Hello everyone, I looking to help out where I can with the documentation project. However, I have a few questions which I could not find answers to:
1. Are sections on the project site the only ones being pursued? The main site shows -- Tammy Fox: Installation Guide Paul W. Frields: TBD Luiz Rocha: Configuring and Using PDAs
2. For sections underway, what are their status?
3. Are there any priorities or road maps for this project?
4. The main Red Hat site already has some great documentation which is largely applicable to Fedora, is anybody "converting" or "borrowing" from this to get started? (better yet, are we allowed to do so, legally)
Nick
On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 06:47, Nick wrote:
Hello everyone, I looking to help out where I can with the documentation project. However, I have a few questions which I could not find answers to:
Sorry about the lack of visible FAQ; working on that one over the holidaze.
The last version was sent to the list at:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2003-November/msg00161.html
- Are sections on the project site the only ones being pursued?
The main site shows -- Tammy Fox: Installation Guide Paul W. Frields: TBD Luiz Rocha: Configuring and Using PDAs
The FAQ page has some which are more current - here is the excerpt of what has been suggested and/or is being worked on:
* Installing an SSH server with public/private key authentication * Configuring and using digital cameras * Anaconda documentation (in process) * Security considerings in installation * Security other (by topic, i.e. filesystems, host, etc.) * Configuring PDA
- For sections underway, what are their status?
AFAIK:
* The Anaconda group has been working, but there hasn't been a status update posted here.
* There have been minor updates to the Fedora Doc Guide
* Biggest activity so far has been with translation, both of documentation and software.
Not a huge amount, see next reply for some reasons.
- Are there any priorities or road maps for this project?
- The main Red Hat site already has some great documentation which is
largely applicable to Fedora, is anybody "converting" or "borrowing" from this to get started? (better yet, are we allowed to do so, legally)
Replying to both 3. and 4. together. The following is basically my surmised opinion, so don't be overly surprised if I get a few facts wrong. :)
The focus for the Fedora docs project is primarily on tutorials and how-to documentation (fact). Our experience building and supporting the enterprise product level documentation for Red Hat has shown that it is a truly more-than-full-time job (fact). Not expecting that level of commitment from the open source community, Tammy (wisely) decided to have the Fedora documentation be of the easier to produce and maintain tutorial variety (guess). The sole exception is the Installation Guide and this project's Documentation Guide (fact).
The content of the RHEL and RHL documents is covered under the OPL; you can check the license for any doc by looking at the legalnotice.html page, accessible from the ToC of any document, e.g.:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/admin-guide/lega...
IMHO, the conversion project would be pretty big to perform - the SGML would need refactoring into XML, and all of the content manually checked against the current Fedora Core release. Considering the rapid release cycle of Fedora Core, it will be hard to keep the documents up to date. Again, this is based on our experience doing the same thing for RHL -- with that 6 month release cycle, a team of full-time doc writers was regularly busy more than 60 hours a week to produce the doxen on time.
HTH. I'll see that the FAQ addresses these kind of concerns when we post it Real Soon Now(TM).
hoppy holidaze - Karsten
"Karsten" == Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com writes:
Karsten> On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 06:47, Nick wrote: ...
- Are there any priorities or road maps for this project?
- The main Red Hat site already has some great documentation which is
largely applicable to Fedora, is anybody "converting" or "borrowing" from this to get started? (better yet, are we allowed to do so, legally)
Karsten> Replying to both 3. and 4. together. The following is basically Karsten> my surmised opinion, so don't be overly surprised if I get a few Karsten> facts wrong. :)
Karsten> The focus for the Fedora docs project is primarily on tutorials Karsten> and how-to documentation (fact). Our experience building and Karsten> supporting the enterprise product level documentation for Red Hat Karsten> has shown that it is a truly more-than-full-time job (fact). Not Karsten> expecting that level of commitment from the open source community, Karsten> Tammy (wisely) decided to have the Fedora documentation be of the Karsten> easier to produce and maintain tutorial variety (guess).
