radical suggestion for fc4 release

Paul Iadonisi pri.rhl3 at iadonisi.to
Tue Feb 1 20:33:16 UTC 2005

On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 21:15 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> There was no "inception of Fedora project"
> FC is a Red Hat Linux child, it has benefited a lot from this fact,
> writing off all this history like this is very bad form.

  Interesting rewriting or re-interpretation of history, there.  Are you
implying that there is, was, or should be no difference between Fedora
Core and it's predecessor, Red Hat Linux from the project/product
perspective?  Or that White Box Enterprise Linux had no inception
because it is *also* a child of Red Hat Linux?

  Puh-leez.  There most *certainly* *was* an inception of the Fedora

  Or are you just playing semantic games?  Honest question, there.

> Some form of Red Hat Linux continuity was a very big unwritten Fedora
> objective.

  Sez who?  To paraphrase the bugzilla mantra (if it ain't in bugzilla,
it doesn't exist): If it ain't written, it ain't an objective.  It's a
'nice to have' but not a 'must have'.  And as far as support goes for
use in mission critical roles or any enterprise usage of it, it's
basically this: you're on your own.  If it breaks, you get to keep both
pieces.  That doesn't happen often (arguably less than RHEL updates have
caused in the past year or so), and we're all here on this list, I
presume, to help make sure it doesn't happen often, but set your
expectations accordingly.

>  And till recently (as lwn.net pointed out) there was precious
> little of anything else going on (not that people weren't working hard
> behind the scenes, but a large number of FC1/FC2/FC3 users weren't there
> for the yet-to-happen extras repository)

  Eh?  What exactly are you talking about?

-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list