Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
On 1 April 2014 02:50, David dgbo...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/31/2014 8:37 PM, Corey Sheldon wrote: Whatever if they can't learn the basics and the fundamental basis of Linux or the Patent issues and what have you then go somewhere else like to mac or windows..sometimes you need to work for things and teaching a man to fish is always better and personally while i think at first you may be right the community as a whole will have less of the why the #@#@@# can't I use this or that in the development forums and force the maintainers to make this more transparent and beyond that if you can't grasp that minor issue then why are you on a RPM-based IT linux distro much less Fedora in the blanking first place? So what you are saying is that you want people that Use Windows in some form or MacOS in some form that actually works as installed to switch to Linux in some form that *does not work without fudges and hacks*? Good luck with that. Or to put it another way, does it add any value to do work to provide an extra RPM that doesn't provide what people expect it to in almost all cases and will just trip people up? -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
power needs to come with responsibility and understanding Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:50 PM, David dgbo...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/31/2014 8:37 PM, Corey Sheldon wrote: Whatever if they can't learn the basics and the fundamental basis of Linux or the Patent issues and what have you then go somewhere else like to mac or windows..sometimes you need to work for things and teaching a man to fish is always better and personally while i think at first you may be right the community as a whole will have less of the why the #@#@@# can't I use this or that in the development forums and force the maintainers to make this more transparent and beyond that if you can't grasp that minor issue then why are you on a RPM-based IT linux distro much less Fedora in the blanking first place? Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine http://www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine So what you are saying is that you want people that Use Windows in some form or MacOS in some form that actually works as installed to switch to Linux in some form that *does not work without fudges and hacks*? Good luck with that. -- David -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/2014 11:00 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:11:58PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: I promised a while ago that I would provide a text version of my talk at DevConf, for people who couldn't make it and because sitting through a video of me standing up there going on and on doesn't really make for good followup discussion. I posted a link to the first part last week: http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-i-why/ and now, Part II: http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-ii-whats-happening/ And as I said last week, I will take questions, comments, complaints, in any media including replies here, on the article, on the social media, or at any bar or coffee shop within walking distance of Boston's MBTA. So first I'll say these are interesting articles, and I encourage people to read them. I work better when I see some examples of what this would mean in practice. Under Fedora.next, how where would you see the following being packaged? - libvirt Big, with lots and lots of big dependencies, but for virtualization it's pretty much the definition of a core, stable API. libvirt is one of those pieces that we need to settle on its positioning. At the absolute minimum, the Fedora Server will almost certainly declare it part of our guaranteed API. Given its wide-ranging utility, I'd also like to see it as part of the Base Design (which means that it is assumed to be a guaranteed API available to all Products). Workstation will require this too. Having it be in Base is a good idea. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
- Original Message - On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/2014 11:00 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:11:58PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: I promised a while ago that I would provide a text version of my talk at DevConf, for people who couldn't make it and because sitting through a video of me standing up there going on and on doesn't really make for good followup discussion. I posted a link to the first part last week: http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-i-why/ and now, Part II: http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-ii-whats-happening/ And as I said last week, I will take questions, comments, complaints, in any media including replies here, on the article, on the social media, or at any bar or coffee shop within walking distance of Boston's MBTA. So first I'll say these are interesting articles, and I encourage people to read them. I work better when I see some examples of what this would mean in practice. Under Fedora.next, how where would you see the following being packaged? - libvirt Big, with lots and lots of big dependencies, but for virtualization it's pretty much the definition of a core, stable API. libvirt is one of those pieces that we need to settle on its positioning. At the absolute minimum, the Fedora Server will almost certainly declare it part of our guaranteed API. Given its wide-ranging utility, I'd also like to see it as part of the Base Design (which means that it is assumed to be a guaranteed API available to all Products). Workstation will require this too. Having it be in Base is a good idea. Makes sense for base, as with libvirt we're close to containers. Jaroslav josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
On 03/31/2014 12:38 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: Workstation will require this too. Having it be in Base is a good idea. If there emerges a WG that does not require this from WG then what and was not base limiting itself to it's already defined package set? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
- Original Message - On 03/31/2014 12:38 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: Workstation will require this too. Having it be in Base is a good idea. If there emerges a WG that does not require this from WG then what and was not base limiting itself to it's already defined package set? Base is common platform for products but it does not mean everything has to be used by other products or everything has to follow base path (for example installer is part of Base as we agreed but it can diverge a lot over products, and even it would not be used in all products explicitely just to provide images - cloud). Of course if some technology gets obsoleted/deprecated by most of products, it means the time to deprecate it in Base comes (or change of the owner). So common sense, not exact numbers :). Jaroslav JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
