On 2018-11-04 7:24 a.m., Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Digimer writes: > >> On 2018-11-03 10:49 a.m., Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: >> > Legally that may be correct. But who's the main sponsor for Fedora? [1] >> > And usually the guy who pays for the orchestra decides for the tunes >> > that are played. Correct? >> >> No, not correct. Red Hat funds a lot of projects, simply to ensure they >> survive and thrive but then stays hands-off. Fedora, Centos and >> countless other projects included. They know they can't make decisions >> as well as the people at the front of a project, so they leave them be >> and simply pick off the parts that help them. > > So tell me, how exactly did we wind up with systemd, that landed with a > thud years ago, without anyone being able to point their fingers, > exactly, at the big community demand for it? > > If Red Hat truly stayed "hands off", the systemd garbage would've > withered and died a long time ago. There was a lot of handwaving about > all the big and useful features it had, but that's about it, but the > actual details were curiously scant. Without rehashing the systemd debate, I will point this out; Red Hat said they would have been fine with upstart, if Canonical had released it under a less restrictive license. SysV Init had to be replaced, it was terrible. Canonical didn't make a viable alternative, and no other projects were out there with any real viability. So they funded the creation and development of systemd and enough people liked it that it got picked up and hit critical mass. They never forced it on anyone. They sure as heck didn't force it on Debian anb Ubuntu, yet even they adopted it. So as much as you might not like it, it has some value to enough other people, including Fedora. >> > The people "working on it", you write. I note the difference to people >> > "working with it" ... ;) >> >> Most Fedora developers are users as well. Example; I live in the HA >> cluster world, mostly dominated by Red Hat (with an honourable mention > > Right. Now, I have better things to do on a day to day basis, so I could > be wrong on the following, but it's my impression that Red Hat has a > healthy percentage of Gnome developers on their payroll, if not an > outright majority of them. Tell me that I'm wrong, and Red Hat does not > have more say than anyone else, insofar as Gnome development goes. > > Which is why KDE is getting the boot. > >> > Plus: >> > As Fedora is more or less directly linked to RHEL [2] - what financial >> > sense does it make for Redhat to support the work on KDE if even now >> > already RHEL deprecates KDE? >> >> Fedora is arm's length and independent. RH sees the value / ROI on >> knowing they have a reliable place to build RHEL from, nothing more. >> Every RHEL release takes some version (or two) off of Fedora as a base. >> Once they have that base, they start heavily modifying it. > > There's certainty some value in having an army of unpaid volunteers > doing QA for you. And the longer they continue to believe that they have > any say in the larger roadmap, the better. > >> One of the top concerns, since RHEL 6, has been to streamline what RH >> support is liable for. If there are two projects that provide >> effectively the same thing, one will be dropped. This is purely for >> reducing support liability. We say this with Xen being dropped in EL6 in >> favour of KVM/qemu, for example. > > Right. And since Red Hat has more control over Gnome than KDE, is there > any mystery as to which one got the boot? > >> I suspect that is the same motivation for dropping KDE. Gnome is more >> popular and provides a GUI, > > Last time I checked, so did KDE. It's called Qt. > >> so why pay developers and support staff to >> support KDE in RHEL as well? > > Right, makes no sense. > >> The majority of GUI users on RHEL are >> "Workstation" systems, which don't generate them much money (compared to >> full RHEL) and are largely corporate, where standard builds are the norm. >> >> This is not a conspiracy again KDE, it's simply business. > > Right. And one very desirable thing that every business with an > established customer base looks for is vendor lock-in. systemd is vendor > lock-in, with Red Hat owning pretty much all technical knowledge of that > hairball. Gnome is being groomed to the same end result. At some point > it'll have the same cozy relationship with Red Hat that systemd does now. > >> Fedora, not >> being a source of income for them and being arm's length, will be left >> free to do and support whatever they want. > > That would only be true if Fedora incurs no expense to Red Hat. Perhaps > some minimal expense on the account of KDE will be tolerable. But I > don't think it would take a lot for KDE to leave via the same door where > systemd came in. > >> Who knows, maybe someday it >> will make sense to swap out Gnome for KDE as the official GUI? Leave it >> to the community and let time tell. > > Never going to happen. Of that, I'm certain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/ "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
