Fedora Core 3 Transferred to Fedora Legacy

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 12:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 12:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>HI
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>This is total double talk. If Fedora Core is not a testing ground for
> >>>RHEL features why exactly does it exist? What you are saying makes no
> >>>sense at all.
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Mission to provide a  community oriented completely Free and open source 
> >>operating system.
> >>    
> >>
> >OK, you seem to be provoking it: 
> >  
> >
> You get provoked unnecessarily I must say.
> 
> >Please elaborate: 
> >* What in Fedora is community oriented?
> >  
> >
> What is not?
I haven't seen much "community oriented by RH" in FC yet.

I sense, RH not wanting to listen to the community and pushing "their
interests".

> >* What would be different in FC if it was "not community oriented"?
> >  
> >
> Red Hat Linux.
Uuh? RHL would have continued to exist? I.e. RH would be doing the work
volunteers are doing in FE now? Great to here that, let's discontinue
FE, then - We contributors must be dumber than we think we are ;) 

> >The only differences I can sense, are
> >* we would not have FE, but would be using 3rd party repositories
> >instead.
> >  
> >
> You forget the presence of various other projects such as  Legacy, 
> Documentation, Websites, Infrastructure etc...
Are they provided by RH? RH provides some of the servers, yes. 
But the contents? Most probably written and provided by volunteers from
the community to the community. I.e. direction: Community => community.

If RHL had continued to exist, RH would have had to provide some of this
contents themselves, some would be found on 3rd party servers, some
would not be necessary at all, and some would not exist.

It would not make an essential difference.
 
> >* we probably would not be using FC but would be using a "rebuilt RHEL"
> >as substitute for RHL.
> >
> Very unlikely.  RHEL is too boring for a community to participate.
Right, if RHL would not exist anymore, people having switched to other
distros is more likely to have happened.

>  It is 
> almost stagnant which is great for enterprises but not for the 
> community. If RHEL would have been suitable for everyone Red Hat wouldnt 
> started Fedora or vice versa. Fedora's rapid release cycle with tons of 
> feature updates, many of them from Red Hat is a key process of enabling 
> the community.
I don't buy that. It's a key process for RH to be able to provide
sufficient stability for RHEL.

I am still waiting for RH to act community-oriented, i.e. to let the
community participate actively in their decision processes, to let the
community actively work on packages in FC, etc., etc.

>  The development methodology of "Release early, Release 
> often" combined with donations from Red Hat combined with the many 
> community sub projects within the Fedora Foundation is what provides 
> value for Fedora.
The community did not implement the Fedora Foundation. It's RH who are
about to implement them for reason, RH still didn't communicate to the
community. Reducing costs/spare taxes usually is the reason for founding
foundations (I've been working for one for >10 years).

Ralf