On 4/12/06, Dimi Paun dimi@lattica.com wrote:
Give me a break. Alan is just not anybody, and neither is dwmw2, and others in Red Hat. Dumping Evo now, after being pushed for years by RH, can not be a Good Thing (TM).
Relying on a default application that does not have upstream development momentum and is accumulating security related issues which are not being fixed is also a problem. In a world with no perfect solution and no way to know the future, all choices are sub-optimal. For every reason you can think of to stick with an application choice over multiple releases for consistency, I can think of a circumstances where there is a detrimental effect..even for business users... when that codebase is no longer being appropriately supported by upstream.
No one is suggesting that moving or dropping evo is a decision that will be painless. But there absolutely must be flexibility to review application inclusions decisions from time to time and modify the software that is offered based on concerns about maintainability and security over consistency. Clearly there needs to be a commitment to a piece of software that is included for more than oen release of fedora...but its absurd to think that its inappropriate to discuss the option of trading a piece of software out for something more secure and better maintained upstream... six releases into the process.
-jef"here's what I don't get in dimi's post. He suggest that the opinions of alan and other red hatter engineers hold extras special weight just because they are employees, contrary to the statements made by a fedora board member. If dimi really really believes that, why is dimi bothering to be a part of this discussion at all, since by dimi's own logic his opinion doesn't count. You either accept that this is an open dialog where people have an equal access to explain and support their position or you don't. And if you don't well then don't bother wading into the discussion."spaleta