On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Andreas Tunek <andreas.tunek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2016-11-14 14:01 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On 11/13/2016 01:46 PM, Ms Sanchez wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/11/16 14:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>>> >>>> Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for >>>> stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with >>>> open-source (for example, switching to wifi-only devices and shipping Broadcom >>>> chipsets with no open-source drivers). Then also playing games with their >>>> bootloader system so that we have to go through lots of hoops to trick it into >>>> letting us install. >>>> >>>> Apple's entire business model is predicated on the idea that they know best and >>>> you should only ever run software on their devices that they have provided to >>>> you... at a substantial percentage for themselves. They do whatever they can at >>>> a technical level to enable this. >>>> >>>> (Note: I'm not attempting to vilify Apple here. Their devices are usually >>>> sturdy, well-constructed and certainly attractive. They are however a company >>>> trying to make money and they have a certain business model that is largely >>>> dependent on *not* enabling us.) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Apple's business model is based on selling you a golden cage. They are entitled >>> to do that and we are entitled to dislike it. >> >> Certainly. My point is that I don't feel that we are necessarily responsible for >> working around their antagonism either. Yes, it would be nice if Fedora >> supported all hardware ever made. But the simple truth is that Apple tries very >> hard to make it *not* work. They have a vested interest in that. >> >> So I assert that while support for Apple hardware is desirable, I don't believe >> that the lack of it should prevent us from shipping Fedora for all the other >> hardware that we do support. >> >> > > If you stop supporting certain hardware right before release due to a > regression bug you set a very troublesome precedent. It not only means > that the work people did developing and testing the features where > wasted, it also means that Fedora can toss out any feature at any time > if there is a bug. And that is not a very stable OS to use and > contribute to. If the features were developed and tested during the creation of the release, why would they fail criteria at the last minute? You are making a good argument to not throw away something because "people don't like it", but in the context of this discussion there seems to be a distinct lack of resources actually doing the work. It may be perfectly justifiable to do a release anyway under that premise. Also, there is a large difference between shipping a release that works on a majority of hardware with the goal of fixing it where it doesn't after, and "stop supporting certain hardware". Lastly, support is a very loaded word, particularly in the context of a community driven project. We actually do not have an x86 equivalent of the ARM supported-boards list, so it's completely random as to what laptops and desktops are tested and prioritized. That might be something to focus on going forward. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
