On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote:
1 and 5 seem to be about the same thing really. 2 and 3 are pretty close, since telnet/ftp/etc traditionally use ports < 1024 and are server apps. But generally I could accept all the above except for number 4. Number 4 is the one open to endless debate. And many people like gui server apps (see the whole redhat-config-* line of gui programs, the industry wide move to web based configuration, etc). Some will say that some of the apps you listed are not important, depreciated, or otherwise not of value to them. Others will insist something is of great use for server admin, even though no one else sees their point. Open to lots of debate here.
.. which is why we shouldn't go for this kind of separation, IMHO. It's a bit complex, and if the "server guys" are interested in higher QA, I'm sure they will participate more actively in QA'ing the server packages :)
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
