Unofficial RH-Distribution-FAQ -- WAS: Lurker Suggestion

[Bryan J. Smith]

I think I have to agree with Seth, beyond the legal issues, my
suggestion of retroactively calling currently supported Red Hat Linux
releases Fedora Core 0.x releases only confused people.

It also doesn't address the issues of "binary compatibility" between
"Commercial" and "Community" releases from Red Hat.  So instead of
trying to "change the world," I'm just starting to put together an
"Unofficial Red Hat Distribution FAQ."  So I'm looking for corrections.

The 2 things I have put into it thus far are:

A.  Suggestion for "commercial" v. "community" technical nomenclature  
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-2.html  

The reason for the first becomes obvious if you look at the second ...

B.  A listing of inter-release "binary" compatibility
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html  

Just some things I'm trying to document that I can point to in order to
"reduce the confusion" -- especially for people who trusted the "old Red
Hat Linux" model.

There's not much more in the FAQ yet, but here's the general outline I
was going with:  
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ.html  

I'm also interested in comments on / changes for my section "The
Technopolitical History" if anyone has any.  I want to make sure I'm
accurate while not causing Red Hat any legal headaches.


-- 
Time to switch: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/switch.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith                                   b.j.smith at ieee.org