On 22.07.2013 15:38, Matthew Miller wrote:
I've been involved to some small degree with Fedora since the beginning.
This is a project and a Linux distribution which I love, and which I know
everyone reading this also cares about deeply. We don't want to break what
is successful and works.
But...
---
* We need to be more than that
* Not widely used by RHEL users
Because it lacks reliability of RHEL. This needs
to be enhanced.
* Not so great for building on...
Because it lacks high
quality developer's documentation for all this new
pieces of software that it contains not to mention that this pieces are
swapped in and out too often.
* Including Red Hat's own stuff
* We're not seen as relevant...
* Let alone exciting
Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually
proprietary) desktop OS, plus a non-Fedora distribution on their code. We're
being left behind and left out. It doesn't matter how theoretically great we
are if we end up with no users.
The Idea
---
Focus core distro as platform, include layers of modular enabling
technologies, and provide room for special interest groups to create
solutions within the Fedora circle.
I think it's good approach for OS
development to stay focused on rock
solid "core" that is reliable and doesn't break. Then all other rings
mentioned below in your proposal are easier to manage and could
sometimes break in some way. But "core" does never break form F(n) to
F(n+1). Sadly I encounter lot of regressions in Fedora that I don't in
other distros. If something works in one version of F it should not
break in the next one.
So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please!
I think it's one of the most reasonable proposals since decade that
occurred to Fedora.
Mateusz Marzantowicz