While I can't claim to be a resident of Tammy's cranium :-), I do recall discussions surrounding some of her thinking at the time. She felt that tutorials would be easier for an interested party to write than an entire manual (or even a chapter of a manual).
Karsten> The sole exception is the Installation Guide and this project's Karsten> Documentation Guide (fact).
Note that the "Installation Guide" mentioned here is a still-aborning document that is *not* related to any previous Red Hat Linux Installation Guide.
Karsten> The content of the RHEL and RHL documents is covered under the Karsten> OPL; you can check the license for any doc by looking at the Karsten> legalnotice.html page, accessible from the ToC of any document, Karsten> e.g.:
Karsten> http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/admin-guide/lega...
Ummm, one minor point. You'll note that These documents include the following options to the OPL:
"Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder."
"Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder."
These options effectively restrict documents licensed in this fashion from being used for the Fedora project.
Karsten> IMHO, the conversion project would be pretty big to perform - the ...
Unfortunately, given the license these points are all moot...
Ed
At 19:27 22/12/2003, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
Ummm, one minor point. You'll note that These documents include the following options to the OPL:
"Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder." "Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder."
These options effectively restrict documents licensed in this fashion from being used for the Fedora project.
If applicable, an SGML to XML conversion under FDL use wouldn't breach 1. I for one certainly wouldn't deliver a paper copy, which abides by 2.
How many docs are still applicable to Fedora?
regards DaveP.
Hello all,
Sorry I haven't responded sooner -- I was away visiting family over the holidays, and wasn't able to get to my email...
"Dave" == Dave Pawson dpawson@nildram.co.uk writes:
Dave> At 19:27 22/12/2003, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
Ummm, one minor point. You'll note that These documents include the following options to the OPL:
"Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder."
"Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder."
These options effectively restrict documents licensed in this fashion from being used for the Fedora project.
Dave> If applicable, an SGML to XML conversion under FDL use wouldn't Dave> breach 1. I for one certainly wouldn't deliver a paper copy, which Dave> abides by 2.
From a strict interpretation, the points you make are true (however, I
would not be at all surprised if the SGML>XML conversation itself was deemed to be a "substantive modification" -- but for the sake of argument, let's assume this isn't an issue). What you would then have would be an XML version of the Red Hat Linux 9 documentation. This copy would also be licensed under the OPL, and would include the same two options mentioned here, as there is no language in the OPL that allows a third-party to change the license terms. So far, so good.
However, the next logical step is when things start to run off the tracks. What's the most natural thing to do with an existing document when the software described in that document changes? That's right -- modify the document to reflect the changes made to the software.
And at *that* point we're *definitely* talking about "substantive modifications", so we're into prohibited territory.
Bottom line -- The Red Hat Linux is not part of the Fedora project, so the only way to move forward wrt Fedora Core documentation is to concentrate on the creation of new content...
Ed
"Ed" == Edward C Bailey ed@redhat.com writes:
... Ed> Bottom line -- The Red Hat Linux is not part of the Fedora project, so ^---- documentation Ed> the only way to move forward wrt Fedora Core documentation is to Ed> concentrate on the creation of new content...
You know, I read that email three times before sending it, and still manageed to screw it up... :-)
Ed
At 23:02 28/12/2003, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
However, the next logical step is when things start to run off the tracks. What's the most natural thing to do with an existing document when the software described in that document changes? That's right -- modify the document to reflect the changes made to the software.
And at *that* point we're *definitely* talking about "substantive modifications", so we're into prohibited territory.
Bottom line -- The Red Hat Linux is not part of the Fedora project, so the only way to move forward wrt Fedora Core documentation is to concentrate on the creation of new content...
What a bloody waste. Are the Redhat people such a bunch of **** that they wont allow re-use, not even when moderated by their own staff?
Can someone inside redhat raise this please? It *was* redhat that gave birth to Fedora.
regards DaveP
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
Bottom line -- The Red Hat Linux is not part of the Fedora project, so the only way to move forward wrt Fedora Core documentation is to concentrate on the creation of new content...
