Topic: Future of SME

[Anonymous]

Some of you guys have a point.

However, you are all also missing a point.

Every company, no matter what, where, when,
or how must have a single leader in charge.

When it comes to making the decision as to what direction that SME should go in, there can be no we. It has to be an I as in I am going in this direction, if you agree follow me. This of course will offend many, howeveer, it will give concrete decisive direction to the project. So as opposed to voting on a direction for the future of SME, why not vote for a project director who has a vision and a direction that he or she would like to see the system go in?

A community can provide suggestions, however, there can be only one person with the final decision and responsibilty to lead and direct the project. This person would also be responsible for providing a monthly report to the community as to the status of the project. The project director would be primarily responsible for testing the changes and thereby making a decision as to whether a development is stable for release or not.

This is how Linus Travoldi develops the kernel. It works for the kernel and it can work for the SME development project as well.

Once a project developer has been chosen, he can set up a non-profit organization to receive donations and membership dues. Where Only due paying members would be allowed to vote for the board of directors and the project director. Requirements for President and board members would be as follows. He or she would have to be first and foremost, a due paying member, other eleigibilty requirements could be set such as, achieving a certain amount of time invested in the project. The criteria for determining this would be based upon area's such as developement, contribs donated to the community, support given through the forums ect. In this way, only those people who actively give to the community and support the project in one way or another will be eligible to run for the position of board member or the president (project director) of the corporation. The dues paid by voting members would then be utilized to pay developement costs such as salaries for the President and board members, developers, and those additional staff members that would be needed to support the project.

While tis wouldn't allow for every little things someone wants added to the system, this would allow for a proper and continueing development of the SME distro, as well as maintain it's free distro standing.

Scott

[Anonymous]

Why does this things post as guess when you are logged in? I posted the previouse message.

Satovey

[satovey]

relogged in just to make sure it uses my username this time.

[satovey]

relogged in just to make sure it uses my username this time.

That is just wierd, I wonder why or how I logged out?
nuff said.

Scott

[Anonymous]

Red Hat Linux (RHL) has a new name, Fedora Core (FC).  This was about opening up development as much as the trademark issues.  And an entire new, Debian-like distribution model was built around it.

The private RHL lists became public Fedora ones.
The RHL developers started working on Fedora Core.
Red Hat opened up its build systems to non-Core packages.
Red Hat opened up its control to an Apache Foundation-like steering committee.

Fedora Legacy (FL) continues to crank out RHL 7.x, 8 and 9 updates.  It will do so when FC 1 is EOL very shortly.  The standard policy is about 18 months after EOL -- about 2-2.5 years after release.  Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what we had with RHL (which was _never_ guaranteed either!).  Not surprisingly, there are a _lot_ of paid Red Hat people working on Fedora during Red Hat time -- and not because they are doing it "behind managements back."

Red Hat has _always_ valued a 100% GPL-centric focus.  Be it the 100% GPL'ing of multi-million dollar packages gone commercial (I hope _everyone_ caught the recent GFS stuff , to 100% GPL'ing their _entire_ Enterprise line.  You want RHEL?  You can get it, for free, although unsupported.

Fedora has shocked me.  Red Hat did good.  People say Red Hat is evil because they introduced Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and dropped RHL.  They did _not_ drop RHL, they made it better, and now call it Fedora.

SuSE does _not_ certify non-Enterprise flavors either.  And what most poeple don't know is that SuSE was the _first_ distributor to introduce the Enterprise product.  When Red Hat's enterprise customers said they would leave for SuSE unless Red Hat did they same, they introduced it.

But instead of leaving a split shrink-wrapped model, like SuSE, Red Hat decided to open RHL like many of the RHL developers themselves have _always_wanted_!  With the introduction of RHEL, there was no need to keep the chains on RHL, and RHL was opened up.  The name change was because of the _real_ trademark issues with doing so.

I love FC and will continue to trust it for production systems, just like RHL before it.  At the same time, thanx to Fedora Extras, Legacy and 3rd Party, I have a wealth of software and updates just an "apt-get install" away.  Best of both worlds.  Again, Red Hat did good.  And they continue to put _paid_ people on FC, just like RHL before it -- just like they do on GPL projects MORE THAN ANY OTHER DISTRIBUTOR!

[ P.S.  Don't forget what RHEL $$$ go to fund, only more GPL software!  Find another, non-GPL vendor to spread rhetoric about. ]

Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith@ieee.org

[Anonymous]

I have _nothing_ against Debian.  I used to produce .deb packages myself for a major Linux project (as well as RPMs).

