[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora EOL Security Updates



In Line comments 

On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 11:16 -0600, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> In other words, FL had a parasitic, not a symbiotic, relationship with
> its users.
> 
It was clearly just that the community has seen this with other things
and the distro in general. When Fedora Unity, Scott is an active member,
started the Re-Spins we used torrents for distribution. The parasite
factor quickly made it impractical.

> If Scott is willing to do the heavy lifting and he has people that will
> step up with him to do the heavy lifting, then this project might have a
> chance. On the other hand, if people just want the output, but are
> unwilling to step up to contribute to the input, then this project, like
> FL will fail. It might take months, but it will fail.
> 
The heavy lifting will be a problem, Scott will be a manager, he is not
a Fedora packager so others will have to do the work to start with. I
know Scott and he will be able to learn the ins and outs of packaging.

> If Scott is an entrepreneur in the true spirit, then my comments should
> only serve to embolden him. If they serve to dishearten him, then he
> really needs to think about his commitment to this and whether or not he
> is willing to do the hard work to make it reality. He also needs to
> consider just how large of a portion of the Fedora community really
> wants it. 
> 
Both Jef and I have said that the only way that Fedora LTS will work is
if it is treated as a business perhaps with a subscription model. If
that is the goal and there is financial backing to set up the
infrastructure and staff then I believe it will work. As a community
project I just don't see it happening. The reason Scott is doing this is
to justify his #Fedora-EOL channel, to help out those that at this time
need to upgrade and that is the stance of a vocal majority in #Fedora.

> Also, bear in mind that FL had RH financial, infrastructure and
> personnel support behind it at some level and it still failed. I don't
> get the sense that Scott has such support here.
> 
Scott has approached Fedora Unity to help with infrastructure and at
this time at least 4 of the 7 voting members are not interested so as a
group we will not be able to back it.

> If Scott is serious about this and wants to avoid the problems that led
> to FL's failure, he ought to contact the former FL leadership to gain
> some insight into their assumptions, their implementation and what they
> could have or should have done differently that might have led to a
> different outcome.
> 
I know Scott has consulted Jesse about this I am unsure of the
conversation it did not happen in a public IRC channel.

> Let's face reality. I have been using RH/FC/F since the RH 8.0
> betas back in 2002. From day one, when RH made the transition from RH9
> to FC1, it was clearly stated that the expectation for FC was 2 to 3
> releases per year, with short support time frames. It was going to be a
> platform for the aggressive development of desktop Linux. If we were
> going to ride the Fedora Train, we knew what we were getting into. 
> 
Part of the problem is those that signed on with a Hosting provider and
took what they call "Fedora" based on our good name only, the fact is
most of these providers bastardize the Fedora Base by including non-free
software and replacing what used to be Core packages so some software
will work.

> If RH wanted a Fedora LTS, they would step up and make the commitment to
> make it happen. A Fedora LTS would likely in some measure, cannibalize
> RHEL revenues, so why should RH enable it? Fedora exists, in large
> measure, because of RH's commitment to build it, fund it, provide the
> infrastructure and personnel. Yes, the Community is now an active
> participant in Fedora and has done some amazing things. It did not start
> out that way. But...if RH disappeared from the scene, Fedora's future
> would be uncertain. Don't underestimate RH's influence here.
> 

Well as with other items in the past if RH will not do it the community
is still free to do so but should not expect a lot of resources if any
from Red Hat until they have proven themselves and maybe not even then,
it is a risk that you have to be willing to make. IMO one should also
respect Red Hat's business in our actions because of everything they
have done for Fedora, the symbiotic relationship is a perfect example
here.

> Regards,
> 
> Marc Schwartz
> 

I support Scott as a friend but even I can not support this idea, I can
not see it working with the information and ideas that have been
expressed at this time. I have asked Scott two questions in IRC that I
have not received an answer to. "How long are you going to keep this
Fedora EOL going? At what point will you admit the idea is a failure or
celebrate it's success?"

Bob

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|       Robert 'Bob' Jensen       ||       Fedora Unity Founder      |
|       bob fedoraunity org       ||     http://fedoraunity.org/     |
|http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ ||        http://scalug.us/        | 
|            || http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen ||            |
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]