On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 09:47 -0400, Dimi Paun wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 18:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > You are over over-dramatizing. This is not a place for enterprises to > > get technology guidance and nobody's personal opinions here is going > > to cost anyone untold millions. > > Give me a break. Alan is just not anybody, and neither is dwmw2, > and others in Red Hat. Also, we've just been told how Fedora is > essential to Red Hat's business strategy, and why we can't have > a Foundation. Which is fine by me, but this means you can not > have this 100% separation between Fedora and Red Hat, which is > conveniently waved whenever there are uncomfortable questions. Clarification: Administrative costs are far more of a important factor than business strategies in the decision to fold the foundation. Feel free to ask questions regardless of its comfort values. > > And please don't tell me there's no connection with RHEL. We > wouldn't have this conversation now if Evo would be maintained. > If you can maintain it for RHEL, I can't see why it will not > be maintained for Fedora. And if so, this discussion would be moot. > But since lots of RH people call for its immediate demise, it > can only mean that it's going to be dumped in RHEL as well. > > Dumping Evo now, after being pushed for years by RH, can not > be a Good Thing (TM). Artificially tying up this discussion to RHEL would be stifling up a open discussion on potential alternatives. RHEL customers have better channels to discuss their concerns. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
