Linux is not about choice [was Re: Fedora too cutting edge?]

[Douglas McClendon]

John Dennis wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
>> But the chain of logic from "Linux is about
>> choice" to "ship everything and let the user chose how they want their
>> sound to not work" starts with fallacy and ends with disaster.
> 
> +1
> 
> FWIW, I tend to believe a good distribution is about limiting choice,
> not proliferating it. Limited choice enhances robustness by reducing the
> combinatorics of testing. Throwing the entire kitchen sink into the
> distribution is anarchy with the expected results.
> 
> FWIW I liked the idea of Core vs. Extras because if it was in Core it
> was expected to work, if it was in Extras it was buyer beware.
> 
> A good distribution works. Choice is provided by optional add-ons with
> no guarantees. 

+42

This is where I think the intensity of this thread is somewhat 
confusing.  I wholeheartedly agree that what you ship in one particular 
spin/strain of fedora should most often minimize choices for the user 
(unless the target users of the spin/strain explicitly want the choices).

That is what is great about distro spin tools such as 
livecd-tools/revisor/VirOS- they make it easy for anyone who doesn't 
like the official fedora imposed choice, to as easily as possible, put 
together a 'fork' distro utilizing the alternate choice.

The thing I wish would be come through clearer in this thread is that 
choices are fine for the massive Fedora Everything collection.  Sure 
having more choices will lead to more bugs, but so what as long as the 
choices made for the official spin are well tested.

$0.02

-dmc


After an optional package is shown to be robust and well
> supported it can be promoted from it's optional status, just as a core
> package can be demoted to optional if it fails to meet the requirements
> of robustness, security, and support required of the distribution.
>