On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:03:17PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> > Where, keep in mind, "slow" is defined as twice a year, right? >> Yes. > > I think this is a remarkable definition of slow. Especially if we can > provide options for people who want a faster path to do so. > >> > 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. > > Why brush that aside? Because it is very obvious, and it also subjective as a pro or con. > Historically, there's been a lot of fear in Fedora of > being perceived as merely a beta or technology preview for RHEL. By now, > though, we've proven that that's not the case, that what we've said all > along is true — Fedora is a great distro in its own right! But it'd be silly > of us to overcompensate by distancing ourselves completely. Fedora is part > of an entire ecosystem, and part of that ecosystem includes an open source > company which has a great enterprise distribution based on the work we do > here, and which employees a great number of engineers, hackers, developers, > and designers all contributing significantly to free software. Why *start* > by cutting that out? > > (All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and > education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system > and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?) > > I also think that it's not true that just because Ubuntu aims to be a > general purpose distribution, we can't as well. It's unlike the > coke-vs-pepsi analogy you suggest, because it's all free software and > parallel development actually benefits everyone. Two groups can approach the > same target differently. > > But that's not all there is to it. > > Fedora has a great release engineering team and process. There's a serious > emphasis on shipping solid, professional releases. Ubuntu has a process too, > but they end up with things like a zero-day last-minute respin of 10.04. > That would not have happened in the same way with Fedora. > > There may be work to do on QA of packages that get put out as updates, but > the overall QA process in Fedora is great. The packaging guidelines and > initial review process are well-considered and polished by real-world use. > We've got great package-development infrastructure and tools, and great > people working on those. > > Fedora is built on important technology. For example: kickstart. It's better > than Debian's scripted installs, and Ubuntu's implementation of kickstart > is.... lacking. This is cool stuff, and it enables other cool stuff like > Fedora spins. Another example: from one point of view, RPM vs. dpkg is > negligible, but there are technical features which make it nicer for some > purposes (like a derived distribution). My point isn't to argue about the > relative virtues of different technology, but that key points of the > distribution-glue are unique. > > And Fedora *is* fast -- see above. I would like to point out how nuanced and somewhat subjective the differences you stated are, even if I may agree with most of them. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
