Fedora 20 (yes, F20).

Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell at gmail.com
Mon Sep 13 07:31:32 UTC 2010


On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 13, 2010 08:18:54 am Nicu Buculei wrote:
> > On 09/09/2010 01:24 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> > > Think for a minute or two. What do *you* think Fedora should focus on
> > > for F15 and F16? How about F17? F18? F19...or... F20? What should F20
> > > look like, how should it be, who uses it.... at least, for us to have
> > > succeeded towards achieving our mission as a project?
> >
> > I want applications. Good applications with which I can get my work
> > done, like a good video editor, an office suite that does not suck, a
> > messaging application able to communicate with people and so on.
>
> Yes - that should be goal. But - it's mostly out of our scope. Same apply for
> Fedora 20 - it's not so far but again - it depends mostly on our upstreams. If
> we want to define our product, we have to be able define products we depends on.
> This apply for F14, F20 (if we stay with current versioning scheme) etc. It's
> not easy to control it from downstream as we are trying now!

I think it's a mistake to say that it's out of our control (scope).
This is where the terms "best of breed" or "best of class" come into
play.  While Fedora isn't directly steering the direction of, say,
Firefox or OpenOffice.org, the project does, as an organization have
the freedom to pick those upstream applications that meet with Nico's
needs.

Furthermore, I don't think Fedora is trying to "control" upstreams,
nor is there any need to.  I think we can safely make the assumption
that upstream development teams are interested in seeing their
software used.  With that in mind, I think it's safe to let the chips
fall where they may and assume we'll have several "best of breed"
applications to choose from to meet a given use case.

Perhaps this is the point you were driving at with your comment that
we need to define those products we depend on.  Is there a need, in
your view, to define specific applications on a per category basis?
For example, do we define the Fedora web browser as "Firefox" and the
Fedora office suite as "OpenOffice.org" immutably going forward?  Or
do we take a more relaxed approach and opt to remain free to replace
either as better applications enter common use?

--
Chris


More information about the advisory-board mailing list