On Jan 31, 2008 11:44 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > >>> However, I see no evidence that this is > >>> intentional on the Fedora teams part. Nor do I see how it would > >>> benefit them from exhausting energy into blocking things. > >> Whether it is a benefit or not depends on the user experience they want > >> to generate. Who would it harm to provide instructions for installing > >> common and needed vendor-provide drivers, for example? Is it necessary > >> to be hostile to both your own users and the best hardware vendors, or > >> the company that invented java and wants to give it away? > > > > Instructions from say the community since Fedora is a community based > > distribution? > > * fedorasolved.org > > * fedoraunity.org > > If some entity in the community provided a repository containing, for > example, the Nvidia drivers that many users need, could said entity get > their repository configuration included in this "community based > distribution" to make installation automatic? You do realize, that Fedora cannot do this for legal reason. And doesn't do this as it goes against the core goal of Fedora in the first place. > > I think you're way offline with considering lack of support for this > > that you did not pay for with being hostile. > > And I think it is reasonable to compare it to other distributions like > ubuntu instead of just assuming that the hostility should push users to > the for-pay version conveniently provided by a related company. Right. Because redhat includes Nvidia, Skype and VMWare in their releases. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
