seth vidal wrote: > 4. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of companies that would > rather have a corporation behind their support mechanisms than trust > their internal staff and an open-source-no-company-backing product like > yum or apt-rpm. True. > In response the rpm stuff - well at some level you can say rpm is > already difficult to understand. ;) However, rpm is part of the LSB, > many distros and non-linux oses use rpm. I think it would be a fast > track to a fork if red hat wanted to do something like that. However, > from what I've seen the people in charge of red hat "get it" and > wouldn't want to do that. But shareholders can be a tricky lot to obey. AFAIK, rpm has already forked. Last time I checked, SuSE uses a modified version of rpm v3.x in their latest version. I don't know if Red Hat and SuSE rpms will every converge again. I have no idea what version of rpm Connectiva, Caldera, and Turbolinux use, but it is likely to be the SuSE version because of UnitedLinux. I also don't know about Mandrake or other RPM based distros. But, none of this is of any concern as far as yum and Red Hat goes. Anyway, thanks for your quick and thoughtful response. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Wake up, baby, cause I'm coming to you from the future -- D Wyndorf Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