But since e-Smith/SME Server is based on Red Hat Linux (RHL), Fedora Core (FC) and other Fedora packages (like Extras and Legacy) would be my recommendation.  Just like Debian, you can apt-get official packages from the Fedora projects and repositories, as well as 3rd party ones too.

Or we could consider something like Progeny's Componentized Linux which aims to leverage _both_ Debian _and_ Fedora.

I'd advise against Linux From Scratch (LFS), too much headache.  Gentoo and Slackware are not bad distros, but I really have a long-standing preference for the stability of Red Hat kernels.  That's just my opinion.

I love the stability of Debian too, and their releases are just as well integration tested as Red Hat.  Unfortunately, I find that Debian development and release takes to long, and I've really hit some whoppers mixing in testing in the past.

Red Hat's direct involvement with Fedora Core (FC) keeps it being released with the best balance of time-to-market v. quality assurance IMHO, just as much as RHL before it.  Until I see the quality in FC slip, I don't really see any reason to change it if porting to a new Fedora version is found to be easiest.

Remember, FC=RHL.  Even Red Hat's attitude on changing FC reflects this -- i.e., they don't rip things out for a reason, hence the 4 CDs now -- yikes!  But at least Fedora-based projects like Cobind show it can be reduced with proper focus.  I would like to do the same with a 200-300MB "common denominator" base I call "Quark."

Using Apt (or Yum), there is _little_ reason to ship a new, Fedora Core-based SME server that doesn't fit on a single CD.  You can always apt-get (or yum) anything else you need, as well as updates, without having to directly support the infrastructure that does it.

Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith@ieee.org

P.S.  In case I didn't make myself clear, I'm all for Debian too!  I was just saying if it's easier to move to FC from RHL (which it should be by far), I'd recommend that course first.

[Anonymous]

Hi Bryan. Are you aware of the start being made here.

http://lordsfam.net/sme70

[Anonymous]

This looks good... maybe the community should get behind this guy? Someone who has stepped into the breach, side stepped all the waffling, and actualyl got on and done something?

Phil

[satovey]

This looks good... maybe the community should get behind this guy? Someone who has stepped into the breach, side stepped all the waffling, and actualyl got on and done something?

Phil

  I posted a similer statement in another forum, however, it seems the community wants to keep discussing which direction SME should go. I think that since slords has taken the initiative to port SME to the Fedora Core, all debate should cease at this point. While debian sounds to be a good alternative, no one with the talent and skill to port SME has begun to do so. Therefore, I say that Fedora has won out by default.

Scott

[hdaei]

Great to see this updated distro!

Like many here I'm only a user / admin, not a programmer...  Thank you http://lordsfam.net/sme70 for going for it.  If I can help please let me know how... I can do a little beta testing if need be.

Douglas

[tape]

Great to see this updated distro!

yup.. same here, it really looks interesting! Using FC2 would be a great way (imho)!!

It is experimental with many bugs or working with small needed changes? Should we wait or test it?

Anton

[duncan]

At the moment it looks like Shad is upgrading an existing 6.0.1 release with Fedora packages.

I doesnt look as if there is a "Distro" as of yet.

[azche24]

Smoke free since March 2004

Stick with that, Duncan! It saved my life to stop smoking > 30 cigs a day and i feel better every day after more than 2 years now.

Also you are right in the topic: The core should be split from the contribs. The contribs could stay somewhere, e.g. at contribs.org - but:

Who will develop the core? I am user and no programmer, i have no time at all and will never be able to do any developement in this  

So someone has to do a little financing and/or fundraising. Or the folks, that make their living out of installing an customizing e-smith (the many consultants around here) should particapate a little more in the core develompement. They already do in the forums and in the support side of the thing.

Contribs remain add-ons but someone has to take care of the core-developement.

[duncan]

Off topic I know but.

Thank you Alexander. At four months the pain is gone - and I am amazed at how much better I feel. Never again.

If you take a look over on the mailing lists http://no.longer.valid/phpwiki/index.php/DevList it looks as though there is some movement towards maintaining the core.

Regards Duncan

[rmccue]

One thing we might consider doing is using http://WhiteBoxLinux.org as the base distribution for the SME server.  From their web site:

"This product is derived from the Free/Open Source Software made available by Red Hat, Inc but IS NOT produced, maintained or supported by Red Hat. Specifically, this product is forked from the source code for Red Hat's _Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3_ product under the terms and conditions of it's EULA."

The advantages of using WhiteBox is that it is compatalbe with Redhat Enterprise Linux 3, and will have patches availble for a much longer period of time after new releases come out than Fedora.

Just an Idea.