On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:53:49AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for the bleeding edge open
> > >> source developer market.
> What I don't get, seriously, is why people in 2. can't use rawhide or
> the latest updates-testing and instead pretend to inflict
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
> >
>
> -1
>
> It sure looks like a californian referendum process. Let me make this
> abundantly clear: I have ZERO inter
On 09/03/10 05:05, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
>
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
>>
>> My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
>> on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. O
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Robyn Bergeron
wrote:
>> That looks to be about 400 people need to randomly selected and
>> complete the survey (for +/- 5%). to get down to 1% you would need to
>> get 6500 people.
>
> I don't think that the near-impossibility of having a statistically
> sound s
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>>
>>> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
>>> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>
>> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
>> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's still legitimate to ask
>> *those* users what they think. The impos
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>
>> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
>> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's still legitimate to ask
>> *those* users what they think. The impos
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:53:49 -0500,
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> What I don't get, seriously, is why people in 2. can't use rawhide or
> the latest updates-testing and instead pretend to inflict "almost
> rawhide" on everybody else.
Because updates-testing is really for testing not for providing
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:46:54 -0500 (EST)
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, drago01 wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in r
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could
>>> be
>>> fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature i
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
>>
>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could be
>> fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature incomplete stuff in
>> history...
>>
>> Nobody can't s
> I think Fedora's balance has moved a bit to far in the fast-moving, frontier
> direction
This could be fixed by better feedbacks (statistics, autoQA, more
testers, integration of bodhi in package managers, etc ...), so
maintainers can adapt their update policy.
Another idea would be defining pa
On 03/09/2010 06:20 PM, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 05:55:33PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>> On 09/03/10 16:50, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Stickin
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's still legitimate to ask
> *those* users what they think. The impossibility of reaching such a
> group of users without incorp
Hi,
> Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with fire. Let me throw
> this out there -- for a *first* run -- you could only allow FAS
> accounts to take the survey. That would really narrow your
> demographics to only contributors, which is what you wish to see.
If we're trying to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:07:20 -0500,
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> To some extent, I view my current contribution to Fedora as being
> unreasonable and insisting that it be able to perform basic server
> tasks reasonably for a small home system. If it can't do that, why
> would I bel
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:57:15 -0500,
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> I prefer to work on the server in X. The massive X changes over the
> last few releases introduced problems were for a good cause (but at
> the time were painful). I expect that to be fairly settled down, as I
> don't run any
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:30:32 -0500,
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> > Seth Vidal wrote:
> >> you have been on websites that allow anonymous posting, right? You know
> >> what happens to them?
> >
> > Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:57 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
>
> My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
> on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
> questions would be what users think
Hello Michael,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 1:23:59 PM, you wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:08:48 -0500, Al wrote:
>> I want more updates. I want them to be more frequent, incremental and
>> each reasonably well tested. Trying to do too many changes at a time
>> not only leads to an increased lik
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:08:48 -0500, Al wrote:
> I want more updates. I want them to be more frequent, incremental and
> each reasonably well tested. Trying to do too many changes at a time
> not only leads to an increased likelihood of error, it makes it much
> harder to determine which
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 05:55:33PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> On 09/03/10 16:50, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> >>
> >> I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
> >> with one distribution helps keep that s
Hello Ewan,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 12:41:26 PM, you wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:07:20PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> To some extent, I view my current contribution to Fedora as being
>> unreasonable and insisting that it be able to perform basic server
>> tasks reasonably for
On 09/03/10 16:50, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Hello Seth,
>>
>> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
>>> -sv
>>
>> I have limited time to do system installs and maintenan
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:07:20PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 11:50:21 AM, you wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> >>
> >> I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
> >> with one distribution helps ke
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> you have been on websites that allow anonymous posting, right? You know
>> what happens to them?
>
> Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with fire. Let me throw this
> out there -- for a *first* run -- you could only allo
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> To some extent, I view my current contribution to Fedora as being
> unreasonable and insisting that it be able to perform basic server
> tasks reasonably for a small home system. If it can't do that, why
> would I believe that future RHEL releases won't follow
Seth Vidal wrote:
> you have been on websites that allow anonymous posting, right? You know
> what happens to them?
Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with fire. Let me throw this
out there -- for a *first* run -- you could only allow FAS accounts to
take the survey. That would really narr
Hello Ewan,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 11:50:21 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Hello Seth,
>>
>> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
>> > -sv
>>
>> I have limited time to do sys
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Hello Seth,
>
> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
> > -sv
>
> I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
> with one distribution helps
On 09/03/10 15:26, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>> Here's the camps I see:
>>>
>>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>>
>
On 09/03/10 15:49, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:30:37PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>> I personally thought the old 12 month RedHat Linux release cycle was about
>> right.
>
> RHL was also on a 6 month release cycle.
>
Shows how good my memory is :)
Mind you, even then, I only up
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 15:57:05 Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:51 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > We get the users we aim for.
>
> Not really true. We don't aim at all, and we only get the users that can
> bear to stay with us...
