Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Nov 4 21:23:25 UTC 2013

Hash: SHA1

On 11/04/2013 03:49 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> On 04.11.2013 20:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 02:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 04.11.2013 19:32, schrieb Stephen Gallagher: e, we probably 
>>> would end up reducing the number of applications
>>>> available in the standard yum repos. I'm not as convinced as
>>>> you are that this is a bad thing. Right now, there's really
>>>> no distinction between what constitutes the operating system
>>>> and what constitutes the application ecosystem.
>>> *that* is the definition of a *distribution*
>> I don't think so. I think that's the definition of a *library*.
>> Let's say you want to build a boat. So you go to the library and
>> you dig through the thousands of books there until you find some
>> on carpentry, buoyancy principals and boat-building. You probably
>> *can* build a boat from this information, but that's not the
>> purpose of every book in the library.
>> A distribution would be more like going to an engineering college
>> and studying nautical engineering. Focused and dedicated to the
>> task, you'll probably produce a better boat in the end.
> I don't get your example but I agree with Reindl Harald - Linux 
> Distribution is a set of software that works as one coherent 
> environment. Let it be 10, 100 or 100000000000 different packages
> but they're chosen, compiled and adjusted to work together. This is
> the strength of Linux as operating system.

I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with me and not Reindl. His argument
is that it's the responsibility of the distribution to carry
everything all at once.

I'm arguing that it's perfectly acceptable to carry a
carefully-selected subset of things that define that distribution.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the devel mailing list