On Jan 30, 2008 8:09 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Chris Jones wrote: > >>>> But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to > >>>> install additional software which is why I have an operating system in > >>>> the first place. > >>> Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS > >>> software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly > >>> philosophical reasons against closed source. > >> My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the > >> additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly > >> about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or > >> its inability to provide stable interfaces. > > > > You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would > > be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide > > all repos in yum by default. > > OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break" > in every case where something that worked in one version does not work > in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who > just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work. Got any examples of that? -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
