One way to get people to try Fedora is whoever has spinned a USB key
compatible version could upload it to the main site where a torrent can be
available. Another is, which I plan to do, is word of mouth, telling people
about it in blogs, etc. Finally, small newspaper ADs placed by Fedora fans
in each country promoting the FUDcons or other Linux events that feature
I'm very surprised the Fedora 9 Alpha does not include Transmission, the
BEST torrent software available, and
it's Open Source!!!
Looking forward to the F 9 Beta!!!
Mark McLaughlin / hudsonman35(a)gmail.com / linuxglobe.wordpress.com / Hudson,
I saw this today:
It's a stats dashboard, showing a high level picture of the project
growth, which versions are used out there etc. Basically it's
something like smolt, but targeted to users/marketing, more like our
own manually-created fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics.
Sounds like something we'd like to have as well for Fedora?
Jabber ID: glezos(a)jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B
"He who gives up functionality for ease of use
loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous)
As i said in another post, I'm working on adding a news section to
fp.org, so i would like to know what you people think it would be good
to add as a feeder. I already though about fedora weekly news. So is
there any other fedora-related news/article/whatever feed??
>From: Max Spevack <mspevack(a)redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: separate fpo domain? (was Re: making the website better)
>To: For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Rahul is right -- an initiative like this is not something that can be
>done ad-hoc. It needs ownership, leadership, and clear goals.
Absolutely right and may be the root of next proposals for the website
>Furthermore, I would argue that something like this is the sort of
>initiative that needs to be brought to the Fedora Board for approval.
>And the first thing that the Fedora Board will say is "what are the
>compelling reasons for this? Walk us through your thinking and
>us of why you are right. Be prepared to get some questions from us
>might require you to re-think or re-work some of your ideas."
It seems to be an evidence.
>Not adversarial by any means, but just the sort of thing that
>demonstrates that everyone is doing their due diligence.
My name is Franz Robert : FranzRobert Wiki will tell you more.
As I'm new, I apology for anything I will say or submit wich have
already been discussed and/or done.
I don't think it really matter to get another fp(x) or f(x)o domain
and/or server. It can be or not for the server. If it's a technical
choice for better bandwidth and CPU time, it could be a good choice. But
I don't think there is any good marketing reason.
Fedora website is our community signature on the Web and it as important
to have a good and strong signature as to have only one.
Fpo is this signature. As soon as "project" is in the name, Infinity is
in the idea. That's why a "fedora-Linux.xxx" sounds bad to me.
If we need any other physical support, like server, it must be a xxx.fpo
in a full transparency navigation and not ping pong between further
domain names. But it's not the priority.
Fact is that we want to make the front (Home, Main, Static - as you want
to call it) better with #1 goal to offer Fedora users and futur users,
media people and so on a Fedora's 2008 philosophy and spirit entry. We
want a real efficient signature: that's all.
I agree with the idea that we have to rebuild the home page(s) in a
different and much XXI's century way. I appreciate the weekly news
Finally, the concept we are talking about is, first of all, to make a
proposal with an Alpha alternate home part for fpo to submit it to the
Fedora Board. This concept need a team of contributors from art,
websites and marketing group. This is not else than a development team.
If it's the idea, I'll join it with time and strong enthusiasm.
This Alpha should also have the advantage that we can all discuss around
a true visible and working (apart and not open to the public) system.
And when we agree this Alpha, we submit the project to the community
So the discussion should now be: who and where.
Chad Bloem wrote:
> I was looking at the Fedora WIKI page and I stumbled across the
> information regarding the need for a mascot. It mentioned that they
> wanted an animal design wrapped into the current icon. I slapped
> together an idea. Máirín Duffy was kind enough to suggest Inkscape (had
> to figure it out) to clean up the design and pointed me to these email
> addresses. Got it installed, played with it this afternoon. I have
> attached it as an SVG.
A interesting idea but not one I like. A variation of the Fedora logo
would have the same protections as the logo itself and leads to the same
issues we are trying to avoid by suggesting the use of a mascot that
lends itself to artistic freedoms and creative uses. Keep the mascot
completely separate from the logo.
I think I've finished doing all the integration I can face right now
between those two documents. Karsten, I've tried to restyle it a bit
to your proposal for the "One summary to rule them all" idea and I've
tidied up the language where possible.
At the minute it's very text heavy, some screenshots from people
running rawhide would be very cool. Also, I think the following
sections probably still need work:
"Applications" - It might be good to either expand on what's new in
Firefox 3 or to find some more applications that we'd like to draw
attention to upgrades?
"Anaconda Installer Improvements" - perhaps somebody who knows more
than I do could explain why people should care about these? Basically,
I'd like to find some friendlier language to describe these
"Kernel" - Same as Anaconda really, any chance we can make this friendlier?
The other thing I think we could do with is a consistent way to link
to both feature pages and upstream pages so readers can easily find
OK, besides that I'm quite happy with the shape it's in, but I don't
know what other people think?
We're going to try something new for the various release
notes/summaries/overviews and see how we go. The plan, and excuse me
if I get any details wrong, looks like this:
[NB: the big misconception here, I've had it too!!, is that the
SingleSourceSummary is not meant to be read from start to finish, but
to increase co-ordination in working on these separate docs so we
don't duplicate effort]
Create a wiki page /Releases/SingleSourceSummary
Flesh out that page with sections for:
a) Press Release style summary
b) Detailed Overview covering all features on /Releases/#/FeatureList
either alphabetically or by coolness (latter is debatable as to how we
would decide this!). This content is intended to be similar to the
Alpha release notes, but with more!
c) Technical Summary - brief but aimed at tech journalists
d) Detailed Technical Summary - detailed and aimed at geeks, similar
to release notes content now.
This can then be split out by Include() to create targeted documents,
such as press release, cool hip friendly marketing, release notes
detailing technical changes etc...
We'll then keep developing this page throughout the release cycle, and
before each milestone (beta next) tidy up and make static versions of
split docs so not to kill wiki.
The idea is that by developing all this in one location we won't
duplicate any work - we can see what is done and what's not done. Does
this make sense?
I'm planning on beginning to flesh out the structure of the page this
coming week but dive in ahead of me if you like!
Best wishes all,