On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 02:02 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 7/25/07, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 03:06 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:06 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:38 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:34:47 -0400 > > > > > "Luis Villa" <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > (Of course, another option is that my desire for a polished desktop > > > > > > experience may be best met by someone doing a polished desktop spin of > > > > > > Fedora rather than by having Fedora work on desktop polish at all, and > > > > > > that Fedora should merely enable that and work to get fixes/polish > > > > > > upstream where possible.) > > > > > > > > > > There really isn't a reason why enterprising folks couldn't make a High > > > > > Polish Desktop spin of Fedora, or help rel-eng to make it. It just > > > > > needs somebody to drive it. I couldn't successfully drive a Desktop > > > > > spin for F7, maybe somebody who understands the target better can. > > > > > > > > That's what we try to do right now. I am pretty much coming to the > > > > conclusion that "High Polish" can't really be done as an add-on. You > > > > need the ability to make the whole distro change (eg, what ubuntu does > > > > to debian). If we want Fedora to be a competitive desktop, we need to > > > > make Fedora a desktop. > > > > > > > > > > So if we take this out to it's next obvious conclusion: where does that > > > leave the upstream consumer of Fedora: RHEL? Or any server-oriented > > > initiative based around fedora, for that matter? > > I am quite irritated whenever reading about "servers" vs. "desktop" > > vs. ... > > > > IMO, servers, desktops etc. are "just setups" of one an the same modular > > basis. They don't necessarily collide. > > > > If they do, to me this means deficiencies of the setup tools and/or > > packaging. > > > > THe collision is about resources of who si going to focus on what. IMO, the "who" and the tools they are using are the key > The > terms are used because for the most part, people rolling out large > number of servers use different timeframes for technology renewal than > people rolling out desktops. I have a good number of servers that are > still running RHEL-3 and will probably be running them til 2009 or so. > My clients want desktops with newer stuff and so RHEL-5 is already > cramped for rollout. The conflict is that server software wants a lot > of long term support, and desktop support doesnt. FWIW: My primary focus/usage is "application development", so neither "bleeding edge, eye-candy-ladden desktops" nor "stone-age technology based servers" (hyperboles intented) are much of interest. I need a compromise between "stable desktop" and "a new, but not bleeding edge devel-infrastructure" (exactly what Fedora had provided so far). Both are reasons, why most Fedora competitors are widely non-interesting to me. > WIth a limited > number of engineering resources.. you have a conflict. Well, IMO wrt. FE, a lot of these conflicts (and the work-load you complained about on a parallel thread) are home-made. It's lack of efficiency being caused by lack of simplicity of the infrastructure being used (bodhi, koji, cvs, acls, distribution packaging (CD/DVDs) ). As I see it, RH should focus their forces on improving this infrastructure to give interested contributors room to step in. Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
