XFree86 gone from Fedora Core? WHY!?

[William M. Quarles]

Scott Talbot wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 18:29, William M. Quarles wrote:
> 
>> Who made the not-very-bright decision of choosing X.org over
>> XFree86 for Fedora Core 2, and WHY?
>> 
>> I also LOVE (sorry, I was sarcastic, DESPISE) this item in the
>> Release Notes for FC 2: "This release is a merger of the previous
>> official X11R6 release, XFree86 4.4.0rc2, and additionally includes
>> a number of updates" 1. XFree86 4.4.0rc2 was not a release (hence
>> the rc, "release candidate")
> 
> 
> even Betas are releases because the authors release them.
> 

Uh, no they aren't, but let's agree to disagree and move on to more
important topics.

>> 2. It's not like XFree86 4.4 didn't come out.
> 
> Did you read the license? I thought not
> 

Yes, I have read it.  Have you read the rest of this thread?  I thought
not?  More like definitely not.  I'd appreciate it if you would do that
before saying anything else about the license, we've discussed it
thoroughly.

> 
>> 3. What is that made XFree86 no longer official?  Because some
>> corporate bubbleheads decided to get together, swipe another
>> organizations code and pose it as their own?  Please.
>> 
> 
> Corporate? no way! Bubbleheads? not for me to say.  In any event
> you'll find that none of the majors are releasing new distros with
> xfree86 due to the change in their license. You are free to download
> and install any software you choose though, it's your dime.
> 
> 
>> I thought Fedora Core was going to be less corporate and more open
>> now that Red Hat is no longer making Red Hat Linux.  Apparently
>> that isn't the case.  If things keep going this way, I'm going to
>> find another distribution.  I certainly am not going to "upgrade to
>> Fedora Core 2." Good luck to all of you braving the frontiers of
>> the 2.6 kernel, too.
>> 
>> Peace, William
> 
> 
> Red Hat never said that they intended to change anything and didn't
> stop making Red Hat (though they call it Enterprise)They are also
> legally responsible for Fedora, so expect them to be more circumspect
> than some other distros.
> 
> 

Red Hat Linux is a specific product that is no longer available.  Red
Hat (or it's founders) already made Red Hat (Inc.), they've been Red Hat
for like 12 years now.  Per several e-mails that I received from Red
Hat, Inc. (emphasis added):

> Dear giovanet,
> 
> Thank you for being a Red Hat Network customer.
> 
> This e-mail provides you with important information about the upcoming
> discontinuation of Red Hat Linux, and resources to assist you with your
> migration to another Red Hat solution.

> Dear Red Hat Linux user,
> 
> We are approaching the published **end of life** date for errata
> support for our **final Red Hat Linux distribution.**  We'd like to
> remind you of this date and the options available to you for
> migrating your Red Hat Linux implementations: Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux and the Fedora Project.

So yes, Red Hat Linux is gone.  Please stop incorrectly correcting me 
and go read the rest of the thread.  After that, I welcome further 
discussion on the topic, because I don't understand what all of the 
hooplah is about regarding the license.

Peace,
William