Talk:Fedora Linux/Archive 2007

Merge

This is the basic plan for the merge:

Step 1: Move as much of Fedora Core into Fedora (Linux distribution).

Step 2: Once step 1 is complete redirect Fedora Core to Fedora (Linux distribution) and update the fedora disambiguation.

--Lwarf 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan. Once Fedora 7 is released, the two articles that make the most sense to have are "Fedora Project" and "Fedora (Linux Distribution".

"Fedora Core" and "Fedora Extras" articles should both redirect to "Fedora (Linux Distribution)". --24.199.152.59 05:15, March 15, 2007

Ok i've merged the two artcials, now what needs to be improved? --Lwarf 08:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

User:BillDeanCarter

Here are a few notable things I think are missing.

• There should be a section about the switch from Red Hat 9 to Fedora Core 1. The reasons for the discontinuation and the new project. All about the strict free software goals, wariness of projects like Mono, etc...
• Reviews of each of the distributions are available on the web, so you should quote them and point out the faults and acclaim each release received.
• You should look at the release notes, or an abridged version, and add more information to the sections for some of the Fedora Core releases.
• You should talk about the project manager of the project (Jeff Keating?)
• You should talk about Fedora's relation to Red Hat. There are Red Hat engineers working with this project, right?
• You should mention in more detail the small but notable controversy over how Fedora is in some ways Red Hat's testing grounds.
• The controversies on Novell splitting the MAC security system, but using their AppArmor.
• The Eric S. Raymond controversies are fun too.
• You should mention that committee or something where Novell, Red Hat, IBM, all pool their patents together to have a kind of IP protection.
• You should talk up Xen.
• You should talk up SELinux, and the engineers behind it. Dan Walsh, and others? Talk about how Dan has said that SELinux does not really work as a community project. It's a complex technology with deep hooks into the kernel. There are interesting points to be made here.
• Talk about the uber-security Fedora has. They have certain compiler flags that most distributions don't use. They do this and that. people really care about security, so this will be very important stuff to read.
• talk about the slow death of Fedora Legacy.
• talk about volunteers, their strengths here, their weaknesses there.

I commend you for tackling this very interesting and difficult article. I would really look at the journey Fedora Core has had since it switched over from Red Hat 9, and now moving into the all encompassing Fedora of 2007. It would be very cool to see this very technical distribution written so that both laymen and enthusiasts can take away some understanding. Best of luck.-BillDeanCarter 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:fafnir665

Removed the section about the PS3 from the Distributions section since it was hardware that the fedora distribution runs on, and not actually about a fedora distribution. Make a seperate entry for just hardware maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.196.85 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Failed GA

I see a lot of problems with this article. Firstly, almost all sections (specifically release history) are very short and stubby - providing very little in-depth information. The article lacks an overview of the features and functions of the OS and the release history and its subsections fail to give a concrete idea of how it evolved. Its genesis (from Red Hat) is poorly handled. It also lacks in references. Sorry, but I had to fail it. Good luck for the future. --soum (0_o) 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Free, as in speech

U know, Fedora is free software, unlike its counterpart Red Hat. With free software you can capture free images. I changed the image in the article with one from commons, alltough the comment say not to. The old image had an incorrect lisense tag anyway about Fedora being copyrighted. --AndersL 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But the image has a copyrighted logo in it, so it has to come under fair use. --Chris  G  12:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seens like the wikimedia Commons has no problem with it:

This screenshot either does not contain parts or visuals of copyrighted programs, or the author has released it under    
a free license (which should be indicated beneath this notice), and as such follows the licensing guidelines of 
Wikimedia Commons. You may use it freely according to its particular license.

Note: if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or 
graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately. 

--AndersL 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very touch and go, but I doubt we will get sued for just having a copyrighted logo in free software anyway it still comes under fair-use. --Chris  G  08:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

From Fedora_Core#Fedora_Core_6: "Fedora has said Zod is superior to Fedora Core 5.". Really ?! --RadetzkyVonRadetz 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS3 spin, in FC 7 a ps3 "spin" is in develpment. nothing about the ps3 is mentioned in this article. like 99% of people who read this article are trying to install linux on their ps3.