Is there any chance of getting a public explanation as to why Red Hat will not allow the RHL 9 docs to be used as a starting point. Assuming s/Red Hat/fedora?? Yes, I know there is art work also but that could also be substituted also.
I mean if there had been a RHL 10 would not that have been the docs for it modulo the differences??
It is not like RHL 9 anything represents large quantities of long term income for Red Hat. Especially given that April is only 4 months away.
.......Tom
Yes, it seems there is much confusion about this. After reading many of the comments after my original post, and the lack of a significant roadmap for this project, I fail to see the purpose of a Fedora documentation project. "Tutorial style articles" instead of significant documentation will drive away newcomers faster than anything. Let's look at a couple other major distros, Debian and Mandrake. They have an enormous amount of installation, configuration, and administration docs for their releases. What's Fedora have? Much of RH9 documentation is applicable, so should there be a notice on the documentation project site for people to use those documents? I don't know, I thought I was be myself here, but it looks like many other have the same concerns.
Nick
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
Bottom line -- The Red Hat Linux is not part of the Fedora project, so the only way to move forward wrt Fedora Core documentation is to concentrate on the creation of new content...
Is there any chance of getting a public explanation as to why Red Hat will not allow the RHL 9 docs to be used as a starting point. Assuming s/Red Hat/fedora?? Yes, I know there is art work also but that could also be substituted also.
I mean if there had been a RHL 10 would not that have been the docs for it modulo the differences??
It is not like RHL 9 anything represents large quantities of long term income for Red Hat. Especially given that April is only 4 months away.
.......Tom
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
Ok, it's obvious that my previous post has generated more heat than light. Let me try to bring some additional photons into the mix... :-)
The software comprising Red Hat Linux is available with very little restriction. You can install it on a thousand machines if you like, you can make money by selling the software (as long as you don't call the software you sell "Red Hat Linux"), you can obtain the sources and make any changes you want. I'm sure everyone here knows all this stuff -- it's pretty much business-as-usual, from an open source perspective.
The documentation produced by Red Hat for Red Hat Linux is a different story. The intent was never to make the documentation open source -- you'll note that the SGML files (or the LaTeX files for the earlier releases) used to create the manuals are not made available. The original thinking was that the documentation was (to use corporate-speak) a "value-add".
And that was that. To be honest, we didn't give the matter all that much thought -- we figured that copyright would be sufficient. Until this little gem popped up in the bookstores, that is:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965957535/qid=1072710563/sr=1...
The content for this book was taken from the HTML version of the documentation distributed with Red Hat Linux 6.0. Unfortunately, it was not entirely clear to people purchasing the book that they had not purchased an official Red Hat product, which caused no end of problems when these people then demanded the free tech support the manual implied was available to them. Add to this the fact that whoever did the job converting the HTML into printable text messed up badly in a number of areas (it's been a while since I've looked at the book, but iirc cross-references and certain textual treatments were pretty screwed up), and you have a real mess. In addition, the book was advertised as having a preface written by a Red Hat employee -- Sandra Moore (in an attempt to give the book more credibility, I guess) when she actually wrote the entire manual. She (or Red Hat) was never contacted by the company that produced the book. It was just a slimey situation all around.
Granted, we brought this on ourselves by not making very clear the ground rules regarding how the documentation could be used and distributed. In any case, we then looked to clarify things by explicitly putting the documentation under a license that would hopefully eliminate the problems we were seeing. To make a long story short (I doubt you want to hear about how I tried to get our Legal department to write a documentation license), we searched for an appropriate license, found the OPL (and its two options), and decided that it was the best option available to us -- it allowed the documentation to be distributed as freely as Red Hat Linux while still preventing:
o Other entities using the documentation for commercial gain, and confusing people as to what was an official Red Hat product versus a legitimate (but unofficial) copy.
o The possibility of a third-party maliciously (or innocently) "putting words in our mouth" ("To upgrade your system, issue the following command: rm -rf /")
That's why Red Hat Linux documentation is not open source, and how it came to be licensed as it is.
