On 1/21/06, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Your argument would be more convincing if you could point out > some directions that FC has taken that are more in the > community interest than in building the next RHEL. Can you? Define "community interest" This is NOT a monolithic community with a single set of opinions and a single non-overlap set of desires. There is no perfect solution that meets all desires. For every opinion I have.. there will undoubtable be someone else in the community who disagrees with my opinion. Does that mean my opinion doesn't count as "community interest" or that the other person's doesn't? But if you want an example of FC and RHEL differientiating. I will point out that the incremental switch-over to a yum based set of tools and infrastructure in Fedora which is not paralleled with RHEL and its current reliance on rhn to date. The tools aren't finished, it is an incremental improvement process... but I feel its most certaintly in the fedora community's interest to have a set of default tools which don't hook into the rhn-like client-server model. And someone will undoubtable disagree with my opinion.. proving my point about it being very difficult to define a simple definition of "community interest" by looking at vocal opinionated people. Would you also count the work going on with Kadischi as being an RHEL inspired subproject? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi I wouldn't. From where I'm sitting Kadischi is a very new development, where outside community are taking an active roll in its development and its direction. Has Kadischi born fruit in the form of an official fedora livecd yet.. no. But people in the community are working towards that goal.. a goal that is not clearly tied to the RHEL business model and appears to be generated in no small part by "community interest" and "community effort" -jef
