On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 21:15 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > There was no "inception of Fedora project" > FC is a Red Hat Linux child, it has benefited a lot from this fact, > writing off all this history like this is very bad form. Interesting rewriting or re-interpretation of history, there. Are you implying that there is, was, or should be no difference between Fedora Core and it's predecessor, Red Hat Linux from the project/product perspective? Or that White Box Enterprise Linux had no inception because it is *also* a child of Red Hat Linux? Puh-leez. There most *certainly* *was* an inception of the Fedora Project. Or are you just playing semantic games? Honest question, there. > Some form of Red Hat Linux continuity was a very big unwritten Fedora > objective. Sez who? To paraphrase the bugzilla mantra (if it ain't in bugzilla, it doesn't exist): If it ain't written, it ain't an objective. It's a 'nice to have' but not a 'must have'. And as far as support goes for use in mission critical roles or any enterprise usage of it, it's basically this: you're on your own. If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. That doesn't happen often (arguably less than RHEL updates have caused in the past year or so), and we're all here on this list, I presume, to help make sure it doesn't happen often, but set your expectations accordingly. > And till recently (as lwn.net pointed out) there was precious > little of anything else going on (not that people weren't working hard > behind the scenes, but a large number of FC1/FC2/FC3 users weren't there > for the yet-to-happen extras repository) Eh? What exactly are you talking about? -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
