Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > "Other OS vendors" have a revenue stream to give a cut of in the form of > a patent license royalty. Not quite sure what you are expecting RHAT to > do about that wrt Fedora. You're telling me RHEL isn't making money? > Misrepresenting the actual goals of the project with your personal > preference as to what they should be is not arguing for change, it is > trying to bamboozle people. No misrepresentation here. I've laid out the logic very clearly -- Red Hat has a business decision to make about whether it (still) wants the desktop and what it's prepared to do to get it. It ties into a larger issue about what the Linux community needs to do to thrive under competitive pressure, which *is* a question for Fedora. > I don't see a single reason to accept your dramatic characterizations as > accurate. Well, I've been right about this sort of thing before, and I've continued to pay attention. You're living in an industry significantly shaped by the fact that I got some key market analysis right and then addressed the implied problem, and a lot of VCs and CEOs and investment bankers listen *very* respectfully when I talk. This doesn't make me infallible, of course, but it does mean betting that I'm wrong this time is not something to do casually. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