When the Fedora Project was being born, the question of documentation was raised internally, as it was a given that the Red Hat Linux documentation (by this time basically a branch of the same documentation used for Red Hat Enterprise Linux) was not available for the project.
It was at this time that those of us involved in producing Red Hat's documentation looked at the the Linux Documentation Project as the most viable approach for the documentation aspect of the Fedora Project. We felt that it would be more likely for interested people to write shorter tutorial-style documents than it would be for them to create large, monolithic manuals. We felt that the "infrastructure" (style guides, editorial support, etc) would be lower for the smaller, separate documents. As the documentation project grew, it could be extended to include full-blown manuals, but our thinking was to start small.
Perhaps we've underestimated the kinds of documentation-related projects people would like to take on -- certainly the content produced by the Debian project is a good counter-example of what a dedicated group of individuals can accomplish (though I'll note that the Debian project has been around a while, and comparing a brand-new Fedora Project to a firmly-established Debian Project is not entirely fair)...
That's about all I originally wanted to say; hopefully it has shed a bit more light on an admittedly confusing situation. I don't imagine that those of you unhappy about the unavailability of the Red Hat Linux documentation are going to be any happier, but at least you know how we got to where we are today.
It seems that the best way to end this email is to pose a question:
Where do we go from here?
Ed
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:32:37AM -0500, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
Ok, it's obvious that my previous post has generated more heat than light. Let me try to bring some additional photons into the mix... :-)
It seems that the best way to end this email is to pose a question:
Where do we go from here?
I'd like to throw another log in the fire as it were :)
Myself and some others have produced patches to update maximum rpm, which is under OPL - but with only the book format restriction (these patches are currently in HEAD). I'm doing this without exposure to Eric Foster-Johnson's book, btw.
What would be the views on carrying on this work (fixing up pgp section next on my todo).
Paul
"Paul" == Paul Nasrat pauln@truemesh.com writes:
Paul> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:32:37AM -0500, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
It seems that the best way to end this email is to pose a question:
Where do we go from here?
Paul> I'd like to throw another log in the fire as it were :)
Well, I hadn't dressed for flames this morning, but what the hell -- go for it... :-)
Paul> Myself and some others have produced patches to update maximum rpm, Paul> which is under OPL - but with only the book format restriction (these Paul> patches are currently in HEAD). I'm doing this without exposure to Paul> Eric Foster-Johnson's book, btw.
Paul> What would be the views on carrying on this work (fixing up pgp Paul> section next on my todo).
Well, since I noticed you ping'ed me on irc, I assume you're asking what Red Hat's position (or mine, me being the author and all) would be on work being continued on Maximum RPM.
The reason Maximum RPM was licensed under the OPL without the "substantive modifications" restriction was precisely to permit this kind of work to be done on it, so I can't think of a situation in which I (or Red Hat) would have an issue with what you're doing...
Ed
At 16:32 29/12/2003, Edward C. Bailey wrote:
The documentation produced by Red Hat for Red Hat Linux is a different story. The intent was never to make the documentation open source -- you'll note that the SGML files (or the LaTeX files for the earlier releases) used to create the manuals are not made available. The original thinking was that the documentation was (to use corporate-speak) a "value-add".
And that was that. To be honest, we didn't give the matter all that much thought -- we figured that copyright would be sufficient.
Please tell your bosses I think they are a bunch of merchant bankers.
If that's what they want from Fedora, then up their respectives.
I'm Disgusted. Is this what they expected for Fedora? 'open source' but get your own documentation?
I guess slashdot is a good market for such a message Edward?
Give the 'managers' (they want sacking) the press they deserve?
"Dave" == Dave Pawson dpawson@nildram.co.uk writes:
Dave> Please tell your bosses I think they are a bunch of merchant bankers. ...
I'm sorry you find this upsetting.
Ed
At 20:15 29/12/2003, you wrote:
"Dave" == Dave Pawson dpawson@nildram.co.uk writes:
Dave> Please tell your bosses I think they are a bunch of merchant bankers. ...
I'm sorry you find this upsetting.
A waste. Totally. Disgust is more appropriate than upset.
