-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Spaleta wrote: | On 7/15/05, Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | |>They understand that RHAT has some flexibility |>in terms of overrides (patches) of upstream providers. | | And when they bring it up with regard to gnome desktop functionality, My point was that Redhat is not a powerless bystander that is forced to distribute whatever Gnome hands down from their ivory tower. If it gets beyond a certain point, RHAT will react themselves to the crap on the stone tablets from upstream. |>Although I don't use Gnome as a desktop, I use enough Gnome apps to be |>constantly reminded of the ineffective choices | All of this, are comments on gnome's process for introducing and | laying out features. Without making a judgement as to whether or not | your concerns are valid, these would be more effectively expressed as | part of upstream gnome discussions or in the case of the keyboard | shortcuts, rfes into upstream bugzilla. I do understand your agnosticism expressed here. However, I assert the choice to install *Fedora*, not Gnome. Fedora has pushback powers both in terms of implicit backchannels and explicit patching. This is as much the reality as saying that Gnome control Gonme. Washing your hands of it and saying it is out of your control is escapism. |>> If you'd like to discuss more ideas for fedora marketting taglines, |>> there is a mailinglist dedicated for fedora marketting. |> |>Well despite taking your point that upstream has more power over the |>direction of upstream, some care needs to be taken not to blow off |>genuine observations. The power of RHAT to patch its desires into |>reality is real, as we see in the kernel. | | No one has blown off the observations with regard to the specific Sorry to disagree, but the "marketing" stuff was a cute way to blow the guy off. There are over blow-offs on the thread already. | issue of terminal menu item. Clark chimed in very early on with | upstream information concerning how the terminal menu item is being | re-implemented as an addon. People took that information and are now | starting the packaging of that addon for Extras. "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first send to Extras". Extras is by definition no longer Fedora 'Core'. Microsoft are very familiar with the I'll-give-you-what-I-want-you-to-have-and-you-can - -install-something-else-if-you-want-but-you're-too-lazy-haha-I'm-rich. | But this thread degraded into general comments about how gnome is | making upstream decisions, about how gnome has become a "social | experiement" on users. Even YOU just now decided it was worthwhile to | make a comment about how upstream gnome is changing defaults and how | you think they should be doing it. These sorts of comments don't need | to be discussed here.. in fact they will get lost in the noise and | never make it back to gnome. I disagree with the thrust of this paragraph. What is Fedora, some kind of moral vacuum that just takes every upstream even if it is degenerate? ~ The pushback here is an appeal to *Fedora* that Gnome is going backwards and arguably - because I am trying to be modest as Gnome should be - needs a paternal hand on the shoulder and word in the ear. And Fedora has that Gravitas to apply if the need is genuine. Doesn't it. | To quote you again: | "It seems to me there is a genuine problem with the trend of Gnome | development and the use of changing defaults to try to program their | users." | | In no way shape or form is a comment about the "trend of gnome | development" worthwhile to discuss in fedora-devel. Comments like | these only serve to frustrate list participants, because comments | about the general trends in gnome development made in this list are | not going to lead to any changes into how gnome does things. If you | want to make a comment about "general trends" of ANY upstream | project.. take it to the upstream project. On this I take your point and it seems to me a reasonable stance. HOWEVER Fedora is not some powerless insect that has to undergo whatever convulsion grips the upstream components. |>Well despite taking your point that upstream has more power over the |>direction of upstream, some care needs to be taken not to blow off |>genuine observations. The power of RHAT to patch its desires into |>reality is real, as we see in the kernel. It's so good they quoted it twice. | Its a huge logical fallacy to hold up what goes on with kernel | development as an example of whats going on with desktop application | development... inside redhat or even upstream. | What the fedora kernel people think is appropriate in terms of | patching the kernel.. is immaterial to what the desktop people think | is appropriate in terms of patching gnome functionality. There are no | parallels nor conclusions worth drawing in that comparison. Logical fallacy / no parallels MY ASS. The kernel is an rpm like the others. It's mostly C like the others. It has patches from multiple sources like the others. Redhat take choices to override the Linus version for tactical and forward-looking reasons. Other RPMs likewise have Redhat quirk patches. Redhat exercise discretion to step in and enforce their will when they decide to. Don't be surprised therefore to be appealed to on that basis. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC1+V+jKeDCxMJCTIRAmzcAJ4xzQjc3U3D4rx5fkKMTiRuBYXPzACeJSdD k5hSu/zLUAHNsbGIHdCFm9E= =5IwM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
