-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Very interesting!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1848
Rodrigo Padula
Coming from a personal opinion, I think Fedora should just stick to our short term and long term gameplan and try to avoid pandering to an idea like this. Lets just keep doing what Fedora has been doing for years, which is lead and innovate.
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Very interesting!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1848
Rodrigo Padula
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHezUlPg3HAC1vlg4RAidwAKCgAiz9HkqZleRPHotY7zfBeKf65wCeNhbe QhVM3DRzAvObXFv7HMqa9qo= =OxH7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tir, 01 01 2008 kl. 22:08 -0600, skrev Michael Beckwith:
Coming from a personal opinion, I think Fedora should just stick to our short term and long term gameplan and try to avoid pandering to an idea like this. Lets just keep doing what Fedora has been doing for years, which is lead and innovate.
Not to mention it's an arms race we can't win.. remember we are the only contestant. Every minute invested in upstream development benefits both parties equally. So the harder we try, the higher we raise the bar for ourselves since Ubuntu can just take the work we do at near zero effort.
I think the more important battle is for the public understanding of where upstream development stems from and being better at taking credit for the excellent work Fedora does.
Selling the virtue of driving innovation seems like a far more sane tactic than encouraging a brainless war based on the choice of what is essentially Product A or Product A with a brown theme.
Point out where the code comes from, who invests to make it happen, who has the vision and the will to innovate.
- David *values not product* Nielsen
Just some pseudo-journalistic craps. If there's any competition, it's between RedHat, Inc and Canonical LTD, it's not our business. Dudes, it's free software, we should be proud that our work is branded as killer features in latest releases of other distributions. Take it as a tribute !
As David Nielsen said, our work is to highlight the fantastic work made by FedoraProject contributors. Think of "Fedora Linux" not as an end in itself but only as a mean to achieve our goal.
Fedora is geared toward future not past neither present.
H. G.
On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, H. Guémar karlthered2@gmail.com wrote:
Just some pseudo-journalistic craps. If there's any competition, it's between RedHat, Inc and Canonical LTD, it's not our business.
We need a presskit. Is there someone on this list who can lead the development of a presskit?
If we had a "Thinking about writing an article about Fedora?" link on our frontpage, what materials would we want behind that link?
What are the important things we'd like to make sure laypress people stress about Fedora as a project?
What are the common factual pitfalls that the laypress have been making repeatedly that we end up correcting via article comments? If we can get a presskit out we could potentially get ahead of more common laypress mistakes and stop them before they are written.
What are the interpretive and editorial perceptions that can be influenced by our own editorial material aimed at laypress? Or to ask this another way, is there a flavor of kool-aid that we should be mixing up specifically for laypress?
-jef
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, H. Guémar karlthered2@gmail.com wrote:
Just some pseudo-journalistic craps. If there's any competition, it's between RedHat, Inc and Canonical LTD, it's not our business.
We need a presskit. Is there someone on this list who can lead the development of a presskit?
If we had a "Thinking about writing an article about Fedora?" link on our frontpage, what materials would we want behind that link?
What are the important things we'd like to make sure laypress people stress about Fedora as a project?
What are the common factual pitfalls that the laypress have been making repeatedly that we end up correcting via article comments? If we can get a presskit out we could potentially get ahead of more common laypress mistakes and stop them before they are written.
What are the interpretive and editorial perceptions that can be influenced by our own editorial material aimed at laypress? Or to ask this another way, is there a flavor of kool-aid that we should be mixing up specifically for laypress?
We need a few things: o Fedora Fast Facts: data that would be interesting to someone writing an article: o History o Differentiating points o Features/Functions o Instructions for 'laypress' to download with most ease o Reviewers' Guide. This tells the press what exactly to look for, what we want to emphasize most (esp. what's differentiating from other distros, etc). o Screenshots.
thanks, leigh
Ok, following on from Leigh's advice, shall we try and flesh out what would go under some of these points?
We need a few things: o Fedora Fast Facts: data that would be interesting to someone writing an article: o History
* Fedora project founded in 2003 when Red Hat merged their open development process with the pre-existing Fedora Linux project. Official announcement here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-September/msg00064.html
* First general release of Fedora Core 5th November 2003.
* Merger of Core and Extras in 2008.
*...urm any more history than this seems difficult to come by!? When did the Board come along?
o Differentiating points
* Focus on upstream * Focus on free software * Hosted * People * Open build systems + spins
** Another section should really spell out what Fedora's goals are I think. Target audience perhaps (Controversial subject I know) and our primary goals and values as they provide a lot of insight into why certain decisions are made.
o Features/Functions o Instructions for 'laypress' to download with most ease o Reviewers' Guide. This tells the press what exactly to look for, what we want to emphasize most (esp. what's differentiating from other distros, etc). o Screenshots.
