Discussion of Fedora Server use-cases

"J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Mon Oct 28 16:06:39 UTC 2013

On 10/28/2013 03:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with "cover 500+ applications". I'm not convinced
> (yet) that our responsibility is to be shipping the full set of server
> applications currently available in the greater Fedora universe.

Think of it this way...

If you want people to actually want to package and maintain server 
applications in the distribution and have them work towards making them 
"product ready" and be presented and advertised and made available as an 
"product" the answer to that question is yes we want to strive to cover 
500+ applications.

If you dont want people to contribute to Fedora by not giving them that 
option or just make products out of what RH maintains or otherwise just 
want to put competing products at disadvantage ( think 389ds vs 
openldap, xen vs kvm etc ) and put the community in endless dispute 
since you effectively decided to favour one application and it's 
maintainers over another application then the answer to that question is 
no we dont want strive to cover 500+ applications.

+If I as an administrator wanted to deploy Fedora+some server 
application in the cloud,container or simply on bare metal it would be 
a) something I was familiar with or b) something that got decided on a 
general corporate meeting. It would not be an "product" that we ( or 
some other entity within our community ) would be deciding what would be 
but it would be something that would suit my or my corporate needs and 
fit my infrastructure requirements not what they would think would be my 
needs or fitted their infrastructure requirements and in that context 
having larger product portfolio would be better would it not...


More information about the server mailing list