Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (465 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
[opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE Strategy Discussion: The Linux Distribution Platform Strategy
- From: Jim Henderson <hendersj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:49:49 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <i2oqvc$o53$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:17:54 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
That makes sense to me. I may be thinking a little further down the road
beyond just the strategy, which does mean that the specifics are not
necessarily - "relevant" isn't the right word, because the specifics are
relevant - maybe "as critical at this stage of the discussion".
OK, that makes sense to me as well. Needing to define more specifically
that target group (beyond the 'high level' description here) is something
that probably falls later in the discussion.
The Ubuntu comparison makes this clearer in my mind. Though arguably our
current userbase does include both technical and non-technical users (I
see this in the demographics in the forums, for example - it often makes
for interesting interactions between members of the two groups) - so we
might want to consider that there is a decent size non-technical user
following already that may feel left out with this direction (though it
sounds like perhaps the direction hasn't been previously defined).
The key differentiator here would thus be that we might include new
technology if it makes sense, but the focus is on that ultimate usability
as a reference implementation for re-spins and for a technical audience.
Do you think that captures/restates the idea here?
Or put another way, "always" is the key here - as in "not always, but
perhaps sometimes, when it makes sense" - which would apply to the
examples I provided earlier, or also possibly the inclusion of XEN
virtualisation.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Good user experience isn't very specific, that's right. But the
important part is that it is a focus. That we actually care about the
experience of the user and take this into account when taking decisions
about what to do and how to do it. What this means in details of course
has to be worked out, but if this is a serious direction, this is just a
natural part of development.
That makes sense to me. I may be thinking a little further down the road
beyond just the strategy, which does mean that the specifics are not
necessarily - "relevant" isn't the right word, because the specifics are
relevant - maybe "as critical at this stage of the discussion".
I don't think it's a contradiction to not focusing on non-technical end
users. These are orthogonal issues. Focus on good user experience is one
thing, which users are our target group is another thing. The "polish"
will be different dependent on the target group, but it needs to be done
to provide a good experience in any case.
OK, that makes sense to me as well. Needing to define more specifically
that target group (beyond the 'high level' description here) is something
that probably falls later in the discussion.
= No focus =
* Directly providing a polished distribution for non-technical end
users
I think we do this now with the main distribution, and that to an
extent, this is an essential goal as well (or at least "good to have")
because it provides a basis for the derivatives to provide that polish.
I guess this perhaps needs to be more specifically defined for me as
to what isn't/wouldn't be included. I couldn't even say what I would
take as implied as not being provided by this statement.
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Ubuntu.
For the definition of what a non-technical end-user is, I like to think
of this as as somebody who never bought a computer magazine. What that
then implies for the actual products, needs to be worked out, but it
won't involve problems like explaining how to use a mouse or what a
harddisk is.
The Ubuntu comparison makes this clearer in my mind. Though arguably our
current userbase does include both technical and non-technical users (I
see this in the demographics in the forums, for example - it often makes
for interesting interactions between members of the two groups) - so we
might want to consider that there is a decent size non-technical user
following already that may feel left out with this direction (though it
sounds like perhaps the direction hasn't been previously defined).
* Bleeding edge technology
It might make more sense instead of saying there's no focus on bleeding
edge technology to clearly mark anything that's a technology preview as
such and include it with those caveats. That way, that newer
technology can be tested by those who want to do so, but they know that
they are essentially alpha- or beta- testing. (Of course, it could be
argued that those who do that should be using Factory instead of a
numbered release - and perhaps it will be.)
You could also read that non-focus as: We are not Fedora.
But I agree with your point that including newer technology as some kind
of labeled previews make sense, and of course sometimes new technology
is also the right way to go. But openSUSE's strategy should not be to
focus on always having the latest technology.
The key differentiator here would thus be that we might include new
technology if it makes sense, but the focus is on that ultimate usability
as a reference implementation for re-spins and for a technical audience.
Do you think that captures/restates the idea here?
Or put another way, "always" is the key here - as in "not always, but
perhaps sometimes, when it makes sense" - which would apply to the
examples I provided earlier, or also possibly the inclusion of XEN
virtualisation.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |