So, either they got attacked by someone who was able to both deface the website and *sign code with their GPG key*, or the announcement is genuine.

I think the obvious response is precisely identical in either case...

yeah, it may be worth adding a note about that on the download page...but one of the things that'll be done as part of fedora.next is a complete revamp of that site area, so i'll wait till that's in planning to suggest the idea. thanks.

It's not just about the install image, it's actually about building useful stuff into each product (and also allowing the same things to be configured in different ways in the different products, which is another part of why they can't just be package sets). For instance, the 'role' management for Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki... .

That's what the *live* installer does - because that's all a live installer can do, really, unless you make a live image with a DVD-size package repository, which not many people really seem to want.

The *non live* installer still lets you choose the deployed package set.

The three product approach isn't simply about the deployed package set, though. It involves really rather a lot more than that. Hard to go into details in a Slashdot comment, but see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki... .

Er...no and no? That wasn't a question about her reason for leaving, it was just a general question about Fedora's future.

Disclaimer: I work for RH, but I have nothing at all to do with any of this stuff (I work on Fedora).

AFAICS, the WSJ alleges #2, but we are very clearly stating that WSJ is wrong and it's just #1 (we'll support your RHEL install no matter what you have running on top of it, just like we always have, we just won't support the OpenStack bit if it's not RH OpenStack, or whatever the hell we call it, I don't know.)

"How many of us liked shop? How many young people should be training for skilled manufacturing and service jobs rather than getting history or political science degrees?"

I don't know, perhaps you could ask someone who could give you an answer based on prior experience - like an economic historian?

Carpenter Who Cut Off His Fingers Makes "Robohand" With 3-D Printer, Cuts Off Other Fingers With 3-D Printer

"The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?""

Two words for you: "git blame".

A leading contender for the Francis Fukuyama Award For Public Fatuousness.

Wow, it's always a tough competition, but this may win "Ridiculous Slashdot Headline Of The Week".

Logic 101, folks. Let's recap that headline:

"TCP/IP Might Have Been Secure From the Start If Not For the NSA"

Now, what's the story here? One of TCP/IP's designers had access to some then-bleeding-edge crypto *that was part of an NSA project*, but couldn't include it in TCP/IP because it was secret.

Now, can we support the idea that "if not for the NSA" that crypto could have gone into TCP/IP? No, because "if not for the NSA" that crypto *wouldn't have fucking existed at all*. The NSA wrote it. So the choices are "code written, but not available for use" or "code not written at all". Practical difference for the purposes of TCP/IP: zip.

Ah, ISWYM. Sorry, Slashdot threading always makes it tricky to figure context :/

Now I see the context, I agree with you, and nothing in the debate seems to have suggested that's his position.

He contributed to the campaign for Proposition 8. The text of Proposition 8 was this:

"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The state of affairs prior to Prop 8 was that the state supreme court had determined that marriage between two partners of the same sex was valid and recognized in California. Thus Prop 8 was, very clearly, precisely and inarguably, a measure that specifically abolished marriage for people of the same-sex.

Marriage is not a right, no. But the right not to be discriminated against by the state *is* a right.

No-one has a right to demand that the state (federal government, state government) be in the business of defining marriage and granting particular privileges to people it considers to be 'married' at all. It wouldn't be a violation of anyone's constitutional rights if the federal government, or a particular state government, just got out of the business of marriage entirely.

But as long as governments choose to recognize a state called 'marriage' and grant particular benefits to people they consider to be 'married', people absolutely *do* have a right for that to be implemented in a non-discriminatory way.

It has been pointed out in other sub-threads, but not this one: this is not a question of personal beliefs, but financial support of active legal discrimination.

"I think it's wrong for two people of the same sex to get married" is a personal belief.
Contributing to a campaign to pass a law to have that belief enforced by the state is not a personal belief.