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

Re: Intel moves moblin MIDs from Ubuntu to Fedora!

2008/7/25 Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com>
2008/7/25 yersinia <yersinia spiros gmail com>:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta gmail com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa gmail com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> > http://www.moblin.org/playground/?q=node/23
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > -jef
>> What are your thoughts on the reason given? RPM had one feature that
>> was needed. But from what I've heard/read from others, RPM is lacking
>> many other features (better compression methods for example). RPM has
>> been (seemingly) pretty stagnant.
> Let me respond on this point. Probably i am the wrong person to tell  this
> but rpm4.6, in rawhide, have now lzma payload support via liblzma.  Suse
> rpm4.4.2.xxxxx have the same support, so have, from more time along iirc,
> rpm5.org.
> Regards

Okay. Thanks for the further info on this. Maybe the RPM devs need to
have the marketing team whip up an anti FUD campaign.

2 words that will save a lot of time in a debate with such fudders, "Evidence Please", watch how they automatically discredit themselves as uninformed trolls who completely misunderstand the burden of proof. It is not up to us to counter FUD, it is up to them to prove the truth of their argument.

- David

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