On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Sounds like a UI bug. > > Agreed. And, it would appear, that becomes a "don't really care about > fixing it" issue, as sound still works, even if the controls are > backwards. > >> Are you talking about tainted kernels (3rd party, out of tree kernel >> modules)? Or are you talking about something completely different? > > Standard Fedora install, out of the box. > > But I was just using that as an example of an experience with making bug > reports. OK no offense but that's close to hijacking the thread because it's really that unrelated to tainted kernels. An ignored bug for package A does not mean other bugs for other packages will be ignored. The relationship between Fedora and upstreams is highly varied. The degree to which Fedora packagers can manipulate upstream code is highly varied. This is non-obvious, but it's an inevitable outcome to all distro models. All of them have this problem to varying degrees. A big quandry I think all Linux distros face is to what degree they are, or can be, an OS, rather than merely a collection of packages. The unwillingness, or inability, of distros to merely recommend let alone insist, on upstream features or bug priorities really limits the total end goal cohesiveness any Linux distro can get to in becoming more of an OS. It's a huge challenge. A big part of how Google has made Android an OS is essentially by kicking out upstreams and replacing packages with those of their own making. Windows and OS X are even more extreme examples. All video drivers are all supplied by Apple with OS X, there is no such thing as a 3rd party download. The widening gap between developer and user continues to be a problem, and self rewarding, and to some degree Linux distros are all accepting this. Systems are getting a lot more capable, and a lot more complicated, but the development environments are not scaling to users the way they are for developers. The user as the developer is increasingly left behind. That's a big part of the Xerox PARC and early Apple story that was fairly quickly abandoned by Apple - the idea of the user being the developer, and everything being discoverable, understandable, and the user had the source for all of it right in front of them on their device by default. How do you convince OSS developers to create the DE they've always wanted for themselves that also makes them obsolete (or superfluous)? And are those really the contradiction they seem to be? -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
