On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 10:13 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 10:20 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > I won't say use 108 b/c: > > 1. 108 is not open source > > s/108/SourceForge/ You won't see me arguing for sf, either. So the above point is moot. > > And unlike SF, the people behind 108 (me, Red Hat, etc.) are in favor of > a 100% FLOSS solution. We just couldn't find one for the > time-to-market. Also nice to have a managed hosting provider, with that > same time-to-market. I think I'll believe it when I see it. We've been waiting on lots of things that red hat has 'promised' to make open source and yet somehow has found reasons not to release *cough* brew, distill *cough* > Not if you already have a redhat.com account, which many people either > have already or will want. which is nice but I already have a fedora account. I'd prefer to use it. -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
