On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 17:35 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:01:36 -0500 > "David G. Mackay" <mackay_d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No. I was thinking specifically of FC1. Since all of the succeeding > > Fedora releases build on each other, they are all, in that sense > > derived from RHEL and RH9. Of course, you could claim that > > everything for FC1 was conjured into existence independently, which > > would give a whole new meaning to "installation wizard". > > > > You have it wrong still. FC1 was literally RHL10 until the project > name changed. It was not built on top of anything RHEL, it was built > on top of RHL9. This thread has turned into a history lesson, and > that's too bad, because we're no where near the original point of this > topic. OK. I suppose things like gfs, which did migrate from RHEL to the kernel, and thus to Fedora are extremely rare. And yes, we've degenerated into discussing semantics. > > > Fedora doesn't have to be everything to every person. It doesn't > > > have to solve all the problems. There are perfectly viable > > > alternatives to Fedora, that are even based on Fedora, that solve > > > some problem spaces that Fedora itself just isn't interested in. > > > Duplication of effort is not fun for anybody. > > > > Oh, I don't know. Take a look at xen and kvm. Those of us that > > aren't down in the trenches for those stand to win either way. > > Not the same duplication I was talking about, but oh well. You do > bring up an interesting topic in Xen, in that what we have in Fedora > for Xen is a very sad case of dragging something forward. xensource > has no interest in tracking upstream kernel unlike Fedora, so we have > to continually forward port their release to newer kernels. Not Fun. > I wouldn't expect it to last for too many more releases (just my > opinion, nothing of authority here). May the best hypervisor win. Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
