Is this suggestions to be done straight away as in announcing it or are we planning on making it big enough to hit people over the head with in FC5? The only thing I can suggest is adding it to the front page of Firefox when you start it up after the install. It can say it there. Or maybe when you find links to download the .iso's. Put a what fedora does and doesn't do section. What type of os it is regarding the fact that its imo semi-bleeding edge. -- Regards Marc Wiriadisastra > I'm punting this over to the marketing side. The consensus on #fedora- > docs is this: > > a) Fedora has not done a very good job of loudly advertising why we > don't distribute certain codecs, although we do spend a lot of time > addressing the topic in other ways. > > b) The complaint about multimedia is in every poorly researched review. > > c) This is the latest stick to beat Fedora with. > > d) An official rebuttal/comment on the situation might help. > > Any ideas on this? > > I appreciate Greg's approach of pushing the situation back on other > people. Our only failing is probably in not being loud and present > enough with our comments/rebuttals. Maybe the desktop background by > default should be an explanation of "why no MP3 support". > > I don't mind including something useful in the release notes, and in > fact had intended to with an update. This bug report approaches making > a few good points, buried as it is in so much bile. > > I'll likely ignore updating this bug except to CLOSE it when the time > comes. I've used up the ounce of civility I brewed for this situation > on this wannabe-customer. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx > To: kwade@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [Bug 163675] mpeg situation not explained in documentation > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:33:48 -0400 > Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional > comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. > > Summary: mpeg situation not explained in documentation > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=163675 > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2005-07-21 14:33 > EST ------- > What a cop out. > > First of all: just because your customers aren't paying you doesn't mean > you can > treat them however you like. > > Secondly: it would have been no trouble at all to include one tiny > paragraph in > the release notes explaining all this. You make it sound like it would > have cost > a team of writers months to do this. > > Thirdly: this is not some obscure little "non-free, closed-source, illegal > and > patent-infringing" piece of software. Missing MPEg audio playback > functionality > is a sizable drawback for many people. Even Windows plays back MP3 files > by > default. So do almost all other Linux distributions. It is something > people > rightly expect, and at the very least it should be explained to them (by > the > creators of the product, not by having them perform Google queries) that > it is > missing, and why. > > Lastly: don't blame me for this for not filing a bug about it during the > test > process. As if nobody could have figured this out otherwise. And as if the > situation hasn't been the same for many previous versions. > > What un unworthy response... Pity... > > -- > Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ > gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 > Red Hat SELinux Guide > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/ > -- > Fedora-marketing-list mailing list > Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
