John Dennis wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
But the chain of logic from "Linux is about
choice" to "ship everything and let the user chose how they want their
sound to not work" starts with fallacy and ends with disaster.
+1
FWIW, I tend to believe a good distribution is about limiting choice,
not proliferating it. Limited choice enhances robustness by reducing the
combinatorics of testing. Throwing the entire kitchen sink into the
distribution is anarchy with the expected results.
FWIW I liked the idea of Core vs. Extras because if it was in Core it
was expected to work, if it was in Extras it was buyer beware.
A good distribution works. Choice is provided by optional add-ons with
no guarantees.
+42
This is where I think the intensity of this thread is somewhat
confusing. I wholeheartedly agree that what you ship in one particular
spin/strain of fedora should most often minimize choices for the user
(unless the target users of the spin/strain explicitly want the choices).
That is what is great about distro spin tools such as
livecd-tools/revisor/VirOS- they make it easy for anyone who doesn't
like the official fedora imposed choice, to as easily as possible, put
together a 'fork' distro utilizing the alternate choice.
The thing I wish would be come through clearer in this thread is that
choices are fine for the massive Fedora Everything collection. Sure
having more choices will lead to more bugs, but so what as long as the
choices made for the official spin are well tested.
$0.02
-dmc
After an optional package is shown to be robust and well
supported it can be promoted from it's optional status, just as a core
package can be demoted to optional if it fails to meet the requirements
of robustness, security, and support required of the distribution.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
