<br><br>On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, Adam Batkin <<a href="mailto:adam@batkin.net">adam@batkin.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 08/19/2014 09:10 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In contrast, I see Server and Cloud products having more clearly benefited from their self-imposed constraints. Yet they still have a "build it and they will come" attitude.<br>
<br>
More and more often I'm seeing emails pointing fingers at OS X, making comparisons. I'm not the only one observing [1] the prevalence of Macs at FOSS conferences that are not running a FOSS OS but rather OS X. And I'm wondering what Workstation wants to be when it grows up and if it needs additional self-imposed constraints to help it along.<br>
<br>
Anything built in the past 8 years is recommended hardware, but none of it's explicitly supported as far as I can tell.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Welcome to community driven, volunteer supported Linux<br>
distributions... We can't tell people with new hardware "sorry, we<br>
don't support you because you didn't buy a thinkpad or the $vendor of<br>
the week." We're losing enough users already. We also can't say<br>
"this is explicitly supported" because the distro and the hardware is<br>
constantly changing, and they aren't changing in lock-step or with any<br>
coordination between the distro and the HW vendors. So we do as best<br>
we can.<br>
</blockquote>
> ...<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I can only describe symptoms, the bugs are all essentially unanswered as if no one has any concrete idea what the underlying problem actually is, therefore I don't know if it's worth throwing resources at it?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yep. That's also par for the course. People basically have to guess<br>
at a lot of the problems you've described if they can't recreate on<br>
their own hardware. I'm beginning to wonder if you're confusing<br>
Fedora with some kind of paid-support model distribution.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What's the alternative to that? Should we put together a list of actually recommended hardware, specific makes and models? And if so what are the (largely) objective criteria by which to figure out what is recommended?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We can't do that without some kind of relationship with vendors for<br>
that hardware. Otherwise we're playing catch up at best trying to<br>
make things work _after_ the hardware has shipped and it really<br>
doesn't change the user experience or support story from how things<br>
are today. Christian has mentioned trying to build such<br>
relationships, which would be good. It won't be with Apple.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Personally, my hope is that some issues will be taken up by Red Hat employees, either because they happen to have an interest in the area, or because Red Hat will make it their responsibility because it's in RH's interest. I believe that it's in Red Hat's best business interest to work on certain things that will enhance Fedora, which will in turn enhance RHEL (even if it's just to stem the tide of people moving to Ubuntu, or bring people who would have otherwise chosen Ubuntu over).<br>
<br>
For developer workstations, the competition is mostly Mac.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. The biggest competitor is not Mac but Windows it dies not only have a way bigger marketshare but also trys to support a wide range of hardware (like us) the only difference is that is has better support form hardware vendors. This becomes even more true if you include the non US market. So stop focusing to much on Apple there are other (bigger) competitors out there. </div>