Yeah, it's really starting to smell as though this whole process was a "consultation" done in bad faith with a predetermined outcome. Not what one expects from Fedora/Red Hat.
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 11:53, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/2/20 3:15 AM, clime wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:22, Paul Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:03 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel
>>> <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 11:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> To distill it down:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Gitlab has more features that are needed right now for our
>>>>> stakeholder group
>>>>> - Gitlab has an entire company dedicated to roadmap features, we do
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, Gitlab’s roadmap is also conflicting with Fedora
>>>> objectives. The bread and butter of Gitlab is intermediating between
>>>> devs and end users, culling free software intermediaries like
>>>> distributions, and positionning itself in their stead. That is unlikely
>>>> to result in any commitment to making distribution workflows work.
>>>>
>>>> That would not be a problem if the disintermediation worked, but like
>>>> many actors Gitlab sees the $$$ and power in being the
>>>> desintermediator, and does not care if the result is deffective, as
>>>> long as $$$ and power flows its way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's also important to note that at the core of GitLab's incentive
>>> model is that they want to remove incentives to use FOSS solutions in
>>> favor of their unified proprietary solution. They are constantly
>>> integrating features and capabilities into the proprietary parts to
>>> make it "juicier" for enterprises who don't really have a compunction
>>> about whether they are using Free Software solutions or not, or even
>>> may not be willing to support them if it was Free Software because of
>>> outmoded thinking.
>>>
>>> The consequence of this is that it starves interest and development in
>>> FOSS solutions, and contributes to making the FOSS ecosystem weaker
>>> over time.
>>
>> That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single
>> biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open
>> source, and thanks to its pervasiveness, open source has won the war
>> of how development should work.
>
> This is imho a contradictory statement. Github, being closed source
> and pervasive, is a proof that open-source has won?
Yes, this really is a bizarre statement.
It also assumes people are perfectly okay with this, whereas many of us
are disgusted to the bone by this situation.
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
