Cipe?

[Steve Bergman]

On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 07:30, William Hooper wrote:
> Steve Bergman said:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >

> I must have missed the "be compatible with RHEL" on the objectives page. 
> Could you point that out to me?
> 

Good point.  It is not addressed directly in any way.  Considering that
there is clear potential for conflict of interest, perhaps the issue of
compatibility with RHEL should be explicitly addressed.  Please note
that I am not making any accusations here.  Far from it; RedHat is doing
a great job of walking the line.  But it is an issue that should be
addressed clearly from the start.  FWIW, here are the items from the
objectives page that seem to at least dance around the issue a bit:

6. Emphasize usability and a "just works" philosophy in selecting
default configuration and designing features.

(CIPE, the protocol that FC1 users and RHL migrators would be using
doesn't "just work".  I agree that users' moving to ipsec should be
strongly encouraged.  But I disagree that it should be sprung upon them
with no warning or transition period.)

7. Promote rapid adoption of new releases by maintaining easy
upgradeability, with minimal disturbances to configuration changes.

(I'd call redoing both ends of all your servers' VPN connections,
without notice, more than a "minimal disturbance".)

13. Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially supported operating system
products.

(I would call this a suggestion of compatibility.  True, it doesn't
actually say so in so many words, but it implies it.  So if
compatibility is not really a goal, this is all the more reason to state
it clearly as a nonobjective.)

A corporate mix of RHEL servers and FC desktops seems like a very
obvious and attractive combo.  So FC's stance on compatibility is likely
to generate either a lot of joy or a lot of tears, depending. 

-Steve