On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 07:21 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >
> > Well, firstly. this is my personal experience, secondly one thing is a
> > fact: The majority of OpenSource developers has a university/educational
> > institution background.
>
> Ok, my personal experience differs.
Well, it might be a national difference ;)
In Germany, Linux is of very limited importance outside of
universities, and even if, then the Linux market is dominated by the
other major distro.
THL works for a magazine which occasionally publishes figures and
conducts "user polls". May-be he has recent numbers.
> > > Seriously, what benefit would it have?
> > The same as FE has over 3rd party repositories:
> >
> > Same server infrastructure, build system infrastructure, better package
> > coordination/less package conflicts (c.f. Axel's complaint on zaptel and
> > friends), same packaging standards, ...
>
> The only thing I really see as a benefit is perhaps the same server
> infrastructure. Plague is open source, so a 3rd party repo can use that
> just fine (I'm part of a local project that does). The packaging
> standards can be adopted by anyone. Coordination/conflicts... only
> because it would the become required for maintainers of FE which places
> more steps on them.
I do not agree on this. The buildsystem and the distribution
infrastructure makes a real difference for "Joe average contributor".
Also the "centralized repo under a common hood" makes a real difference
to end-users.
> > The downside would be: Probably endless quarrels on "legality", more
> > bureaucracy and ... "less freedom" :(
>
> Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday,
> you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a
> reasonable one.
Well, probably no surprize to you, to me this is not sufficient.
Ralf
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
|