These last four are covered by the release summary are they not!?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/ReleaseSummary
Obviously this all changes from release to release. Only thing I'm not sure about in the current release summary is the long list of links at the beginning - makes it look uglier and harder to access the main content - in my opinion. Maybe if we include this info in a press kit it could either a) be tidied up or b) only the essential information about features etc.
Also, in this section I don't think it would hurt to emphasise where Fedora is the first distribution to do something - I think we did this with Pulse Audio in the last release quite well :)
Thoughts and ideas!?
Jon
Leigh Cantrell Day said the following on 01/02/2008
We need a few things: o Fedora Fast Facts: data that would be interesting to someone writing an article: o History o Differentiating points o Features/Functions o Instructions for 'laypress' to download with most ease o Reviewers' Guide. This tells the press what exactly to look for, what we want to emphasize most (esp. what's differentiating from other distros, etc). o Screenshots.
thanks, leigh
Could we meet with someone from Red Hat Communications during FUDCon to work on this and other marketing strategies for the release of Fedora 9 and FUDCon Boston 2008?
John
I think the more important battle is for the public understanding of where upstream development stems from and being better at taking credit for the excellent work Fedora does.
+1 which is exactly what I think the mission of the marketing team should be. Fedora drives a lot of innovation and due to its strong belief in working closely with upstream a lot of the innovation quickly becomes available to other distributions. Something the article overlooked I think: while open source code can benefit everyone, the ease with which this happens is influenced by how quickly code gets upstream and I'm not convinced Ubuntu, or any distribution, is as good at this as Fedora. Anybody got any ideas where we could get some numbers on this!?
Going to get started with new interviews (which nearly always have a specific question about how the work gets upstream) and hopefully some features/press release kind of stuff about other infrastructe aspects of the community such as people.fp.org...you all probably know where this is heading - if you want to help out you're more than welcome!!
Best wishes, and a happy new year to all :)
Jon
Jonathan Roberts wrote:
I think the more important battle is for the public understanding of where upstream development stems from and being better at taking credit for the excellent work Fedora does.
+1 which is exactly what I think the mission of the marketing team should be. Fedora drives a lot of innovation and due to its strong belief in working closely with upstream a lot of the innovation quickly becomes available to other distributions. Something the article overlooked I think: while open source code can benefit everyone, the ease with which this happens is influenced by how quickly code gets upstream and I'm not convinced Ubuntu, or any distribution, is as good at this as Fedora. Anybody got any ideas where we could get some numbers on this!?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions and in the references. People have done various studies on which vendors contribute how much to the Linux kernel in particular and Red Hat in usually by a large margin the leading contributor. That would probably be the same for GTK and GNOME though I don't know of anyone doing any formal analysis. Then there are other key pieces like Glibc, GCC and on more desktop neutral stuff like HAL, DBus, Cairo, NetworkManager etc.
From the volunteer community, there are a good number of people who contribute to various upstream projects. A few examples,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BryanSullivan (Mercurial upstream. Refer http://lwn.net/Articles/153990/ for a interesting detail). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HansdeGoede http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KevinKofler
I am pretty sure there are several dozen more contributors such as these.
Rahul
Thanks Rahul, it all looks like it's interesting and should be useful at some point in the future :) Anybody got any ideas on how we can make use of this info? Maybe in the proposed Press Kit and the history section even?!
Best wishes,
Jon
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions and in the references. People have done various studies on which vendors contribute how much to the Linux kernel in particular and Red Hat in usually by a large margin the leading contributor. That would probably be the same for GTK and GNOME though I don't know of anyone doing any formal analysis. Then there are other key pieces like Glibc, GCC and on more desktop neutral stuff like HAL, DBus, Cairo, NetworkManager etc.
From the volunteer community, there are a good number of people who contribute to various upstream projects. A few examples,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BryanSullivan (Mercurial upstream. Refer http://lwn.net/Articles/153990/ for a interesting detail). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HansdeGoede http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KevinKofler
I am pretty sure there are several dozen more contributors such as these.
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 14:13 +0000, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
Thanks Rahul, it all looks like it's interesting and should be useful at some point in the future :) Anybody got any ideas on how we can make use of this info? Maybe in the proposed Press Kit and the history section even?!
Best wishes,
Jon
The overview page is quite good as well.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview
Cheers,
Marc
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira wrote:
Very interesting!
The question is: such a "war" would bring more or less users to Linux?
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
David Nielsen -
H. Guémar -
Jef Spaleta -
John Poelstra -
Jonathan Roberts -
Leigh Cantrell Day -
Marc Wiriadisastra -
Michael Beckwith -
Nicu Buculei -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira