This is exactly the problem with "NC". To you, this is "clear commercial use". Is it because a big company is involved? Two companies? We assume money is changing hands, but... maybe it's not. The license says "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation". What if the money goes towards "supporting the community"? What exactly is "commercial advantage" in this context? I'd have to ask a lawyer, and... unless I was paying them to advise on a specific case, I doubt they'd actually give a straight answer.

Overall, "noncommercial" licenses are problematic and should be avoided. I understand the intention, but it's hard to make a license that actually gets there.

I don't think it's size, exactly. The Boston urban area has roughly the same population as the Houston metro area (about 4 million), and we've got the 250MB data cap. And we even have (some) competition -- some of the richer suburbs have Verizon FiOS, and many neighborhoods (like mine) offer RCN (which, in my experience, is both faster and cheaper, but also more prone to outages).

Back in the 1990s, I helped run one of several mirrors for CDDB. When the company suddenly took a proprietary turn, they shut all of those down. They sent message promising to give some sort of reward to everyone who had run a mirror, but nothing ever showed up.

I guess a couple of million would probably make it up....

In seriousness, this was an early wakeup call about contributing to "community" projects without clear licenses for submitted data. And here I will put in a plug for FreeDB, which forked the original and continues to run it in an open way, with submissions under the GPL. http://www.freedb.org/en/about...

This makes it sound like a long-lost native civilization was discovered. Not the case. Early European settlers in New England devastated the native landscape and, basically, turned it into English sheep farms. As expansion pushed westward and agriculture shifted with it, that economy changed and native (and some invasive) species have reclaimed the landscape.

Still very cool and interesting, but a different story from what you might expect from reading the lede.

We probably won't go to 9 months permanently, but it's very likely that Fedora 20 -> F21 will be along those lines as we retool for Fedora.next ideas, and work on improving qa and releng automation.

Thanks, I appreciate that. :)

I could definitely have chosen "flexible" or "nimble" or some other random adjective. It didn't quite just pop into my mind, though -- I'm definitely familiar with the agile programming movement and have seen it in action in very positive ways. (I'm sure it can go horribly wrong, just like anything.) So, the title isn't completely an accident. I do want to evoke some of the agile manifesto: focus on interactions and individuals, responsiveness in the face of change, and so on. In general, I think we need to make some room for "worse is better" underneath the Fedora umbrella (while still keeping the core to a "the right thing" model) -- that's not agile in specific but is part of the same vein from which it developed.

Question all you like. I don't mind. However, I'd really prefer questions to the trolling. *

Which, given all the posts, by tibit, I have to assume is the case. If I were to take it seriously, though, I would say that probably what's happened is that much of the concrete part of the proposal uses labels which are unlikely to be familiar to someone not active in Fedora development (Fedora Formulas, Software Collections) without explaining them. You might know OpenShift, but "OpenShift Gears, decoupled" just sounds like gibberish. Even the term "base design" sounds vague but actually relates to a specific ongoing effort (http://sched.co/11El9OZ).

I didn't really think about how this would read to an outside audience, because Fedora developers are the intended audience, and because this is a presentation, not an in-depth white paper.

(* I know, I know, am I new here or what?)

I have to say, I'm not entirely sure you've read this proposal. Or maybe there is something that could be more clear? The audience here is really Fedora developers, so it's likely that some things aren't immediately apparent if you're more removed from that. Overall, this is a proposal for significantly less baggage.

Well, Fedora isn't ever going to be that completely safe kind of boring. For that, we have our downstream distributions, which are awesomely boring in all the way you describe. Fedora isn't supposed to be that, and is supposed to be in place where we are generating excitement, whether that's at the OS core or further out. But in general, the idea here is to separate out that "no frills" core from the language stacks and other areas where "be up to date" and "make available the exact things we need" are the demands. Then, we can address these needs differently.

If you're just interested in the base, awesome: we will put that together for you in a well-defined way and let you do whatever you want on top of that.

Having the separate ring 1 lets us focus on making that a coherent base which can be enhanced in an cohesive way which doesn't break everything for users as we go from release to release.

Good, because those two things are exactly what this is all about.

As a general rule of thumb, if you need something lightweight, SQLite is the way to go. If you need something more powerful or sophisticated than that, PostgreSQL.

MySQL and spinoffs all occupy an uncomfortable middle ground. 99% of the small web sites which are built around MySQL don't need it.

Actually, this apparently comes from Dell's acquisition of Wyse. That is, these guys: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/WyseTerminal100.jpg/220px-WyseTerminal100.jpg -- the people who *did* do this decades ago. So, I guess, fair enough.