>
> > Here's the camps I see:
> >
> > 1. One gro
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:30:37PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> I personally thought the old 12 month RedHat Linux release cycle was about
> right.
RHL was also on a 6 month release cycle.
--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
--
devel
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:17:21AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > Aiming at #1 means that every single new student and researcher at the
> > school where I work comes in asking for Ubuntu -- even if one could make a
> > very persuasive case that these users probably fit better into #2 and #3.
> I thi
On 03/09/2010 02:57 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Hello Seth,
>
> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:37:26 AM, you wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
>>> Hello Seth,
>>>
>>> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>>>
Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
-sv
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> Here's the camps I see:
>>
>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>
>> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for t
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Hello Seth,
>
> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>
>> Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
>> -sv
>
> I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
> with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:23 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change update
> policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are our user
> and
> what they want. Now someone wants to know who are our users/what our user
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:37:26 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Hello Seth,
>>
>> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
>>> -sv
>>
>> I have limited time to do system installs and maintena
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 15:33:35 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:23 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change
> > update policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are
> > our user and what they want.
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
> Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
> -sv
I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a dual boot XP +
Ubuntu machine that I do some play with
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> Seth,
>
> The problem is that when things do get broken in a stable release, the
> updates that fix the problem often only get released in the next
> release.
>
> When I installed F11, two of my systems ran fine for the install and
> those upda
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:38:44 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote:
> I'm sure with the same logic I can say a lot of things.
> What I said was " I want fewer broken things."
> -sv
Seth,
The problem is
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change
>>> update policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are
>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could be
> fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature incomplete stuff in
> history...
>
> Nobody can't say I'm for shipping broken stuff - for release, updates etc...
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:51 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> We get the users we aim for.
Not really true. We don't aim at all, and we only get the users that can
bear to stay with us...
> Here's the camps I see:
>
> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
> apple market
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:05 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> It sure looks like a californian referendum process. Let me make this
>> abundantly clear: I have ZERO interest in developing a distro which is
>> driven by mob vote of whomever happens to be o
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:51 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> Here's the camps I see:
>>
>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>
>> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for the
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change
> > update policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are
> > our user and what they want. Now someone wants
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:17:01AM -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> 4. one group who don't really care about distro wars but use Fedora
> because this way they know what will be in RHEL/CentOS, which is what
> they use for "serious work" on their servers.
I actually use RHEL on my servers beca
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:35:49 Dan Horák wrote:
> Seth Vidal píše v Út 09. 03. 2010 v 08:02 -0500:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change
> > > update policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know wh
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:51:06 Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that
> > could be fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature
> > incomplete stuff in history...
> >
> > Nobody can't say
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:23:42 +0100, Jaroslav wrote:
> Some people want to change update
> policies/target of Fedora because of users,
Not sure this is true.
> we don't know who are our user and
> what they want.
Really? The users I see want "stuff that works". Preferably, they want the
stuff
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change update
> policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are our user and
> what they want. Now someone wants to know who are our users/what our users
> really want,
Seth Vidal píše v Út 09. 03. 2010 v 08:02 -0500:
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> > Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change
> > update
> > policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are our user
> > and
> > what they want. Now
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 06:05:32 Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
> >
> > My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
> > on the fp.o website with a few very simple
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Here's the camps I see:
>
> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>
> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for the bleeding edge open
> source developer market.
>
> 3. one
On 03/09/2010 03:57 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:51 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> We get the users we aim for.
>
> Not really true. We don't aim at all, and we only get the users that can
> bear to stay with us...
>
>> Here's the camps I see:
>>
>> 1. One group wants us to
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>
>> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for the bleeding edge open
>> so
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>
> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for the bleeding edge open
> source developer market.
>
> 3. one group wants us
On 03/09/2010 05:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 06:37 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but right now the Fedora project knows little
>> to nothing about its user base as a whole from a scientific perspective.
> And why does Fedora need to know about this?
On 03/09/2010 06:51 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> And why does Fedora need to know about this?
>
> Maybe for some GSoC ideas? I don't know. Has Fedora (or a project like
> this) ever had such data before?
>
>>
>> Fedora is what its contributors m
On 03/08/2010 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> And why does Fedora need to know about this?
Maybe for some GSoC ideas? I don't know. Has Fedora (or a project like
this) ever had such data before?
>
> Fedora is what its contributors make it and what its government allows
> its contributors to m
On 03/09/2010 06:37 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but right now the Fedora project knows little
> to nothing about its user base as a whole from a scientific perspective.
And why does Fedora need to know about this?
Fedora is what its contributors make it and what its
On 03/08/2010 11:05 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> -1
>
> It sure looks like a californian referendum process. Let me make this
> abundantly clear: I have ZERO interest in developing a distro which is
> driven by mob vote of whomever happens to be on the internet.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but righ
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
>
> My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
> on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
> questions would be what users think ab
Folks,
I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
questions would be what users think about the current update policy,
using plain (and as non
68 matches
Mail list logo
