On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 13:18 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > >> So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to > >> impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are > >> they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free > >> product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying > >> that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for > >> free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? > > > > Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued > > otherwise. > > Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support > > their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream > > kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. > > Fedora, support?? What's that? ..... Arghh. > > > FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on > > qemu-kvm and virt-*. > > I suppose working toward a linux binary standard that would actually > make it possible for 3rd parties to build programs that install and run > as expected on different distributions is too much to ask... As, > obviously, is asking for interface stability for more than a week at a > time so 3rd parties could specifically target the distribution's > nonstandard quirks in a useful way. ... I'd accept that - but there's a problem with your argument: VMWare already uses a rather wildly accepted binary distribution system (RPM). Problem is - their RPM's are poorly built... - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
