Re: RH and GNOME
> So far, Red Hat as been pretty consistent about licensing everything
> with GNU's GPL. Considering some of the recent discussions here, they
> might even be more solidly in support of GNU's GPL than we are.
Are you mad? RedHat doesn't even acknowledge the GNU component of their
system. `RedHat Linux', not `Gnu Linux'.
I trust RedHat about as far as I can spit, and not that far.
> Personally, I'd like to see us working more closely with Red Hat.
> But to do that, we'd need to come up with a package management system
> that could work with packages from either system. At the moment that
> would mean dpkg being able to install both deb and rpm, transparently
> (getting this to work would be easy compared to the prerequisite of
> understanding dpkg as a whole and addressing its bugs and inefficiencies).
> Of course, maybe Bruce will solve this by trumping both of us.
I like the way someone else said it best... (Whoevers quote this is, I
hope you don't mind me using it :) `The day RedHat switches to dpkg is the
day we have a unifyed package format'.
> The strength of Linux is that we're a free software community.
> That means the competition is non-free software, not free software.
> Red Hat is on our side, I believe. So is Cygnus. So is FSF.
RedHat, being a commercial company with interests ranging only in making
money (And to do this, they have to maintain their reputation -- which is
why they want to come off as benifiting the free software community), is
on no-ones side but their own.
> For that matter, even non-free outfits (Corel, Caldera, Sun, Microsoft,
> etc.) can be on our side, though obviously some are much more helpful
> than others. [But that's another rather involved thread.]
You -must- be joking.
> I think we should make a deliberate effort to adopt their standards.
> And, when their standards are inadequate, get them to adopt ours, or
> at least document the issues (yes, the whole package management issue
> is hard, so that's just a "todo", not something that we have to
> do right now).
They have corrupt standards - They have an utterly different goal than
Debian - They want people to think that they must pay for Linux - Infact,
buy their version of Linux. They want to make a profit, in the standard
commercial way... but Debian is different, which is why it has the
devotion of this dragoness -- Debian has -ethics-, it has -goals-, and it
promotes -freedom-. Debian does what it does to benifit the world as a
whole. RedHat only cares about RedHat.
> I don't see Red Hat as a threat.
Betcha said the same thing about Microsoft when they released Xenix. ;>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com