Chris Jones wrote:
And there is nothing about the hostility to outside software.
I don't think it is so much hostility as ambivalence.
OK, if you describe fedora as 'user ambivalent', it at least makes the
need for ubuntu to exist very clear.
I prefer the original definition which was effectively 'non-OSS, binary
kernel blob and alike ambivalent' -
Which, once you understand the need for those items, translates pretty
clearly to user-hostile.
You may disagree but many people,
and I think Fedora in general, considers this to be good for the user,
in the long run.
Yes, I do disagree as I do in other cases where religious beliefs are
used to justify hostile actions as being 'good' for others. My own
belief is that the availability of an 'affordable' system (both in price
and effort to maintain) is much more important than 'free with
restrictions', and 'affordable' won't happen unless all parties cooperate.
Ubuntu takes a different view point on what is good for the user, which
seems to match yours better. I personally think we need both view
points, and trying to suggest Fedora should become more like Ubuntu is a
bad idea which will never happen.
I guess whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you'd like
more or fewer people to learn RH style administration vs. the
debian/ubuntu style. I have enough time invested in learning RH style
that I'd prefer not to start over.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
