Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:businessmen in software (Score 1) 74

I think we should focus discussion on the specifics of the guy's proposal.

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.

Comment Re:Matt Miller is unhappy but unsure what about (Score 2) 74

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 (

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?)

Comment Re:Extra layers == epic fail (Score 3, Informative) 74

It would be hard to imagine a better recipe for epic failure. It seems that the proponents don't realize that the less baggage it carries, the more robust and easy to use a distro becomes.

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.

And "excitement" is definitely not needed. An operating system isn't an electrical appliance needing new excitement and frills to shift product off the shelves each season. Boredom is a sign of stability and reliability, and those two are without doubt most important features a distro designer can provide.

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.

Comment Re:Extra layers == epic fail (Score 2) 74

I'd be excited if upgrades weren't an ugly afterthought. Y'know, because everybody has to do it at least once a year.

If it takes this 'ring' idea, to force the upgrade issue, and perhaps versioned packages outside of kernel-*, then I'll get behind it.

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

Comment What the hell? (Score 2) 72


In a move eerily reminiscent of the Cold War, the US and Russia have set up a hotline to avoid an accidental or catastrophic cyber war, after two years of discussing how best to collaborate on online threats.

The two companies want to “reduce the possibility that a misunderstood cyber incident could create instability or a crisis in our bilateral relationship”, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

Both Russia and the US are hotbeds of cyber criminal activity, and both are thought to be throwing much funding into military efforts in cyber too.

Emphasis mine.


Comment Re:ORACLE = One Raging Asshole Called Larry Elliso (Score 1) 405

I do that as well — for very short-term insertions of debugging code.

Of course, it's imperative to remove it or, at the very least, properly indent it, before checking it in.

As a side note, every source code version control system should have a customizable pass/no-pass filter that can reject the checking in of improperly formatted code.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.