jdow wrote: > You're not listening, Rahul. That leads me to wonder just who constitutes > the community that does the influences Fedora policies. I guess folks on > this list are basically peons who are not part of the "community" or at > least we're not as equal as other members. If you look at what you're asking it boils down to asking some guys paid by Redhat to spend time and effort they could spend elsewhere continuing to give their high quality security coverage to what is now an older OS, for free. I have a remote server that is FC3, it came with FC3 and the only other choice was Windows, so I am motivated to want security coverage... but... before we huff and puff about 'community' we have to realize we are demanding their work for free in such a case. Redhat can just as easily say, "look, we give you all this great stuff for free and we want the 'community' in the form of the Legacy project to chip in now so we can go on with new stuff". > We're aware of the policy. We disagree with it. And we're agitating for > a change. It appears to affect John directly. It won't affect me until > 6 test 2. But I expect I'll get plenty annoyed at that time. And if the > annoyance is big enough I can go for some honest autocracy and setup > with FreeBSD. Yeah well this is a valid choice... the 'Fedora deal' is that we get high quality, up to date stuff, but we have to be on the dist-upgrade treadmill. If that deal doesn't suit your situation (I sure wish I had CentOS on that server instead of Fedora, but it wasn't a choice) then do consider to move. CentOS makes most sense for many Fedora people in situations where they can't be keeping up with the schedule, since it basically is Fedora with wisdom teeth, but OSS is all about using whatever is going to work for you, not for some particular supplier. > (And maybe lose some of the GPL encumbrance problems.) I didn't really understand what you meant by this. -Andy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