On 03/31/2014 01:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Base is common platform for products but it does not mean everything has to be used by other products or everything has to follow base path (for example installer is part of Base as we agreed but it can diverge a lot over products, and even it would not be used in all products explicitely just to provide images - cloud). Of course if some technology gets obsoleted/deprecated by most of products, it means the time to deprecate it in Base comes (or change of the owner). So common sense, not exact numbers:). You do realize that the size of the base needs to be bound to the lowest common denominator between current and future multiple products to make it this kind of proposal work now and in the future right? That immediately binds it and limit it to the size of embedded ( Embedded -- Cloud/Containers -- Servers -- Workstation/Desktop/Laptop whatever else ) to relevant packages for embedded within those 1806 components that make up the self hosting Fedora base since there seemed there had been reached a perfectly logical consensus to limit what makes up the baseWG from those self hosting 1806 component. Nor can you introduce components to be shared among WG outside the self hosting components of the baseWG and I'm quite frankly a bit stunned if Philipp Knirsch and the rest of the baseWG agreed to do that since by doing so they invalidate their own logical approach of building and limit baseWG to self hosting components. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
2014-03-31 15:29 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: You do realize that the size of the base needs to be bound to the lowest common denominator between current and future multiple products to make it this kind of proposal work now and in the future right? We are at liberty to force all possible products to carry some overhead to simplify our work or user's expectations. For example, even if no program in Fedora ever called glibc's hcreate() or strfry(), we wouldn't consider dropping the implementation and breaking the ABI; and the same thing can happen at the library level: We are quite at liberty to promise that libvirt.so.0 will be available on every Fedora system (even if any attempt to connect to a hypervisor returned an error.) Sure, such choices to simplify our environment at the cost of Base size would disqualify us from the smallest distribution for embedded use, but we have never really been in that race anyway, and I'm not even sure that size matters all that much for the embedded cases where Fedora is an option (compared to ease of deployment, or availability of common APIs, for example). since by doing so they invalidate their own logical approach of building and limit baseWG to self hosting components. Only creating Base from self-hosting components does not actually make sense to me: fedup is not necessary to compile any package, and yet it clearly belongs in base; various specialized build tools like documentation extractors and build test frameworks, or even make(1), are necessary to build packages, but we may not want to promise their existence to Base users. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
On 03/31/2014 01:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: Sure, such choices to simplify our environment at the cost of Base size would disqualify us from the smallest distribution for embedded use, but we have never really been in that race anyway I hardly call it simplification shifting workload and package set the wg's should be carrying themselves from themselves to the baseWG and us not being in that race arguable is contributing to Fedora irrelevance since the market is moving away from traditional desktop usage to a smartphone/tablets. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
As I've til recently been a whimsical just install whatever a package needs but am now beginning to look more granularly at this could someone either briefly explain differences in main sources etc or link me to a good write-up to this effect?? much appreciated and while it hasn't been the easiest distro to learn it has been a great learning experience and look forward to staying and helping the community much more in the coming months and years.. TIA Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/31/2014 01:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: Sure, such choices to simplify our environment at the cost of Base size would disqualify us from the smallest distribution for embedded use, but we have never really been in that race anyway I hardly call it simplification shifting workload and package set the wg's should be carrying themselves from themselves to the baseWG and us not being in that race arguable is contributing to Fedora irrelevance since the market is moving away from traditional desktop usage to a smartphone/tablets. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
Whatever if they can't learn the basics and the fundamental basis of Linux or the Patent issues and what have you then go somewhere else like to mac or windows..sometimes you need to work for things and teaching a man to fish is always better and personally while i think at first you may be right the community as a whole will have less of the why the #@#@@# can't I use this or that in the development forums and force the maintainers to make this more transparent and beyond that if you can't grasp that minor issue then why are you on a RPM-based IT linux distro much less Fedora in the blanking first place? Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.comwrote: On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 09:17 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: Richard W.M. Jones wrote: - VLC Free software video player, but with a requirement (or at least can use if available) proprietary / patented / ugly / semi-legal codecs. Currently packaged in RPMFusion for reasons I'm not clear on. I've looked into this a bit, and discussed with other distro packagers and vlc upstream. VLC is fairly modular, and it's unencumbered bits could be brought to fedora and the other stuff live in some -freeworld subpkg in rpmfusion. Implementing this would be a bit of work, but worth it in my opinion. I Well, I'm not so sure. A *lot* of people really don't understand the patent issue. Like, at all. They don't understand modularity. Like, at all. To a lot of people, the thing called 'vlc' is a magic black box that plays every video ever. They install VLC and then they play videos. This is the limit of their understanding. If we make it so you can 'yum install vlc' and get something that can barely play anything, then tell people they 'just' have to 'yum install vlc-freeworld' to get it to actually work properly, we may wind up with more unhappiness than we have just by having all of vlc in the Sekrit Third Party Repository in the first place. That kinda forces them to get the whole thing or nothing, which is almost always what they want. They never wind up in the twilight zone where they have what is, to them, half a VLC. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, What's Happening?)
On 3/31/2014 8:37 PM, Corey Sheldon wrote: Whatever if they can't learn the basics and the fundamental basis of Linux or the Patent issues and what have you then go somewhere else like to mac or windows..sometimes you need to work for things and teaching a man to fish is always better and personally while i think at first you may be right the community as a whole will have less of the why the #@#@@# can't I use this or that in the development forums and force the maintainers to make this more transparent and beyond that if you can't grasp that minor issue then why are you on a RPM-based IT linux distro much less Fedora in the blanking first place? Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine http://www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine So what you are saying is that you want people that Use Windows in some form or MacOS in some form that actually works as installed to switch to Linux in some form that *does not work without fudges and hacks*? Good luck with that. -- David -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
