The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

inode0 inode0 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 17:10:04 UTC 2014


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/21/2014 11:56 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> ...I'd like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately
>>> supersede all the rest: "Functional".
>>
>> I think anytime anyone suggests a new foundation that supersedes
>> all of what the project and community has stood for for many years
>> then they are doing it wrong.  I mean, Fedora has traditionally
>> been very strong in upholding the values of FOSS.  We live it, feed
>> it, and use it.  Does this mean that Fedora isn't always great when
>> dealing with proprietary solutions later on (like Flash)?  Sure,
>> but that also means that there is more of a push to get FOSS
>> solutions in place that remedy those issues.  Fedora has never
>> forebade a user to install third-party software (proprietary or
>> otherwise) after the
>
> I spoke too strongly there, I think. We do however give a *very*
> strong impression that using non-FOSS solutions for anything at all is
> unwelcome at best. Consider the recent discussions around GNOME
> Software where we have
> 1) Forbidden it from automatically looking up software from non-Fedora
> repositories, even FOSS ones

In the exact same way yum has always been "forbidden" from doing the same thing.

> 2) Asserted that it must consider web apps (either FOSS or not) to be
> second-class citizens (and call it out as such)

You can call them second-class citizens if you want to be negative but
no one has before. They are different from applications that users
install on their systems, which is what users understand things in
this context to be. Upstream was simply asked to make the distinction
clear to users. It has nothing to do with a class system and it really
did not seem all that controversial.

John


More information about the devel mailing list