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
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
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 more
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 they
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.
Advanced
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:15 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 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
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 set.
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 likely
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, it's 34-8 -
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:
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 strong
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 data
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 most
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 the
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
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 be
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name 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
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
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 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 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 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 want a
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
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
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 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 12:22 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 doing this
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 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
That's the
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 worded; in
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 certainly be
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
totally false) than
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 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?
I
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 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
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:
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:
37 matches
Mail list logo
