On 8 December 2014 at 16:17, Mike Pinkerton <pselists@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.