On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 10:48 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 19:40 +0100, David Nielsen wrote: > > > > I'm partial to just "Fedora" it's easy to say, easy to remember and once > > someone gets the idea that porting the Fedora base system to say the > > OpenSolaris kernel (and you just know someone will do that at some point > > for no other reason that. we can) it does not impose the Linux name. > > Besides I was never a big fan of "Linux this and Linux that" naming > > schemes, I run Fedora with the Fedora Desktop on top of it - currently > > that just happens to be based on Linux and GNOME. > > I just have the opinion that 'Fedora' it self is too vague. It covers > the content, the project, the foundation, etc... When trying to define > what the distribution itself is, then you have to be a bit more > descriptive. Fedora Core was fine until things like Extras come up, > especially when Extras will be available in the installer. The same issue has come up in documentation - we refer to the OS on the reader's computer as "Fedora", because it isn't strictly Fedora Core and there isn't another agreed term, but it's not ideal. I agree that Fedora Linux may cause future problems. "Fedora System" or "Fedora Distribution" don't sound quite right to me as formal terms, though. -- Stuart Ellis stuart@xxxxxxxx Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ GPG key ID: 7098ABEA GPG key fingerprint: 68B0 E291 FB19 C845 E60E 9569 292E E365 7098 ABEA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
