This is not a matter of our failure to define Fedora properly to the
community. This is a case of someone seeing what they want to see:
#1. Red Hat should never have gone to the RHEL/Fedora model. We don't
care what the financials look like.
#2. Red Hat is using the community as guinea pigs.
#3. Fedora sucks and is completely unstable.
#1 is simply wrong; we couldn't have survived with our old model. #2 is a
matter of perspective, and is thus not arguable. The only one of these
opinions with any value at all is #3, and we need to strive to improve the
Fedora Core release process. And we will.
Beyond that, I don't know that there's much to say. The only way forward
with Fedora is to build the community of developers, and increase the
quality of the offering over time. That's all.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matt Frye wrote:
> Steve Mallett illustrates his fundamental misunderstanding of Fedora
> here: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7576 . However, this does
> point to a marketing problem.
>
> Are we clearly defining Fedora to the technical community?
>
> --
> 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
