On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 20:25 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:34, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > > > > Pretty simple. Vmware is proprietary software. > > > > > > No argument there. But, you aren't providing or supporting > > > it by providing an image that can run under it. You would > > > be supporting your users that would find that option useful. > > > > It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Fedora Core > > specifically targets a proprietary piece of software that virtualizes > > a machine and sets out to run Fedora Core under that proprietary > > software, then Fedora Core is *supporting* that proprietary software. > > I disagree. A virtual machine is no more proprietary than a > physical machine. Do we have any complaints about running > under any particular physical machine? I'm not asking for > any changes to fedora to tie it to the virtual configuration > and I'd agree that would be inappropriate. However as long > as you can do a backup of the system and restore to a physical > machine just as you can between 2 physical machines I don't > see any 'specific targeting' involved. I just think > that someone who understands fedora and would like to promote > its use could do a better job of building and maintaining > the image than an outsider - and that such an image would > greatly improve a user's first experience. Maybe there isn't > any such person, though. > A virtual machine on VMware certainly is proprietary. It provides a virtual interface to the physical hardware and who knows if the interface is perfect (only the vendor). As has already been said. Testing in a virtual environment is not a true test of how the release will perform with the hardware, since it never touches the hardware. An OS that works perfectly in a virtual environment may break as soon as it is installed on the real thing. Alternatively, it may have bugs in the virtual environment that are introduced by the virtual machine and that do not exist when testing on the real hardware. An OS must be targeted for where it will be used -- the real physical hardware. > > Mike, you're smarter than this. I know it, I've seen it. Give up this crusade. > > I'll give up when I'm convinced that I've presented the > point in an understandable way. So far no one has responded > in a way that makes me think they have any consideration > for an end user at all. How about this approach: do > you want to control the first impression a lot of people > will have or not? VMware images will almost certainly be > made. Let's assume they'll be done badly and not maintained. > Would, for example, the FC5 test1 install with video that > is partly doubled and out-of-sync looking be a good thing > for new users to find as their first test drive? If the > image building is left to disinterested outsiders or perhaps > even people with a vested interest in other distributions, that > is very likely to happen. > I seriously doubt any user that is test driving Linux for the first time is likely to go out and grab a FC5T1 or even FC5T2 release. It is clearly stated what those are and any _new_ user will go with the tried-and-true FC4 release that has been around for some time and has had most of the problems triaged out. An experienced Linux user who wants to see what is new/different/better in FC5 and how it compares to what he is using now will do the testing. Your argument that this is a problem for new users does not hold water here Mike. > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx > >
