Re: Now: caos and RH

On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 11:10, Greg Kurtzer wrote:
> Not really... Let me explain. Reinventing wheels happen all over the open 
> source community, and it is one of the things that makes open source software 
> so diverse. We don't settle unless something is perfect.

First off, please understand that I am a big open source advocate.  I am
also not new to these parts having started back in 1993 with Linux.

I do understand the ideas of constant improvement. 

Nevertheless Fedora is a community project and to make it into the
perfect distribution will certainly take less than to create an entirely
new framework.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is perfectly fine and everyones
right to go and do as they please.

It just strikes me as a better method to work with Red Hat on the
community project Fedora since they are doing most of the initial work
for you.

Fedora Legacy again promises to keep the distributions active longer
than what Red Hat intends to.  

Of course all of that depends on people helping Fedora Legacy and
working for the common cause.

The more fragmented it becomes the less stable and reliable all become.

Why is it that there is still just one place to go for the Linux
Kernel?  We are all free to fork and go our own way...but their is
recognition that with a single focal point more progress can be made.  

There is value in diversity though.  I am sure that good things will
come from everyones work even if it is redundant.


> YUM is a perfect example, even though there was Apt, AutoRPM, AutoUpdate, 
> GRAB, etc... YUM was still developed. Today, I think of it as the best RPM
> manager available. And being the author of one of the others, I am even 
> biased! ;)

I still like apt.

GRAB has a few benefits but overall I prefer apt.

> More examples include the various httpd's, ftpd's, WM's, editors, MTA's, 
> etc... ;) The point is that wheel reinventing is a fact of Open Source and it 
> occurs when there is a need.

Was their a need though?

> RedHat for many (many) years was a perfect solution to most Linux users. There 
> was no need to research anything else because it was the "sweet spot" distro. 
> But they decided to change their support models and leave a very large niche 
> in the community. Many people in the community see Fedora as the life vest, 
> but I don't.  

They gave long term support for a return that was less than what it
cost.  It was a bad business proposition.  I can't blame them for trying
to find a balance where they can focus on their business customers but
still offer something of value to the community.

> Fedora is a great solution for what it was designed to do. It was not however
> designed to be a viable long term production system, it is not in their stated
> goals(1). Fedora is designed to allow the community to take part in the 
> development process of their leading edge technology. RedHat has made it much 
> easier to install and work with then its predecessor (Rawhide), but there are 
> no plans for longevity, and no migration paths (as it has been described to me 
> by RedHat). Yes, the community may create initiatives to provide longer term
> support of the releases, but that conflicts with its design goals as I see it.

It was designed to include the community support from the beginning.  It
just wasn't what Red Hat wanted to do with it.  

> Hope you don't mind me using this opportunity to speak my mind, and try to
> clarify things.

Heh.  It's your list. :)

Don't think for a minute that I am against anyones rights to do as they
please here.

-Chris