Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Not quite: RH is dictating and seem to expect all others to swallow. There are some differences from this sentence which can fairly be applied to MSFT and applying it to RHAT though. RHAT gave out all the pieces and sources needed to pick up package maintainence. > What I say: OSS projects are give and take. If what others give (here: > RH) is non-interesting from an individual's perspective (here: me, rsp. > those who want FC3 to be continued), the whole project becomes > non-interesting to an individual. Is that actually true that Fedora's value to you is contingent on RHAT specifically continuing to provide security coverage? I guess it comes down to security coverage FC4 is the 'later' version of FC3 apps already (KDE 3.5, etc). For servers that make me feel that bad about dist-updating them I use CentOS. > The question to me are: How much about RH's work is "community oriented" > and how much about RH's work wouldn't have be done if Fedora wasn't > "community oriented", and how much about Fedora is a marketing hype? > In case you don't know: I maintain ca. 50 packages in FE and reviewed > many others. > C.f. above - I am "demanding", because "I gave". Hum, what is your concept for RHAT's relationship to FC3 then, in terms of what should be? Just asking to understand. RHAT seem to be saying that Legacy can come up to the same standard as internal security coverage, and if it's true then is there still a problem? -Andy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
