Christian Schaller wrote: > The standards based approach has been attempted for 13 years now, > and for all those 13 years I have yet to meet anyone who likes or > thinks the LSB approach is working. I can't think of any instance in fedora's past where there was a concerted effort to define a standard workstation. Fedora.next is new, and offers an opportunity to do just that, to define a workstation product. Let's work more to define standards, specifications, and requirements, rather than specific technologies. One analogy, Fedora Server isn't all about a single deliverable like *apache* (as one specific technology example). It's about defining roles and requirements. I would suggest treating Workstation product not too undifferently. Focus on defining supported standards/specifications, apis, environment requirements. Then any implementation that satisfies those (naturally or explicitly) can be considered part of Fedora Workstation. Yes, this will be a harder and slower path to gratification, but I think the risks of not doing so are worse. -- Rex _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
