On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta gmail com
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com
>> I suspect the later. The Fedora name probably does little for their
>> target market.
> There is the Fedora mark, the Fedora distribution, and the Fedora process.
> The fedora mark is what I care about most as a Board member
> The fedora distribution is what I care about most as a user
> The fedora process is what I care about most as a contributor.
> If their real goal is to increase contributor involvement then I
> personally think they need to leverage as much of our process as they
> can..and not just the bits in the distribution. I want to make sure
> the moblin people have an adequate understanding of our process, so we
> can have a discussion concerning whether or not they can align how
> they do things for cross-pollination of contributor effort.
>> Most probably. Fedora is pretty restrictive against non-free software
>> (which I like) but which
>> isn't exactly aligned with "just work" consumer devices.
> I looked at the moblin 2 playground site briefly, I'm not sure I see
> any specific items which are problematic. I believe I even ran into a
> statement that they are committed to pushing the kernel patches they
> are generating upstream for review. So they at least appear to 'get
> it' when it comes to our view of kernel work.
> The current moblin 1 SDK includes the intel compiler, but that not one
> of the moblin subprojects and i didn't see any specific discussion in
> the moblin 2 playground. Honestly, we just don't know enough about
> why they've moved over to be based on Fedora, or how strong the
> commitment is to a full open moblin 2 stack. There are hints in the
> moblin 2 playground pages, but I do not trust articles to always get
> motivations and intents correctly prioritized. Dirk's blog seems to
> indicate he's been using F8 and F9 on an EEE machine, so its not a
> completely blind jump.