"What is the Fedora Project?"

[Mike McGrath]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On 10/15/2009 05:04 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/15/2009 10:40 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > > > And this is the crux of our problem:
> > > >
> > > > fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to
> > > > have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them.
> > > >
> > > > So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like
> > > > fedora is just not for you.
> > > >
> > > > how else do we set reasonable expectations?
> > >
> > > Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability
> > > several releases ago, though?
> >
> > Not really.
> My view: Things have not been better. It's only the set of packages which are
> causing troubles, which has changed.
>
> ATM, the "troublemakers" happen to be packages which almost everybody has
> installed and almost everybody uses (TB, Firefox, X11, PackageKit, cups,
> pulseaudio, selinux ...).
>
> > I have a few explanations for this:
> >
> > 0. I suspect there is a fair bit of nostalgic memory going on here.
> > Things get better the more in the past you put them in your memory. It's
> > an evolutionary advantage to not remember suffering as well. :)
> Agreed, ... remember SELinux, NetworkManager, ... yum ;)
>
> > 1. at f6 things were still 'core and extras' and core meant @redhat.com
> > people only which, implicitly, meant things went slower.
>
> Well, have a look at the packages which currently are causing "the trouble"
> ... it's former "core packages", which are still being maintained by
> essentially the same people, rsp. the same teams, @RH.
>

While I'm not saying those packages aren't problems, your argument has
confused correlation with causation.

	-Mike