----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marcela Mašláňová" <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:45:46 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk) > > On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > > Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400: > >> Conclusion > >> --- > >> > >> * Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on > >> * Make room for innovation at the "Ring 2" level > >> * Empower SIGs to create solutions that fit > >> * Won't break what we have > >> * And we can start right now > >> > >> So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please! > > > > The proposal looks frankly very cloud-centric. I have no problem with > > that. What else should a Fedora cloud architect propose? But I'd like to > > know a few things: > > Is the proposal based at least a bit on some kinda of analysis of our > > more successful competitors in the cloud area? Yeah, I'm speaking about > > Ubuntu which currently holds 50 percent of the market. Ubuntu has been > > very successful in the cloud and in the proposal I really don't see a > > lot of things that Ubuntu has/does better and Fedora doesn't have/does > > worse. > > I just want to make sure that we won't turn the whole Fedora upside down > > to make us more successful in the cloud and then find out that something > > completely different was making us unsuccessful and competitors > > successful. IMHO closings gaps between the competitors and us and > > staying excellent in our strong areas would probably be probably a safer > > strategy than turning everything upside down. > > > > BTW speaking of Ubuntu, I think they've got quite different strategy - > > one tightly integrated product across all uses (server, cloud, desktop, > > and now maybe even tablets and phones). To solve the problem of newer > > versions, special interests etc., they've got the ecosystem of PPAs. > > That's where third-party entities can deliver software the way they > > want. And AFAIK it has been widely popular with upstream projects > > because they've got free hands with PPAs. And Ubuntu still has one > > defined product and doesn't have to lower standards for software > > inclusion. > > IMHO it's a better solution than breaking the distribution into several > > parts with different speed of development and different quality > > standards from which you can build all kinds of fragmented products. At > > least from the marketing point of view. As a user, I'd rather use a > > well-defined distribution with one set of quality standards (and if I > > wanted something special, I'd easily enable a third-party repo for that) > > than a distro with well-defined core, but not so well-defined layers of > > grey zone above it. > > > > Just my 2c, > > Jiri > > > I'm not cloud person at all and I like the Rings proposal. Server can be > still based on Ring0 and Ring1, so I don't see how it harm other use-cases. > Same standards for all packages simply didn't work. It can be seen > during every (mass, language) rebuild, which brings many problems for > those running the rebuild. Different people tend to package things > differently, even if there are guidelines. Lowering standards in some > areas and creating packages automatically might give people time to work > on their projects based above these packages. I guess the example with > Hadoop and Jetty is a good one, which can be often seen. I want to make it more than clear the jetty case is not a packaging question at all. We speak about http server with it's vulnerabilities. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team > I also believe we need something like PPA. If koji needs new features, > or if new build system would be used, that's another part of the discussion. > > Marcela > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
