On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 04:31, Tim Kossack wrote: > Am Fr, den 06.02.2004 schrieb Nils Philippsen um 23:44: > > Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, not my employer's. Same disclaimer still applies. > > On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 17:51, Tim Kossack wrote: > > > (sorry for the long response) > > > i tried to verify your statement in looking what comes included with > > > rhws, but i couldn't gather any info if it ships with those plugs > > > installed. given red hat's general stance in regards shipping > > > non-oss/free legally questionable whatever software as part of their > > > products, quite frankly i would be very surprised if they do. > > > as far as the "apples to oranges"-comparison is concerned, my critics > > > was and is primarily aimed at their commercial desktop offerings - also, > > > as i already stated above, plugins are just one part of the problem. > > > reg. fedora, yes sure, i don't expect them to provide those plugs for > > > free, although if red hat would finally change their stance and just > > > license/include the stuff like lindows, suse, sun etc. do, i wouldn't > > > complain if they would include them for free in fedora either...;-) > > > it's just that i'm asking myself why they seem not interested at all to > > > tackle the issues (let alone seeing that there's one in the first > > > place), when their competition seems not having to have any problems > > > acknowledging and adressing them... > > > > I guess the point you are missing is that Red Hat is an Open Source > > Company. While we have shipped and do ship some proprietary stuff now > > (if I'm not off track, it's only Java, but we're working on the java > > issue as well), we (as in what I think, see disclaimer) have some > > problems with "oh let's put all that stuff in 'cause the others do it as > > well" -- probably we wouldn't be where we are today if we had done that
