> > > 4) Red Hat/Fedora doesn't have any Alphas around? > > > > Well, a lot of us have one collecting dust in the closet (or acting as > > a stand for a Power Mac...) but I don't know that RH itself has any > > Alphas. > > And Red Hat shouldn't be the de-facto provider of your secondary hardware. > Part of the point here is that if we're going ot have these arches, there is > going to need to be a community keeping them going. The work and burden > shouldn't always fall back on Red Hat as it has in the past. We don't want > to be like the other distros that are pooping out arch support just so that > they can list something else on their webpage. If we're going to have an > arch, it needs to be a viable and active community who will be self > sufficient. We're providing the tools and software infrastructure to make > their arch happen, but they need to bring people and machines. Of course. There's not much point in spending lots of company time and resources on an architecture we're not selling, that's not really made anymore, and was really expensive when it was being made. I was replying more in the sense of: "I don't know about RH itself, but I'm sure lots of its engineers have an Alpha sitting around in the closet who might be interested in this and could press their machine into service if asked." That's all. - Chris -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
