On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 10:01 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > While your explanation of the birth of GNU/Linux is excellent, the above > paragraphs are a crock. As far as I know and recall, only a very small part > of the software market "used to have" those four freedoms. None of the > early Unix variants that I recall were either Free (capitalized to mean > open-source and with those freedoms) or free (with a price of zero). No > Apple or IBM software that I recall in the late 1970's and early 1980's was > Free or free. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single major > operating system or application at that time which was Free or free. Lots > of wonderful little shareware programs, but nothing major. I think that copyright only started being applied more or less near 1976 tn the fourth major revision of the U.S. Copyright Act, in anticipation of becoming a Berne convention signator. > So unless I am mistaken, the Four Freedoms of the GNU Project were not a > return to an earlier status quo, but rather a new and innovative way to > look at the software industry. Nothing wrong with that, of course... it's > just not the same story. > > > > 5. Does Redhat use the > > > same processes in "controlling" fedora quality and releases as it did > > > the free versions of Redhat? > > > >I think not, since they are interested in touting the advantages of > >their Enterprise line. > > Incorrect. Red Hat has more people working on Fedora now than they had > working on Red Hat Linux then. Plus, it would make no sense to have two > separate Quality Assurance processes. Hence, the answer is that yes, Red > Hat *does* use the same processes in search of quality assurance for Fedora > as they did for RHL. Only so far as they need it for RHEL. I don't think they apply the same process, although it might follow very similar task lists. RUui
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
