On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a >> stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS, >> strongly upstream seems to be what some (I am not going to make >> assumptions about numbers) want. I see two problems with this: > > Where, keep in mind, "slow" is defined as twice a year, right? Yes. >> 1) the nature of such a distro would make it attractive to a smaller >> percentage of the Linux community > > Do you have a basis for this claim? I think it's the opposite. The basis is logic. Users who want stable, slow environments do so primarily because the want simpler to setup and maintain systems. Those users also don't want to install other unsupported repositories for full drivers, codecs, font engines, media, players ect which they then have to install unassisted. >> 2) the only aspect of that that would be unique is the commitment to >> upstream -- something which will be appreciated by few > > I don't think that's fair at all. Fedora is unique in a lot of ways, and a > waterfall of updates isn't essential to that uniqueness. List those ways please, aside from the relationship with Red Hat/CentOS. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
