Fedora not "free" enough for GNU?

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 15:29 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> I'm very surprised this meets so much resistence.  Even if my way of
> presenting the suggestions causes strong antagonistic reactions, one
> would think the stated goals of the project would eventually prevail
> and dominate the feelings the things I write seem to evoke.
> 
> But they don't, and I can't quite understand why.

Partly because statements like "But they don't, and I can't quite
understand why" makes you sound like you have a phenomenal persecution
complex, which triggers the crazy-person filter.  Particularly when
you're addressing a problem that is not universally agreed to be a
problem at all.  (Please don't take this as an invitation to try to
convince me.)

But, now for a real technical objection:

atropine:~% uname -a
Linux atropine 2.6.27-0.314.rc5.git9.fc10.i686 #1 SMP Sun Sep 7 20:57:41
EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
atropine:~% modinfo -F firmware aic7xxx | wc -l
0

Apparently there is still not yet a reliable way to determine firmware
requirements for modules that you may need to load to mount the root
filesystem.  It would be really nice to have that, so we can build an
initramfs that will, you know, boot.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080922/809650f4/attachment.sig>