Reason for the change
seth vidal
skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Mon Jul 21 23:38:37 UTC 2003
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 19:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > don't have to be worried about losing value in Red Hat Linux...
> >
> > If Red Hat Linux is absolutely stable doesn't that cut into revenues for
> > RHEL?
>
> There are different kinds of "stable". Enterprise customers react in
> different ways
>
> "It's got seven window managers"
> Community: Cool! Enterprise: My god how will I support it
>
> "It comes with xbill"
>
> Community: Great Enterprise: how inappropriate
>
> "We are pushing gnome 2.4 updates"
>
> Community: Whoopeee Enteprise: Oh my god, what the hell!
And then where I'm from is something in between - academia would
probably say something like:
choice is good but we'll probably only install one for the
windowmanagers
They <shrug> to xbill.
and closer to 'is there a plan for a migration path from gnome 2.2 to
gnome 2.4 for users' for gnome 2.4 updates.
> > Also if people in the RHLP community wanted to extend errata lifespan on
> > their own for RHL - would red hat issue community-driven errata notices?
>
> Good question. It may be it would be better to formally hand it over. I
> don't think its something with an instant answer.
There has been an ongoing discussion with b/t certain universities about
doing just this. I'll keep an eye open for others discussing this.
> > Would community members be given access to vendorsec notices if they
> > were to be maintaining some package?
>
> vendor-sec membership is decided by vendor-sec not Red Hat. It has to trade
> the fact the more people know the more it leaks versus the desire to get
> stuff fixed. Currently membership is decided by a process of armwaving
> and consensus with existing members (which include SuSE, Debian, Openwall,
> FreeBSD etc)
>
> vendor-sec has to make that decision, Red Hat cannot do so.
good to know.
thanks
-sv
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list