As for re-writing it all? My guess, Redhat will have lost its user base by then.
Can you see *any* logic in this position Edward?
regards DaveP
Sorry for intruding, but I'm a newcomer to this list and was reading the thread regarding Red Hat documentation and it not being open source. It seems that there is a "publisher's edition" of Red Hat docs that are being used right now... Could anyone here explain what is the difference between the official Red Hat docs and this publisher edition?
http://linuxcentral.com/catalog/?prod_code=B000-352&id=C1C0aAmWPDXCs
If I'm speaking out of my arse, please let me know
Regards Dan Gonzalez dgonzo@optonline.net spam_me_silly@linux.net
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:38:13 +0000 Dave Pawson dpawson@nildram.co.uk wrote:
At 20:15 29/12/2003, you wrote:
> "Dave" == Dave Pawson dpawson@nildram.co.uk writes:
Dave> Please tell your bosses I think they are a bunch of merchant bankers. ...
I'm sorry you find this upsetting.
A waste. Totally. Disgust is more appropriate than upset.
As for re-writing it all? My guess, Redhat will have lost its user base by then.
Can you see *any* logic in this position Edward?
regards DaveP
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
"Daniel" == Daniel Gonzalez dgonzo@optonline.net writes:
Daniel> Sorry for intruding, but I'm a newcomer to this list and was Daniel> reading the thread regarding Red Hat documentation and it not being Daniel> open source. It seems that there is a "publisher's edition" of Red Daniel> Hat docs that are being used right now... Could anyone here explain Daniel> what is the difference between the official Red Hat docs and this Daniel> publisher edition? Daniel> http://linuxcentral.com/catalog/?prod_code=B000-352&id=C1C0aAmWPDXCs
There are two components to the product you're seeing on that page:
o A book written by two people unconnected with Red Hat
o A two-CD "publisher's edition" of the Fedora Core 1 operating system (built from the full FC1 edition by the Red Hat developers)
The book is not related to the documentation I've been discussing on the list in any way (other than they both discuss the use of a Linux operating system). The two-CD set is related to the documentation being discussed here only in that prior versions of the software was known as Red Hat Linux, which is what the documentation was written to, uh, document. :-)
Daniel> If I'm speaking out of my arse, please let me know
Well, from here I can't tell if your backside was involved in this discussion, but it was a valid question... :-)
Ed
Ed-
Thanks for the explanation. I don't have any experience writing documentation specific to Linux distributions, but I do write a lot of documentation for my job as an engineer in the phone/cable company. I want to volunteer my services in any way I can to the documentation project. So I'm posting this offer to the list in case anyone has any documentation that he/she may want proof-read. I installed Fedora Core 1 a couple of weeks ago, so I can physically work through any tutorials that will get submitted. BTW, I haven't touched a Red Hat distro since 6.0 and when the Fedora install was completed, I was amazed. It's come such a long way in such a short period of time.
Anyway, hope I can assist
Regards Dan Gonzalez
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:04:06 -0500 "Edward C. Bailey" ed@redhat.com wrote:
"Daniel" == Daniel Gonzalez dgonzo@optonline.net writes:
Daniel> Sorry for intruding, but I'm a newcomer to this list and was Daniel> reading the thread regarding Red Hat documentation and it not being Daniel> open source. It seems that there is a "publisher's edition" of Red Daniel> Hat docs that are being used right now... Could anyone here explain Daniel> what is the difference between the official Red Hat docs and this Daniel> publisher edition? Daniel> http://linuxcentral.com/catalog/?prod_code=B000-352&id=C1C0aAmWPDXCs
There are two components to the product you're seeing on that page:
o A book written by two people unconnected with Red Hat o A two-CD "publisher's edition" of the Fedora Core 1 operating system (built from the full FC1 edition by the Red Hat developers)
The book is not related to the documentation I've been discussing on the list in any way (other than they both discuss the use of a Linux operating system). The two-CD set is related to the documentation being discussed here only in that prior versions of the software was known as Red Hat Linux, which is what the documentation was written to, uh, document. :-)
Daniel> If I'm speaking out of my arse, please let me know
Well, from here I can't tell if your backside was involved in this discussion, but it was a valid question... :-)
Ed
-- Ed Bailey Red Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
Edward C. Bailey wrote:
It was at this time that those of us involved in producing Red Hat's documentation looked at the the Linux Documentation Project as the most viable approach for the documentation aspect of the Fedora Project. We felt that it would be more likely for interested people to write shorter tutorial-style documents than it would be for them to create large, monolithic manuals. We felt that the "infrastructure" (style guides, editorial support, etc) would be lower for the smaller, separate documents. As the documentation project grew, it could be extended to include full-blown manuals, but our thinking was to start small.
