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

Re: [Fwd: Fedora & openSUSE meeting / cooperation ?]



Luis Villa wrote:
Both of those are equally dreamy. The whole point of what opensuse is
trying to do is make it so that people can do it once, distribute it
over a large number of platforms. Having the maintainer of the package
also be a co-maintainer in every distribution they want to distribute
something through is insane, and just the kind of totally bullshit
hoops that we must eliminate if we actually want linux to become a
first-class platform.

Agreed. Part of my underlying thinking of bundles is that they can represent the lowest common denominator for _desktop_ functionality. i.e. they support the gtk2 API/ABI, service activation via dbus, self describing mime files anything else they carry around themselves. Also adding support to debian/suse/fedora desktop and then we can actually create a pretty portable package. We need better build tools to make this happen, and I need to prove the idea out through OLPC, but it's a good start for a real roadmap to success.


[This is only true if your vision of the future of Linux includes
multiple distros; if your vision is that there is only the One True
Distro, then yes, having upstream also be co-maintainers in the One
True Distro makes sense. This is basically Canonical's vision. In some
ways it makes sense- we gain a lot of efficiencies by having One True
Kernel which everyone else forks from; why not have One True Distro
that everyone else forks from. Of course, putting it in the hands of a
proprietary tool makes me get violent.]

I haven't been particular shy about the fact that I want Fedora to become that base. But I've wanted to do it by moving us to an open model (core/extras merge) by providing superior tools (VCS discussions and the future of RPM) by improving our support for hardware, in particular laptops (smolt/LHCS) and doing so in an honest an open manner. I will not coerce people into working with us. It should just be the natural place to do so.

A lot of this is based around trust. I still work at Red Hat and in Fedora because of all the companies that are out there who work in open source and free software, it's the one that has found its values and has stuck with them through and through. And we've been doing it for years.

I just want to make sure that we take it to the next level. What have we learned in the past and how can we improve what we're doing when moving into the future while sticking with our core values intact? It's something we don't do enough of, especially given that we have something that works pretty well today. But pretty well won't cut it given that Apple has raised the level of the experience that we need to meet, and sometimes that means doing something different. Inertia tends to be my greatest enemy these days, and I find that surprising.

But I digress.

It was the only way to do what we did, so we didn't have much choice
in the matter. Implementation details aren't all that important, but
basically it had a sort of meta-spec file and worked its way down from
there roughly as you describe. I'd imagine opensuse's build farm does
something similar, though AFAIK the two tools do not share any code or
even common developers.

It was of course wildly popular, because it solved exactly the problem
we're discussing here, which is a very real problem for users.

Right. But doesn't that seem to you like it's wedging into a system that's fundamentally broken for your use case? Think about the amount of work you're going through to wedge yourself into a set of tools that don't even create great experiences for users in the first place. It's a tough question: do you try to be compatible with everyone and create something that's pretty bad to get buy in or do you step out in front of the train and do something completely new where you have to sell everyone on the goodness of the new model? That's why I'm going out there to prove instead of just talking it up all the time. Always better to show than to talk.

--Chris


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