On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 04:50 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote: > This thread has already forked down that road and died. I BEG you not > to rekindle that fire. See the thread "Re: Logo -- let's move on ... > the legal loophole of "Fedora(TM)" for Red Hat" for the whole > conversation. Yes, I dropped it after Patrick was the first person who actually addressed my statements, instead of assuming I was being argumentative. I just had an "epiphany" in the middle of the "hat discussion." I'm not going to comment further. And everyone needs to stop assuming I don't have a very deep chronology of Red Hat's history. E.g., from an old, work-in-progress FAQ (stopped writing last year): http://www.geocities.com/thebs413/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html http://www.geocities.com/thebs413/RH-Distribution-FAQ-4.html#ss4.3 That was based on my 1st hand experience of seeing many things. I'm also working on a book entitled "Linux Configuration Management" which focuses on FC/RHEL roll-outs. -- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
