Fedora core suggestions

[David-Paul Niner]

>"If you want to foster discussion, please issue considered
>argumentation, not unreasoned bulletpoints."

Life Lesson #0: This is just the sort of response that causes people to
assume defensive postures.

Your assumption that your personal experiences in regards to rpm-based
upgrades are reflective of the collective experiences of all users is
incorrect.  Overall, the process may be "excellent," but there is
clearly room for some improvement, or someone wouldn't have bothered
posting about it to a mailing list, would they?

In regards to the involvement of non-technical individuals earlier in
the testing process, I believe I was quite clear in my original message
that I did not know exactly how the project should go about implementing
that.  Please, calm down and read my message again.  

Maybe 100 people will believe that to be a ridiculous idea, but if a
handful of people start talking about it, who knows where it would lead?

Also, you're awarding yourself an unrealistic amount of self-importance
in a group discussion.

;-)

DP

-- 
=======================================
David-Paul Niner, RHCE
dpniner at dpniner.name
Florida, United States of America

Public Key for GPG key 1FCE01A2
available from http://www.dpniner.name

GPG Fingerprint for key 1FCE01A2: 
9147 2826 BF20 962D C53E  6B1C 97FD 77A6 1FCE 01A2
=======================================

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 20:29 +0100, Andy Green wrote:
> David-Paul Niner wrote:
> 
> > Those are some truly great suggestions; No one reasoning logically
> > should have any reason whatsoever to be offended. 
> 
> I am fairly hard to offend - what you read was disagreement.
> 
> > It would be nice if the newly-revamped Fedora governing body could
> > include representation from the non-technical community.  I realize this
> > is probably a "pie-in-the-sky" expectation, and I can't imagine how one
> > would go about selecting a person (or persons) for this role, but if
> > this could somehow be accomplished then the distribution itself would be
> > more universally appealing.
> 
> Could you explain a little deeper about how inclusion of "representation 
> from the non-technical community" at the beginning of your paragraph 
> gets Fedora to be "more universally appealing" by the end?
> 
> > 1.  Pre-release non-technical user testing.
> 
> The test releases merely need to be given to non-technical users -- by, 
> eg, you -- for this to happen.
> 
> > 2.  Marketing.
> 
> Why?  I know why a commercial product is marketed, the goal is to 
> maximize profit.  But I'm not sure of the application to Free software. 
>   If you have some philosophical basis for it I am interested to hear 
> it, but you just assume marketing Free software is a righteous goal.
> 
> >>From the parent post:
> > 
> > "Upgrading needs to be fail proof from version to version. Previously
> > installed drives with personal user data needs to be able to be retained
> > without fail from upgrade to upgrade if the user isn't doing a clean
> > install." 
> > 
> > Response:
> > 
> > "Fedora is very decent at this already."
> > 
> > This sort of response shows no willingness to re-examine current
> > practices and is very off-putting to people looking to become involved
> > in the project.
> 
> That "sort of response" in fact shows my excellent experience with an 
> rpm-based upgrade system, eg, upgrading boxes from FC1 through FC4 using 
> yum.  As I said Fedora IS very decent at this already thanks to the 
> solid basis of RPM.  If you believe otherwise please elaborate.
> 
> > Before you bother flaming, I realize these are very general statements.
> > The point is to foster discussion.
> 
> If you want to foster discussion, please issue considered argumentation, 
> not unreasoned bulletpoints.
> 
> -Andy
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.