On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 10:40:13AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> We could draw them between Core and Extras!
:) Note that just because we got rid of Core doesn't mean that it was a
bad idea. Ubuntu even adopted a "Core" of their own a while back. Maybe
The bad idea was the insider-vs-outsider mentality inherent in the way the
split was made. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that, and, the
above joke aside, I think it's clear that we wouldn't draw the line in the
same way, and we would *definitely* have different rules than in those days.
To a lot of people who weren't so close to all that, the name "Fedora Core"
still has good connotations -- I still often meet people who refer to Fedora
as that. I don't know what the balance in the community now is of people who
have that kind of rosy-eyed fondness, people who are new and don't have a
history either way, and people who remember the Dark Times and would be put
off by the name.
they'll have the same experience we had and get away from that,
or maybe
Linux distributions should ultimately not be in the business of
providing all+kitchen sink. Speaking only personally, what I want is a
stable core platform of very limited size against which I can install
other packages and stacks.
I think we *could* have both. There's no reason that Fedora couldn't make
that stable core platform *and* provide layers above it. In fact, referring
to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview?rd=FedoraProject:About#Our_Mission
it seems pretty clear that both levels are in scope.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>