Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:17:53PM +0000, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
If "features" and "first" are hurting because of where we are in the
calendar compared to the Ubuntu release, allowing them the chance to release
their new distro first and to receive a lot of credit for new features when
reviewers and press don't understand where the upstream work is being done
(in Fedora, for example), then Fedora Marketing should ask the Fedora Board
to think about altering our "May Day" and "Halloween" release targets by a
little bit, so that Fedora's cycle finishes before Ubuntu's.
I don't know that this is necessary. I think in the last two release
cycles (8 & 9) we made significant progress in tackling this, and
looking around comments etc from the time, people were starting to
recognise that Fedora was *the* distribution* for innovation. We just
need to be more proactive in our shouting about features, much earlier
in the release cycle (e.g. as soon as features start getting approved
by FESCo, become vaguely testable).
Saying that, I don't think it would hurt to release at a seperate time
to Ubuntu, as we're never going to compete with an end-user orientated
distribution in various media outlets (even more technical ones give
far less precedence to development than they do businesss
deployments).
Moving our releases earlier also increases stress for stabilizing the
integration of new upstream packages that are also on time-based
release schedules. In fact, I think it would have the opposite effect
intended and hurt Fedora on the aspect of stability. We already have
to overcome a (IMHO mistaken) perception that Fedora is too rapidly
developed to be stable.
I agree here moving our releases earlier than Ubuntu or any other
GNU/Linux distro
out there does not solve this issue.
Our slightly later release this time around was mostly beyond our
control. But there are some good side effects that have fallen out of
the later release, one of them being OpenOffice.org 3.0, which we're
the first distribution to feature.
We also have little nuggets here and there that have not been getting
any press
covering like s-c-p.
Highlighting them ( Side to side comparison to other OS clients like
Windows and OS-X )
along with interview with the maintainer and *why* he chooses to use
Fedora etc. should help there.
I think that competing in release time with Ubuntu is probably not as
productive as spending more time talking about our features earlier in
the development cycle. I think we improved that work substantially
during this release, and should continue to do so during the Fedora 11
cycle.
Press moves in long waves, and we shouldn't expect to see as a result
of these improvements Fedora suddenly springing to press prominence
over Ubuntu. However, I've noticed a number of articles coming out
during our pre-release cycles, some of them concerning Ubuntu's
release, that point out the upcoming Fedora 10 as also having those
features. That shows we're starting to have the effect we want. Now
we need to redouble those efforts, to which I think Jon's also
alluding.
I would rather want to see articles mention that it *comes from Fedora*
where it applies
instead of Fedora *also* has this feature..
Correcting user/articles is the way to go I think.
Comment where we can where it originated along with sending
correction to editors might help correcting this *issue*.
I also think we need to follow through features being introduced in the
release cycle..
Perhaps like after a feature has been accepted an interview with
maintainer about
what it does what he hopes to accomplish etc.. along with an status
update in beta and the big review
( what he accomplish, what went wrong, whats happening in next release
etc ) in final.
JBG
begin:vcard
fn:Johann B. Gudmundsson
n:Gudmundsson;Johann B.
org:Reiknistofnun - University of Iceland;IT Management
adr:Taeknigardi;;Dunhagi 5;Reykjavik;;107;Iceland
email;internet:johannbg@xxxxx
title:Unix System Engineer RHCE,CCSA
tel;work:+3545254267
tel;fax:+3545528801
tel;pager:N/A
tel;home:N/A
tel;cell:N/A
url:www.rhi.hi.is
version:2.1
end:vcard
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
