On Wednesday 11 August 2010 19:00:45 Charles Wight wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:19 -0500, Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 09:32 +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Today we continue with public discussions about strategy proposals, this time with the "Status quo" strategy proposal:
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
== Statement ==
We deliver a well-balanced GNU/Linux platform for modern computers (workstation, laptop, netbook, server) that equally appeals to end users, power users, developers and server/network infrastructure administrators. It shall protrude professionally and let the user be productive.
== Background ==
This strategy tries to quantify what we tried to do in the past — as it was not written down earlier.
So, this is what most users expect from openSUSE today, but does not give a vision for change looking forward.
In the context of other distributions, we differentiate ourselves from Ubuntu targeting the newbie and further differentiate from Fedora being experimental bleeding edge — instead we pick "the middle ground".
== Key ideas ==
* Creation of a general purpose distribution that ** anyone can use without too much effort ** is known for good quality (stable and usable but neither outdated nor bleeding edge) ** has good and sane defaults so the user can do what s/he wants to do ** has programs that work out of the box ** focused on modern hardware and their use cases (workstations, laptops, netbooks and servers) ** is targeted towards end users, but is reasonably equally usable for other workloads * Critical analysis of hyped items before inclusion
== Activities ==
=== We need to be excellent in the following ===
* Do as we always did! That is, ** good compromise between actuality and stability ** agreeable release cycle of 8 months ** support for the three most recent releases * Supporting our target customers ** End users: *** Delivering multiple desktops, focusing on both GNOME and KDE *** Focus on providing tools for being productive and creative (IDEs, editors, authoring tools, graphics manipulation, office productivity, etc.) ** Developers: *** Development environments for especially C, C++, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby: IDEs, tools and support libraries ** Power users and system administrators: *** Providing admin tools that are powerful yet (reasonably) easy *** Agreeable command line experience *** Virtualization technique, e.g. KVM, Xen *** Standard networking services * Continue the naturally growth of openSUSE:Factory by incorporating contributors' submissions.
Hello All,
Please excuse me if I'm late to the party and a little out of context.
I would like to see a section that specifically identifies the elements of the core operating system (kernel,udev,package managment) that must be rock solid. And honestly, that is THE reason I subscribed to this group.
I originally choose to use SuSE back in 2000 because it was rock solid, well integrated, and worked with most hardware. These are the key reasons I kept using SuSE, privately and professionally, even though I never used KDE and gnome has often been a weak spot for SuSE. I think the core qualities of OpenSUSE have slipped since the 10.3 release. I would REALLY like to see a release that re-focuses on those core qualities (once identified) above all else. IMO, until some of the lingering items from the last several releases are clearly identified and solved, until the core qualities that made SuSE a great product to begin with are rediscovered, until a succinct and specific set of features that define the OpenSUSE OS are identified and perfected, goals such as "has programs that work out of the box" won't get me or the folks coding the next release overly enthused.
I don't know who participates in this group. How about a definition of OpenSUSE that looks like it was written by engineers and conveys a defacto set of requirements with a force that marketing phrases can't begin to conjure?
Is OpenSUSE suffering some kind of corporate "identity crisis"?
Good question, and imho, yes, to some extend it does. Some people feel it should focus more on newbies; others prefer a focus on powerusers. Some say - we should shorten the release cycle. Others want long(er) term support. Some want more up-to-date packages. Others ask for more stability. Somehow we have to define an answer to those questions, define where we stand and what we want. Seeing how popular some options seem to be, imho this proposal, the poweruser one and the focus on developer all seem to point in the right direction.
Why would OpenSUSE want to define itself in terms resembling "somewhere in-between Ubuntu and Red Hat"
Agreed, we need our own story, not a 'we're inbetween that and that distro'. But looking at the users they target can at least make clear where we are different. Fedora focusses strongly on the 'I want the latest, shineyest things' people. Ubuntu goes for anyone who knows little about computers and doesn't want to put in efforts. openSUSE imho seems to focus currently more on what you could call a productive poweruser - somebody who is capable and interested in finding out how something works. But at the same time doesn't want to WASTE time - things should work out of the box, but offer flexibility and configuratiblity where needed. Such a person is often developer or system admin, but could also just be a dude or girl who reads computer magazines and is interested in technology in general. Or somebody who works in an office and sits behind a computer all day. Neither Fedora nor Ubuntu cater to those people - either by being too unstable or by dumbing things down to the point where the poweruser is limited in what he/she can do. We can enable these people, and imho that is the path we as community are on - and we should continue to go there. Opinions very much welcome :D
Cheers!
Charles Wight