Perhaps we've underestimated the kinds of documentation-related projects people would like to take on -- certainly the content produced by the Debian project is a good counter-example of what a dedicated group of individuals can accomplish (though I'll note that the Debian project has been around a while, and comparing a brand-new Fedora Project to a firmly-established Debian Project is not entirely fair)...
It seems that the best way to end this email is to pose a question:
Where do we go from here?
I think Fedora needs good installation and configuration manuals. Without these, it will never be possible to get a good user base (unless a majority of current Red Hat Linux users switch to Fedora). The 'tutorial-idea' is good, the Linux Documentation Project is good, but we cannot count on those two alone to provide enough information about the whole Fedora distribution.
Whatever we do, we *must* have a good installation and configuration manual. So let's start writing now ;)
Greetings,
Jan Fabry
Jan Fabry wrote:
I think Fedora needs good installation and configuration manuals. Without these, it will never be possible to get a good user base (unless a majority of current Red Hat Linux users switch to Fedora).
I think part of the publicly expressed idea behind Fedora is that it is for hobbyists, namely people who love to tinker with Linux and enjoy the challenge that Linux can offer.
Also, Fedora is geered towards being an R&D platform for the RH engineers, which translates into lots of software that may or may not work. We'll see more of the R&D aspect come to light as Fedora progresses.
That said, the very R&D nature of Fedora might not make it the best disto for newer users.
- Akbar
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 05:57:21PM -0800, Akbar S. Ahmed wrote:
Jan Fabry wrote:
I think Fedora needs good installation and configuration manuals. Without these, it will never be possible to get a good user base (unless a majority of current Red Hat Linux users switch to Fedora).
I think part of the publicly expressed idea behind Fedora is that it is for hobbyists, namely people who love to tinker with Linux and enjoy the challenge that Linux can offer.
Also, Fedora is geered towards being an R&D platform for the RH engineers, which translates into lots of software that may or may not work. We'll see more of the R&D aspect come to light as Fedora progresses.
That said, the very R&D nature of Fedora might not make it the best disto for newer users.
Completely disagree. But I don't want to get into a long thread on many of your points here :-)
Just because Fedora is more on the bleeding edge of releasing software than other distros doesn't mean we shouldn't document it well.
This thread is about where that documentation should come from.
- Akbar
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I think part of the publicly expressed idea behind Fedora is that it is for hobbyists, namely people who love to tinker with Linux and enjoy the challenge that Linux can offer.
Just because Fedora is more on the bleeding edge of releasing software than other distros doesn't mean we shouldn't document it well.
I agree with Scott here. Just because Fedora is a bleeding edge distro, oriented towards hobbysts, that does not mean weak doccos, for hobbysts I understand no only Linux hackers but also Linux newbies.
And being a RHEL R&D platform means to me that Fedora can, with caution, be used in production enviroment. Something that would also benefit with the avaliability of a good doc base.
- -- Luiz Rocha <lsdr at LSDR.net>
Luiz Rocha wrote:
And being a RHEL R&D platform means to me that Fedora can, with caution, be used in production enviroment. Something that would also benefit with the avaliability of a good doc base.
Off the bat I'd like to say that I think good docs are a great idea. Fedora needs good docs. That goes without saying.
On another note...
I'll quote Red Hat staff here, "Fedora is not a production environment!" Maybe not exact but close enough.
