Fedora Core 3 Transferred to Fedora Legacy

Rahul Sundaram sundaram at redhat.com
Mon Jan 23 03:35:48 UTC 2006


Les Mikesell wrote:

>On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 20:31, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>I disagree.  A virtual machine is no more proprietary than a
>>>physical machine.  Do we have any complaints about running
>>>under any particular physical machine? 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>A physical machine might not require proprietary drivers or software to 
>>support it. A proprietary vm image requires a proprietary software to 
>>support it. See the difference now?
>>    
>>
>
>No, not as long as you can backup/restore a working system between
>them.  Hmmm, maybe the way to resolve the conceptual difference
>would be for a 'fedora expert' to provide a tar image of what
>they would like a new user to experience, and let someone
>else drop that into a runnable vmware image. (See the 'no
>difference' now?)  The expertise of the installer/maintainer
>is what I'd really like to have made available to the end user.
>The vmplayer platform is just a handy mechanism that is
>going to be used whether anyone likes it or not.  The only
>question is how well it will be done.
>  
>
Can you or can you not use the VMware image without VMWare player? . If 
it cannot be used with a proprietary application then the vmware image 
is proprietary. It might be available for gratis or you might able to 
backup or redistribute it even but as long as the content in the image 
is unusable without a proprietary application it is definitely a 
proprietary piece of software. Thats the best I can explain it. I am not 
sure anybody here is going to support your argument that somehow VMWare 
images are non proprietary.  I will drop this discussion here since I 
dont have anything further to explain on this particular issue. Thanks

-- 
Rahul 

Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers




More information about the fedora-list mailing list