On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 12:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:39:42 -0500 > "David G. Mackay" <mackay_d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Why does this remind me of Pangloss in Candide? > > I have no idea what that means. I see that you've been updated on that already. > > And, I have been > > rather forcefully told on this list that Fedora stands alone. > > Perhaps it's a matter of context. It's no mystery that RHEL is a > derivative of Fedora, and that CentOS is a free rebuild of RHEL. To Last I heard, Fedora was a derivative of RHEL, and perhaps early on RH9. As I understand it, Red Hat expects Fedora to be an upstream provider. One of several. > think that they have nothing to do with the Fedora universe is just > plain silly. To think that they aren't valid alternatives when looking > for say a long term supported Fedora, or a build of Fedora with more > thought to backward compatibility is just ignorant (not in a mean way, > just in a "the person doesn't possess the information" kind of way). And, to think that you can discard functionality for the sake of staying on the cutting edge while improving the distro seems a bit short sighted. I would have thought that Fedora was trying to stake out their own "mind share". On the other hand, thanks for the mental image. It makes me wonder how many DVD isos are in the "Fedora Universe" install set, and where the torrent is. Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