I've added Use on Sony's PlayStation 3 section. --Chris  G  07:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review (2nd Nom)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

After reviewing this article, it looks to be a good start, but there are just too many problems with the article for me to pass it, or even put it on hold. Here are some of the most pressing problems:

1. I'm a bit confused as to why Fedora7bluecurve.png has a non-free license as opposed to the other images. I'm not too savvy on Linux licenses, so if there's an explanation for this disparity, please feel free to give me a good whacking with the education stick. Fedora 7 Desktop.png, however, is under the free license.
2. The lead needs to conform with WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to summarize all the major points made in the article itself, which, in this article, would mean that it should be at least two, maybe three, paragraphs long.
3. The biggest problem, however, is the large amount of material that lacks in-line citations. In this article, it would actually take me less space to mention which sections ARE cited than which ones are not, but there are entire sections that lack even a single citation. Since little, if any, of this article can be considered "common knowledge," nearly everything, especially the more specific details, will require a citation.
4. It really seems like this article has some problems stating the obvious and being accessible to people unfamiliar with the article. Maybe I need to read it more carefully, but it seems like, unless you happen to sort of know what's going on already, this article wouldn't be very accessible to the average reader. It might be helpful to include a sub-section in the "overview" section to state the obvious and explain a few terms so that people reading this article can "catch up," so to speak.
5. Some of the smaller sub-sections might do well to be combined. For example, since the first three cores are no longer maintained by the project, it may be better to combine them under one heading with two or three paragraphs, with a name like "First Three Cores," "Fedora Cores 1, 2 and 3," "Cores no longer maintained by the Fedora Project" etc. etc. Another example, the different repositories do not need their own sub-sections under the main "Software repositories" section. Same with the "Security features" section.

These are just the most pressing issues and the ones which make me think that this page will require more work than a seven day hold could do justice to. The first thing that this article needs is a full compliment of in-line citations. Then, I would suggest that the next goal would be to clean the article up per WP:MoS. Doing this, and perhaps some stating of the obvious, would make it more eligible for consideration in a future nomination, where it might be reviewed in even more detail and some concerns of lesser import may be discovered. Thank you for your work thusfar. Cheers, CP 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-GA Review

Per a request, I did a quick skim of the article to see what needed to be improved and what had already been satisfied from my points above. This review is somewhat cursory and informal, but hopefully it will help a bit. As mentioned, the image issue has been resolved. The lead still needs to summarize the entire body of the article, as per my suggestion above. Citations are still a big problem but, as it seems that some have been added, I can be more specific:

1. Third paragraph of "History"
2. The entire "Distribution" section
3. The statement with the "citation needed" tag under "Software repositories" (obvious, but no harm in putting everything in one place)
4. The second half of "Security features"
5. The "Releases" section needs more citations — I've gone over that section and, if I'm not mistaken, I think I can safely say that every paragraph should end with a citation, since it's all technical specifications that are not expanded upon in the following paragraphs.
6. Anything under "Fedora-based Distributions" that does not have its own Wikipedia article.

There are some problems with one-two sentence paragraphs. Paragraphs should be three sentences (at a minimum) and smaller ones should either be merged with surrounding paragraphs or expanded. This is most noticeable under the "Releases" section. "Fedora 8" could use more content in order to stand on its own as a sub-section. If none is available before the public release, it might be helpful to hold before renominating this article for GA class until more information becomes available, since some reviewers are very picky about future events. The article could still use a "stating the obvious" section but it's sort of hard to tell on my second review since I've already read it once, so it makes a lot more sense in the second read. A fresh pair of non-specialist eyes could help here.

Since this was cursory and informal, I haven't checked for some of the minor issues (grammar, punctuation, prose flow etc.), but if everything above were taken care of, there should be no reason to immediately fail another GA nomination (although it would likely be put on hold to allow for minor changes). Hopefully this helped! Cheers, CP 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ERROR in BlankOn as derivative work

According to it's website, BlankOn is not based on Fedora project, but Ubuntu. http://cdimage.blankonlinux.or.id/ 209.10.209.56 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know - I've removed it from the list. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fedora 8 screenshot

Can we get a desktop screenshot in english? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bureau_GNOME_Fedora_8.png Thanks ccwaters 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to try and take one earlier when I booted up the Live CD, but didn't get chance I'm afraid. If I remember, I'll do it some time within the next few days (unless someone else wants / can do it before then). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just a stand-in until we can get a more suitable one, but I'm upgrading my machine to 8 in the next couple of days (probably today or tomorrow) and I'll get one then. Shadow1 (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an installed default desktop would be preferred over a live CD desktop... This is what I uploaded for Ubuntu Image:Ubuntu-7.10-default-screenshot-800x600.png or Image:Ubuntu-7.10-default-screenshot-1280x1024.png. ccwaters 14:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a desktop image on the Fedora home page. Could we use that? http://fedoraproject.org/static/images/screenshots/default-desktop.png ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be fine, one of the FC 6 images came from their web site(i think), the whole GNU software thing clears up all the image copyright issues. --Chris 12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded it as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fedora_8_GNOME.png. Can someone check the licensing on it is correct? It is probably a candidate for moving to Commons but I don't have an account there and would have been too much hassle to do it now :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded my own Image to commons to avoid an copyright things from the other Image. --Chris 09:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)