On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 17:56, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> >Please explain how making an image available that runs under
> >the free vmplayer 'supports' proprietary software any more
> >than making an iso image available 'supports' CD and
> >media manufacturers.
> >
> Pretty simple. Vmware is proprietary software.
No argument there. But, you aren't providing or supporting
it by providing an image that can run under it. You would
be supporting your users that would find that option useful.
> ISO images and hardware that use them are not.
What? An image is an image. It's just a fedora distribution
in a different format.
> >And more to the point, how does
> >this relate to being community oriented, which I thought
> >was the topic at hand? Was it a community choice to not support any proprietary software (in whatever way you see
> >this as support)? I don't see how this choice helps anyone.
> >
> >
> It is not but the project also serves other goals. No matter how many
> people ask for it, Fedora project will continue to support only legally
> unencumbered Free and open source software.
Well, now we are back to square one. You can't say "community
oriented" and "no matter how many people ask for it" at the
same time and make any sense.
> Sure. There are already VMWare images for FC5 test versions. You can
> google them. I merely said that the project by itself wouldnt support it.
I wasn't able to find any when I tried a couple of days ago. Sure,
anyone can do this, but wouldn't it be a good idea for someone
who cared about promoting the project to make sure it actually
works and is kept up to date. In fact if such a person had
done it with FC5 test1 he would have noticed that it didn't
work right and might have been able to get it fixed before the
iso image release.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
