
Well, I suppose he can try to bust the myth all he wants, but
available evidence consistently indicates that Fedora is where
things get beta tested before they appear in redhat.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Linuxguy123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am really frustrated by some of the things that I hear said on this
board. Specifically when someone comes on here and touts the Fedora is
bleeding edge software and if it isn't stable enough for you, go get
another
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:16:35 -0500
Linuxguy123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am really frustrated by some of the things that I hear
said on this board. Specifically when someone comes on
here and touts the Fedora is bleeding edge software and
if it isn't stable enough for you, go get another
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Tom Horsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because it gives me a chance
to try to bust the NUMBER ONE MYTH about Fedora -- that Fedora is just
a beta for RHEL
Well, I suppose he can try to bust the myth all he wants, but
available evidence consistently indicates
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:16:35 -0500
Linuxguy123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am really frustrated by some of the things that I hear
said on this board. Specifically when someone comes on
here and touts the Fedora is bleeding edge
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:18:52 -0600
Arthur Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Max was either a tad disingenuous or,
possibly, unaware of the economic model. Redhat spends
considerable sums on Fedora and has a fiduciary
What do you mean by PRODUCTION QUALITY?? It's an ambiguous word, of
course. Fedora for me is super stable, therefore, for me, it's
production quality.
Plus, Fedora's mission is to be bleeding-edge, not a test-bed for
software, and it is, afaik, succeeding in this mission! With Fedora
you get
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:58:39 -0300
Armin Moradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean by PRODUCTION QUALITY?? It's an
ambiguous word, of course. Fedora for me is super
stable, therefore, for me, it's production quality.
Plus, Fedora's mission is to be bleeding-edge, not a
test-bed for
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:16:35AM -0500, Linuxguy123 wrote:
I am really frustrated by some of the things that I hear said on this
board. Specifically when someone comes on here and touts the Fedora is
bleeding edge software and if it isn't stable enough for you, go get
another distribution.
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 01:55:22PM -0500, Tom Horsley wrote:
That's why it is OK that NetworkManager isn't backwards compatible
and doesn't properly support wildly uncommon configurations
like static IP :-).
I'll point out that the latest Ubuntu (8.10, Intrepid Ibex) suffered
from the same
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 14:54 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:18:52 -0600
Arthur Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Max was either a tad disingenuous or,
possibly, unaware of the economic model.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:18:52 -0600
Arthur Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Max was either a tad disingenuous or,
possibly, unaware of the economic model. Redhat
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Linuxguy123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 14:54 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:18:52 -0600
Arthur Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Max was either a
Linuxguy123 wrote:
One of the terms that I really like, and that I think we're doing
better and better of making a reality is that of Fedora as an open
development lab. As a user, if your priorities are cutting-edge
technology (without the nicks and cuts of a blade) and freedom, Fedora
is a
Dave Ihnat wrote:
I'll point out that the latest Ubuntu (8.10, Intrepid Ibex) suffered
from the same problem with NetworkManager.
Of course it does, they're shipping the exact same NetworkManager.
The only difference is that the changes and issues have usually already hit
Fedora by the time
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Thus, we are able to use the Fedora Project and the
JBoss.org communities as proving grounds and virtual
laboratories for new technology that we can draw upon for
inclusion in our enterprise technologies. Additionally, the
open and transparent nature of these projects
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Thus, we are able to use the Fedora Project...
So you respond to my statement of what _Fedora's_ objectives are with
a statement of what _RedHat's_ objectives are?
Is the fact that they explicitly refer to Fedora are a community in
which they participate not relevant
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet, IMHO, Fedora will never reach Production Worthy due to its short
release cycle and short maintenance life. I've not yet run into a
serious business that runs Fedora, or considered running it, and would
certainly advise
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet, IMHO, Fedora will never reach Production Worthy due to its short
release cycle and short maintenance life. I've not yet run into a
serious business that runs Fedora, or considered running it, and
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, they are not going to give money to organizing an extended
maintenance option to anyone let alone a community which has no
responsibility or accountability.
And there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from putting the
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
And there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from putting the
resources together and charging money for security updates post-EOL
for any Fedora release if they thought there was a market for that and
individuals were willing to pay for that sort of service in a
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
someone is going to have to step up. I nominate you. :-)
I don't have a need for an extended Fedora lifecycle.
-jef
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
someone is going to have to step up. I nominate you. :-)
I don't have a need for an extended Fedora lifecycle.
But you seem to feel it is necessary. Is the only driving force your
need?
And there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from
putting the
resources together and charging money for security updates
post-EOL
for any Fedora release if they thought there was a market
for that and
individuals were willing to pay for that sort of service in
a
sustainable way.
At
Antonio Olivares wrote:
And there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from
putting the
resources together and charging money for security updates
post-EOL
Doesn't CentOS, Scientific Linux, and others do this already don't they?
No They mirror RHEL, not Fedora. And, they
And there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone
from
putting the
resources together and charging money for security
updates
post-EOL
Doesn't CentOS, Scientific Linux, and others do
this already don't they?
No They mirror RHEL, not Fedora. And, they don't
charge.
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Okay, then but since Red Hat Enterprise is based off Fedora aren't they
pretty much Fedora below underneath it all :) With us Fedora users doing the
testing for them also!
Well, not quite.
You have to consider that there are plenty of RHEL users that aren't
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you seem to feel it is necessary. Is the only driving force your
need? :-)
For what I personally spend my time on as a package maintainer, yes
'my need' is the only driving force. I am not an altruist. I am
selfish, I am
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you seem to feel it is necessary. Is the only driving force your
need? :-)
For what I personally spend my time on as a package maintainer, yes
'my need' is the only driving force. I am not
Its ultimate goal is to produce production quality user ready
distributions.
I don't agree with that. If I want production quality linux I will
probably look for centOS
http://www.centos.org/. I don't expect the cutting edge technology and
stable release at the same time. Everything is the
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I'm not going to attempt to speak for anyone else as to whether an
extended maintenence period is necessary or even desirable. I do not
desire it, and if the period would extended I would not be able to
maintain the packages for that extended period of time and would
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, if you think security fixes only would be a crappy form
of support, consider that it's all Debian is ever offering for their
stable releases. So I don't think dropping back to that model after 13
months of full
55 matches
Mail list logo
