On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:24:15 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 16:28 -0400, Beartooth wrote: >> http://www.washington.edu/alpine/ announces : [....] >> IANAL, nor a programmer, and can't tell whether things that sound very >> similar to me are functionally equivalent; hence the following Very >> Dumb Question, i.e., and to wit : Does this news mean that Fedora will >> be able to start including Alpine, as RedHat used to include Pine? > > Given that Apache httpd 2.2 as distributed in FC5 is licensed under > exactly that license, I don't see any reason why Alpine shouldn't show > up in Extras, should someone offer to maintain it. Well, iiuc what I see at http://staff.washington.edu/corey/pine-stats/ there are something on the order of thirty million Pine users, with a plurality of us under linux of one distro or another. (This info and some interesting comment comes from a reply by Mark Crispin to a post of mine, called "Is there an estimate of Pine users?" on comp.mail.pine a little while ago.) Do we know how many Fedora users there are, or what share of linux users run Fedora? I'm thinking we may have grounds to request inclusion of Alpine right into the Core, if a maintainer is willing. I don't normally try to claim the attention of developers' lists, and don't know where the FedoraMasters would ask, but I'll give odds that someone available, capable, and willing will turn up -- if there isn't one already in place. Much to my delight and satisfaction, upgrading and installing seem already to get easier and safer with each new release. They would benefit solidly from having a Pine-Ersatz (or more likely an improvement, if fifteen years' use has given me any sense at all of what to expect from the PineMasters at UW)in there as a default. -- Beartooth Staffwright, Wordcrafty Squirreler FC5; Pine 4.64, Pan 0.14.2.91; Privoxy 3.0.3; CXO 5.0.1 Dillo 0.8.5, Opera 9.0, Firefox 1.5, Galeon 2.0.1 Remember I have little idea what I am talking about.