On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 04:11:25PM -0500, William M. Quarles wrote:
Join us or we'll start reproducing your software in your place anyways. Does this not scream arrogance, bureacracy, and monopoly to anybody else? Does this not seem very Microsoft-ish? Can you actually expect
There's been a lot of discussion about this. The points the page makes are real, and declaring their answer "Microsoft-ish" isn't constructive. Do you have an alternate *solution*?
I think I have to agree with Mr. Quarles on this one. I don't like the tone of their page. If Fedora Core is supposed to be a community project, there should not be a centralized QA process for "acceptible" packages. The community will decide what works by process of natural selection.
No, they shouldn't be responsible for system stability if a 3rd party package breaks the system. Disclaiming responsibility is fine (and probably the appropraite thing to do). But undermining other repos by using conflicting naming systems IS "Microsoft-ish" (and thus utterly reprehensible) and they should be ashamed of themselves.
If fedora.us wants to start including packages that are already available from FreshRPMs, Dag, etc., they should work with these other repositories' maintainers and contributors. Linux is about collaboration. By trying to assert dominance and control over the community development process, they're only going to alienate users and developers.
I've removed them from my repo list just out of principle.
