-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul, May I say that I completely agree with your appraisal of RH/Fedora. Could I just add that there is one other issue of paramount importance: accountability. The community still has no real leverage in change assurance. We do not yet have access to CVS to apply patches ourselves, and despite things being argued on lists etc, there is no control over veto, some of which is explicit, but much of which is implicit in that no action is taken. There is no recourse to arbitration in any case. I do not doubt that RH's control of architectural integrity is not only a good and necessary thing (indeed given the source of funding, it is only right), but I am not at all convinced the correct balance has been achieved. Unfortunately for us, this represents our greatest business risk. Distributions such as Ubuntu, where third-party derivatives is a core strategic component presently offer others much more influence in the finished product. The Fedora community needs to address this because RPM is still the packaging system par-excellence in my opinion. Alan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC85a4CfroLk4EZpkRAll+AJ0anI1rV5C7D7/zQoyYtLGeZk+c7gCggx20 bm9WaR+7lIffyEDNZv9P+B8= =yWLS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
