Why do I need isdn4k-utils

Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz at simpaticus.com
Fri Jan 14 18:49:49 UTC 2005


On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:55 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
> This isn't the right trade-off for everyone. But it will make Free
> Software more accessible to a large proportion of people, and make it a
> more financially attractive proposition for the corporate desktop.
> 

On a percentage basis, the number of people using ISDN lines is very
small. Your argument is quite sound and well-reasoned, and I find a lot
of value in it. However, note that it is far more applicable to the
kernel modules than for isdn4k-utils, which is the subject directly at
hand here.

There's also the issue of which package group holds isdn4k-utils (again,
in this specific example). If it's in the desktop set of packages, then
your argument holds more water (although I still don't buy it... see my
response to Matt just a minute or two ago). But in the minimal package
set, I believe that isdn4k-utils is *definitely* not needed.

Cheers,

-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz at simpaticus.com>




More information about the fedora-list mailing list