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

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:16:27PM -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> 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.

Just a feedback datapoint: I very much like the work you have done. It
puts the versioning mess of RHL/RHEL/FC in a very nice comparative
table, making it possible to get an overview. :)

Is your implicit suggestion to get this nomenclature well known and
start versioning on this "technical" nomenclature instead of the
"marketing" nomenclature? Personally I would very much like to see
this plan work out, but there will probably be political barriers to
this.

> 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.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040822/9bd3d2ed/attachment.sig>