What I've expressed were views repeated of what I've heard from or read from Red Hat corp/staff. Fedora is an R&D platform. R&D means not stable (ask anyone with experience in an R&D division). You can disagree, and that's fine, but the facts are the facts.
When asked which Linux distro to use by my company's clients, we say RHEL. It's stable, supported, and production quality.
To repeat, if you want a stable production quality Linux then use RHEL.
Other than RHEL, the only other production quality (server) Linuxes are Novell/Suse and Debian (Stable).
If you doubt me, then ask one of the RH people to chime in. If they say that Fedora is a stable platform that is "suitable for production use" then I'll stand corrected. I have no problems with that.
From the web: 1.) http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html The Fedora Project Users == Early adopters, enthusiasts, developers Red Hat Enterprise Linux == Mainstream production environments
2.) http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/11/21/1420242.shtml?tid=106&...
Matthew Szulik said, "We hope that consumer-focused technologies will thrive and mature in the Fedora Project setting. When the code is production quality, Red Hat will make them available as part of a supported distribution."
Note the "when the code is production quality..." statement.
Sorry to keep this alive, Akbar
Akbar,
You insist on steering this thread off course don't you :-)
This is not the correct forum for your views below.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:45:49PM -0800, Akbar S. Ahmed wrote:
Luiz Rocha wrote:
And being a RHEL R&D platform means to me that Fedora can, with caution, be used in production enviroment. Something that would also benefit with the avaliability of a good doc base.
Off the bat I'd like to say that I think good docs are a great idea. Fedora needs good docs. That goes without saying.
On another note...
I'll quote Red Hat staff here, "Fedora is not a production environment!" Maybe not exact but close enough.
What I've expressed were views repeated of what I've heard from or read from Red Hat corp/staff. Fedora is an R&D platform. R&D means not stable (ask anyone with experience in an R&D division). You can disagree, and that's fine, but the facts are the facts.
When asked which Linux distro to use by my company's clients, we say RHEL. It's stable, supported, and production quality.
To repeat, if you want a stable production quality Linux then use RHEL.
Other than RHEL, the only other production quality (server) Linuxes are Novell/Suse and Debian (Stable).
If you doubt me, then ask one of the RH people to chime in. If they say that Fedora is a stable platform that is "suitable for production use" then I'll stand corrected. I have no problems with that.
From the web: 1.) http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html The Fedora Project Users == Early adopters, enthusiasts, developers Red Hat Enterprise Linux == Mainstream production environments
2.) http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/11/21/1420242.shtml?tid=106&...
Matthew Szulik said, "We hope that consumer-focused technologies will thrive and mature in the Fedora Project setting. When the code is production quality, Red Hat will make them available as part of a supported distribution."
Note the "when the code is production quality..." statement.
Sorry to keep this alive, Akbar
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 31 December 2003 05:45, Akbar S. Ahmed wrote:
I'll quote Red Hat staff here, "Fedora is not a production environment!" Maybe not exact but close enough.
To repeat, if you want a stable production quality Linux then use RHEL.
If you doubt me, then ask one of the RH people to chime in. If they say that Fedora is a stable platform that is "suitable for production use" then I'll stand corrected. I have no problems with that.
Your point of view, not mine. I still stand to what I've said for reasons I won't try to explain, since it would steer this thread even more off-topic.
Any Linux distros, of any kind, purpose or stability benefits from a good, well written and focused documentation.
If Fedora and RHEL can't share the same docs, than it is up to us to write good doccos for Fedora. Not only for people like me that end up using Fedora as a prod env Linux, but also to hobbyists and early adopters.
- -- Luiz Rocha <lsdr at LSDR.net>
At 18:12 22/12/2003, Karsten Wade wrote:
IMHO, the conversion project would be pretty big to perform - the SGML would need refactoring into XML, and all of the content manually checked against the current Fedora Core release. Considering the rapid release cycle of Fedora Core, it will be hard to keep the documents up to date.
I did quite a bit of SGML to XML conversion. Are there any SGML docs that I could look at, to see how hard it might be, see if it could be automated at all?
regards DaveP