Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But when we talk about Fedora features, we're not talking about
> packaging updates.
But all this focus on "Fedora features" is what I'm objecting to in the
first place. Users care about what features are there, not about who wrote
them. Yet I don't see us filling in feature pages for every new feature in
upstream KDE (and it probably wouldn't be welcome according to the feature
process, it focuses on stuff developed by Fedora contributors).
> When we talk about what differentiates Fedora from other distributions,
> it's rarely the quality of the packaging that's the focus.
I think it's quite the opposite. We all package the same software. The
packaging is what differentiates us from the others.
> People choose between distributions based on the features that they
> provide.
Those features tend to be almost the same. Fast-moving distributions like
Fedora will usually have them first, even if we weren't the ones
implementing them. But otherwise, there's not much difference!
> If the primary focus of Fedora is to produce a compelling operating
> system, then upstream features and development are a significant part of
> making that argument to potential users.
But what if upstream is doing well already and does not need our help?
> I'm sure, yes. It makes several mistakes that I've been arguing against
> for years (presenting power management in terms of profiles, making it
> easy for users to change cpu frequency governer mode without making it
> clear that almost anything they change there will consume more power and
> will probably compromise performance, implying that "performance" and
> "pwoersaving" are a tradeoff)
KDE focuses on configurability. You won't get a KDE developer to agree to
not give the user any options.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
