Le dimanche 09 décembre 2012 à 14:26 -0500, Jon Masters a écrit : > On 12/06/2012 10:38 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: > > > People are annoyed to go to different bugzilla to report bugs, people > > are annoyed to go to different shops to shop for stuff ( as seen by the > > success of amazon, or even itunes, etc ), so why would it make sense to > > have a different way depending on what you want to install ? > > If I may, that comparison is flawed. When I shop at Amazon, I can buy > the same product that I can buy at a "big box" store, or a smaller > retailer. I'm enjoying the convenience of going to the App Store > (Amazon) but I can also install the software myself (go to the local > retailer), and it's all the same bits either way. It's not welded shut. > Although the retailers want to screw each other out of business, > competition laws require them to generally conform to the notion that I > can get my bits wherever I want and install them into my home, etc. Well, you can still install what you want. My point is just this is more convenient to not have different way to do the same exact thing. ( think gem vs distribution rpm, for one, this is a recipe for conflicts and problems, as they have different support lifecycle, and different features ) > My biggest problem with the "one true repo" approach is that it creates > this (flawed) notion that software is either right or wrong: it's either > completely Open Source and shipped in the distro, or it's out there on > an island. Having one repo and refusing commercial software are 2 different issues. Even with many repositories, you can refuse to distribute non open source softwares ( for various reasons, like "this is being too much work to make contract and manage money" ), and you can perfectly ship non open source software in your repository, provided you have the right to redistribute them and still have 1 single repository. > I like Open Source, I like some proprietary software too. I > like some software from folks who don't care about packaging it for > distros. I like some commercial software. I want my Operating System to > provide a (small) stable platform that people can target. Then, by all > means do an Amazon. But much as I like Apple, don't do an Apple (iOS) > App Store where that's the only way to get bits, do it like they do on > the desktop where there's still choice. This is free software, there isn't much way to lock people into doing your way only. But that doesn't mean the project should be without rules and use the ressources for anything. If we want to ensure quality, there is a need for a common set of rules to follow to make everything work smoothly. And either you make sure the rules are followed ( by having 1 single entry point, for example ), or you do not care, and you will just end with a lower quality. Every check that is added and that can be bypassed will be bypassed sooner or later by people who do not care, do not understand, or not have the ressources. And the same goes for having a stable platform, you have to make sure that the platform is well defined, so people do not start to use something outside of the platform ( or it will not work ). In fact, that's what the LSB attempted to do, yet no one ask for it in this thread. So maybe people who want a stable platform should investigate what is the status of the LSB support in Fedora, what are the needs of the ISVs, and find a plan to make them supported. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
