On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 12:47, Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com>
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Fedora needs to be an operating system provider, not just an operating
> > > system toolbox provider. <cut>
> > I feel like we have been saying this for 15+ years even before Fedora
> > was Fedora. Even back in the RHL days, we would argue over whether
> > what we were providing was an 'OS' or not versus a toolkit for someone
> > else to work with.
> I don't think we've just been saying this, I think we've been steadily
> improving in this area - both in our focus and in our processes. The
> move to editions was particularly helpful.
I didn't mean to assume we haven't improved on it, but I do believe it
is the central 'conflict' we have had. My main worry is that can we
actually achieve being an "operating system provider" or are we always
going to be a toolbox who isn't happy with itself? (or thirdly, are we
already an operating system provider with delusions of being a
Why do either of those possibilities matter? Or asked more directly,
why wouldn't we continue to look at ourselves and iterate and try to
improve? There is no "done" state in an operating system.
How can we know if we actually are still making progress if we each
have a different definition of what that operating system is.
Great question. I know there are different ideas around it in terms
of platform vs. core/extras vs. lifecycles of different bits. I think
coming to a general consensus on that is a huge part of the discussion
we're having here.