Re: Fedora as an crowd founded project an additional funding source to our sponsor
On 24/07/13 11:50, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Thought's comment flames? To me, crowd sourcing seems to work because it's about some exciting new technology that people have to have and it's the only way to have it. There's a buzz, an excitement that needs to light up twitter in order to get enough people clicking through that some will put their money on the line. If it's not exciting new buzz technology then I'm not sure we would get the click through rates to make it successful/worthwhile (although I don't know what figure would make it worthwhile). In which case, it's really just a donate link and (speaking from experience) I don't think that they work very well. Canonical started putting a donation advert before you download Ubuntu on their site, it would be interesting to see whether that worked or not (as horrible as it might be). -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: livemedia-creator and the fedora build system [was Re: appliance-creator: how can I ...]
On 14/11/12 01:40, Matthew Miller wrote: With that timeline, I think it's going to be hard to *use* it for F18 Final, but I can certainily start testing it. Then, we can look at adopting it for F19. Have we adopted livemedia-creator for 19, or still using livecd-creator? -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: livemedia-creator and the fedora build system [was Re: appliance-creator: how can I ...]
On 01/06/13 03:25, Adam Williamson wrote: Have we adopted livemedia-creator for 19, or still using livecd-creator? Still livecd-creator for F19. Thanks. -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)
On 12/07/2012 11:53 PM, Tomas Radej wrote: One of the results was a conversation I had with a few guys to whom I recommended Fedora as a development environment. It showed me that there's indeed something wrong. While they all said that Fedora's features were brilliant, they unanimously rejected Fedora as a primary system. The reason they gave me was, now quoting: It doesn't really work. I know this is an old thread, but I'm curious as to what didn't really work for them. Was it instability? Lack of media support? Non-free software like nvidia drivers or flash? Devices not working, lack of proprietary firmware? Problems/complications with the installer? The one thing that I personally think is missing is excellent upgrade support between releases via the package manager (and I know that Richard has been working on this with packagekit). This might make Fedora more attractive. I'm also surprised to read of lots of people saying Fedora is not reliable as I have rarely had any problems, certainly less than I recall having on Ubuntu. -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: *countable infinities only
On 01/06/12 02:22, Peter Jones wrote: Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the majority of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new machines. Is that actually true though? If Fedora does not implement some form of Secure Boot support, 100% of Fedora users will still be able to install Fedora on new machines, after they disable Secure Boot, if their computer even has it at all (and personally, I think the majority of Fedora users will simply buy hardware which does not have Secure Boot). I know I would. Sure, maybe you can't install Fedora _as easily_ but it's certainly not an inability to install Fedora, full stop. Now, if there was an inability to disable Secure Boot or manage keys then that would be a different kettle of fish (and in my mind a different argument). This issue seems to be simply about ease of installation out of the box (unless I'm missing something). Currently though, installation out of the box isn't completely straight forward anyway. Users have to download an ISO image, verify it, burn a CD/DVD or create a USB stick, set the boot order and partition their machine in order to install Fedora. Not to mention getting their MP3s to work. Will requiring users to turn off secure boot really by such a big deal I wonder? Bottom line - I'm not convinced that we actually need to support Secure Boot. That aside, as to the argument about loss of freedom if Fedora does support Secure Boot, this interests me given that I'm involved in creating a Fedora remix. To me, it's something like this: If Fedora does _not_ support Secure Boot, then neither Fedora nor remixes boot on computers with Secure Boot enabled (that's obvious). If Fedora _does_ support Secure Boot however, then remixes still can't boot on computers with Secure Boot enabled (loosely speaking). So actually, there's not really any freedom lost downstream is there? You couldn't run on Secure Boot machines anyway, whether Fedora supported Secure Boot or not. The only advantage is that Fedora can (and you could too, if you get a key). -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: *countable infinities only
On 09/06/12 19:34, drago01 wrote: Is that actually true though? If Fedora does not implement some form of Secure Boot support, 100% of Fedora users will still be able to install Fedora on new machines, after they disable Secure Boot, if their computer even has it at all (and personally, I think the majority of Fedora users will simply buy hardware which does not have Secure Boot). I know I would. No because some users in don't know what a firmware is and can't/don't want to fiddle with it. Except it won't be that hard. We say firmware but it's the interface we're talking about. It'll be just like going into the BIOS and setting the boot order, date, or turning on hardware virtualisation support. We're not talking about flashing firmware, running commands or anything like that. From Microsoft: 17. MANDATORY. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to _select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup_: Custom and Standard. Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following: a) It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx) which will put the system into setup mode. So the graphical interface will present a choice to the user and will be as simple as changing Secure Boot to custom mode. Just look up the manual for something like Asus P8P67 mainboard which has UEFI (granted probably no Secure Boot yet) to see what a UEFI interface can look like. It's going to be a piece of cake. In fact, loading signatures will probably also be very easy - most likely import from a USB stick or media device of some kind. Making installation harder for the less experienced users does not make sense to me. Sure and I'm all for making things easier. I don't have a problem with Fedora shipping with Secure Boot support, I'm saying that I don't think it's as big a deal as everyone's making it out to be. In my opinion the setting for Secure Boot will probably be no more difficult that setting the default boot order in a BIOS (something you have to do to boot install media). Now, if there was an inability to disable Secure Boot or manage keys then that would be a different kettle of fish (and in my mind a different argument). That is a more controversial part but IMO but if you have the choice of running fedora with some restrictions vs. not running fedora at all ... I'd got for the former ... Yeah, but that's _not_ the choice at all (which is kind of my point). Your choice is between running Fedora in Secure Boot mode or running Fedora completely unhindered with Secure Boot in custom mode. Not at all never enters the picture. -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox releases, going forward
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Chris Smart fed...@christophersmart.com wrote: Given that Mozilla is dramatically changing the development of Firefox and making releases much more frequent - i.e. Firefox 5 due in July, 6 Further: http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/04/13/new-channels-for-firefox-rapid-releases/ -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Firefox releases, going forward
Given that Mozilla is dramatically changing the development of Firefox and making releases much more frequent - i.e. Firefox 5 due in July, 6 later in the year, are Firefox updates going to change in Fedora? Are we still going to stick with the major version series at the time of Fedora release, or are we thinking about a more rolling release system? I'm assuming this will ultimately depend on the changes Firefox pushes and their effects on system libraries, but just curious. -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: What's this /run directory doing on my system and where does it come from?
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote: Heya, I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is. Sounds like a decent, workable solution. Thanks! -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Changes to polkit-desktop-policy
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: Recently, we noticed that firstboot now has a checkbox to give admin privileges to the first user. It does so by adding the user to the wheel group, which unfortunately, doesn't do much [1] for PolicyKit, which was using a different group to identify the Administrator role. I assume that this will not be changed for F14? So the desktop_admin_r configuration will remain? Thanks, -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Mono-2.10.1 - coming soon
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Paul Johnson p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk wrote: Hi, I'm just in the process of a final package for mono-2.10.1 and would like to garner some opinions before the final spin. Was Mono ever split into the ECMA and non-ECMA components, as Miguel promised? -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: better Macbook Pro support in F15?
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Marius Andreiana marius.andreia...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, There are quite a few Macbook Pro reported in Fedora. Some of them are easy fixes, e.g. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652801 (just install a few packages) Actually, I do not think that this is possible. AFAIK, the broadcom drivers are not under the GPLv2, so they can't be shipped pre-built against a Fedora kernel. http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
