Mail Lists wrote:
> Yes we've had bad decisions (kde 4.0 in my view)
It shall be noted that KDE 4.0 was NOT an update (we did NOT push it to F8
for obvious reasons) and that the updates actually brought it up to 4.1 and
later 4.2.
Now I'm not convinced shipping 4.0 was a mistake in the first
Will Woods wrote:
> So the only unknown is: exactly what percentage of our *current* users
> are willing to accept a loss of stability in favor of New Hotness? But
> I'm fairly certain this question is *irrelevant*. Our current users'
> expectations are already set by their past experience with Fed
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>>
>> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
>> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
>> thre
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>>
>> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
>> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
>> thread
Am Montag, den 08.03.2010, 12:34 -0500 schrieb Will Woods:
> Our current users'
> expectations are already set by their past experience with Fedora. If
> they're still Fedora users, they're willing to accept - and *have*
> accepted - whatever we're currently doing.
+1 Amen.
Therefore we should b
On 03/08/2010 04:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd like to add a thought to this that has not been mentioned yet best
I can see.
First let me state that I use Fedora every day for business - real
world business and I'm not using it as an IT or computer person but as a
businessman. I am, in m
> > My basic point here is that the poll, while imperfect, is the best
> > indication we have available so far.
>
> So? From a scientific process perspective, bad data is bad data. And
> if all you have is bad data, then you really have no data at all.
>From a social science point of view (and
>>then i seriously think we are following different lists :/
>>as adam's poll is starting to show the majority of fedora users choose
fedora for the fact that it is >>leading the way with the newer software and
that it has constant updates. (ie >>freedom,friends,features,first!) this
argument that
On 03/08/2010 03:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that's a scientifically specious argument. Invalid d
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>
> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
> threads/poll within a day of its posting, and
> c) Hold a stro
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
> Here it is: http://f
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>
> >> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> >>
> >>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, i
Last time I looked at the admin logs for Fedoraforum i.e who's voted ,
there was at least 15 votes from Fedora project members.
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:12 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Adam, if you can't realise that the users most likely to haunt a support forum
> are the people most like
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:05:12AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it.
> Counteracting it with yet more assertions built on precisely no evidence
> is not convincing.
The evidence that it's wrong is that it's a self-selected sample se
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:15 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > What do people make of this?
>
> I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people
> who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fe
On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
>>
>>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
>>> that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates
Le Lun 8 mars 2010 17:05, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> I don't think that's an assertion you have any kind of evidence to
> support. It's really quite sad that half the people who've responded to
> the poll have done so by attempting to poke holes in it, as it happens
> not to line up with what t
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
>
> > The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
> > that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates.
>
> Advanced users (those most likely to want a
Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
> that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates.
Advanced users (those most likely to want a more stable rawhide to use it as
primary system) use irc, mailing list
On 03/07/2010 04:41 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> This is my last email on this topic. Please hold me to that.
>
> -Mike
Sorry - missed that - what did you say ? :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 03:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > Very well, I retract badly worded and insert "not useful". But hey, it's
> > generated more email right?
> >
> > -Mike
>
> "Newer and less stable" - using your words - is way more leading (and
> totall
On 03/07/2010 03:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Very well, I retract badly worded and insert "not useful". But hey, it's
> generated more email right?
>
> -Mike
"Newer and less stable" - using your words - is way more leading (and
totally false) than what Adam did ...
polls can certai
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 01:04:03PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only
> >
> > That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/08/2010 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only
> >
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only
> >>
> > That's the first time you've suggested it's
On 03/08/2010 12:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>
>> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only
>>
> That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way,
> might I ask?
>
I thought you were do
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only
>
> That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way,
> might I ask?
>
Adventurous and Conservative are both
On 03/08/2010 12:40 AM, Mail Lists wrote:
>
> First, may I suggest we not confuse version N-1 and assumtion of
> stability. That is way too simplistic. Sometimes the best path to
> stability is to update.
>
You are arguing against something that was never suggested and I am not
even saying I
On 03/07/2010 12:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> No but I have been on that list for five years and follow a lot more
I've been with it since early redhat days ...
First, may I suggest we not confuse version N-1 and assumtion of
stability. That is way too simplistic. Sometimes the best path t
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:06 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> It very well might. But this poll is poorly worded and only
That's the first time you've suggested it's poorly worded; in what way,
might I ask?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedorapro
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, psmith wrote:
> On 06/03/10 20:14, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2010 01:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
> If that were the case, I'd have expected someone to bring it up in the
> comments. No-one has.
>
> I've never actually heard of anyone running FN-1 because they wan
On 03/07/2010 09:32 PM, psmith wrote:
> then i seriously think we are following different lists :/
No but I have been on that list for five years and follow a lot more
mails than the average reader and there have been recurrent threads
about users recommending to stay on one version behind to get
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> No, the voting numbers aren't huge, but it's still some kind of data. I
Just an update - we're now up over 100 votes, adventurous still solidly
in the lead, though it's now around 70/30 not 80/20.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 16:02 +, psmith wrote:
> what the fedora users i came across are after. tbh i think this whole
> identity crisis is blown of of all proportion, you'd think that
> something like this would have come with the fedora10 dbus probs or
> the 'stabilisation cannot be detected'
On 06/03/10 20:14, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/07/2010 01:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
If that were the case, I'd have expected someone to bring it up in the
comments. No-one has.
I've never actually heard of anyone running FN-1 because they want a
'more stable' system; this thread was the
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 03:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 12:34 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Ev
On 03/06/2010 03:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>> What do people make of this?
>
> I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people
> who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fedora don't
>
On 03/07/2010 12:34 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
> Here it is: http://forums.fedora
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
>> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
>> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone l
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:00 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I don't think people realize what they're asking for. I'll just defer to
> my favorite Ford quote:
>
> "If I had asked my customers what they wanted," Ford said, "they would
> have said a faster horse."
I don't think that's quite apt. The
On 06/03/10 01:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 21:12 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote:
>> On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
>>> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
>>> controver
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
> Here it is: http://forums.fedorafor
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
> Here it is: http://foru
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
...snip...
> What do people make of this?
I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people
who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fedora don't
frequent things like the forums or users list. Sure, they mig
On 03/07/2010 01:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> If that were the case, I'd have expected someone to bring it up in the
> comments. No-one has.
>
> I've never actually heard of anyone running FN-1 because they want a
> 'more stable' system; this thread was the first time I heard that
> theory. In
On 03/06/2010 11:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I tried to present the poll in a very neutral way, and as far as I know,
> it hasn't been linked to from anywhere else; only regular forum members
> are likely to come across it. So it shouldn't be massively inherently
> biased, and has a reasonable
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 21:12 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote:
> On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> > about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> > controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyo
On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
>
> What do people make of this?
>
48 matches
Mail list logo