On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 09:45 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 10:38 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > I think that it should be done the other way around, propose the > > changes that affect the whole distro on th is list, listen to what > > people have to say, or, more importantly what code they have to > > propose if they don't like a given design, and then implement it with > > all the concerned parties. > > I don't think it can work like that. > > 1. send a mail saying sendmail won't be on the default desktop install > 2. heat hands on ensuing flames > > The problem with fedora-devel-list is that the 0.01% of most technical > users are there, most unable to understand that normal people don't use > an smtp server or setup nfs. The majority of the desktop users are using Windows. The majority of the non-technical population probably also hasn't heard about Fedora, either. > If we include everything we've ever started by default in the future > versions, and any of the latest cool new stuff, our boot times are going > to get longer, Well, then something must have gone utterly wrong with Fedora's development ... > and our base install bigger. Yes, the new developments have blown them up. All contributed to the bloat and the increasing demands on HW resources. The older "features" didn't. vt1-6+vt7 have been around for ca. 15 years, nfs, sendmail, autofs, etc. also are around in Linux for very long times. > Design by committee just doesn't work. Design by tyranny and design by suppression of minorities doesn't work either. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
