On Mon, Jul 27, 1998 at 05:42:18PM -0400, Justin Maurer wrote: > > hahaha I thought we'd likely go from 2.1 to 3.0 considering the major > > changes to Linux by January... > > well, i don't really see what would warrant the big jump. 2.2 and FHS > support would be the only things i can think of, unless we had GNOME > going... 2.2, gnome, FHS, possible ftp site restructure, multiple boot image support on install media which will fit it (ie, multi-floppy images on CD-ROM or on zip disk (which I'm working on myself) or similar), possible LSB and unix98 compliance with it, possible GGI which is coming together quickly now, maybe even devfs in the kernel? Then of course there are ideas being talked about like multi-machine installations, linuxconfig/coas or something better inspired by both, the death of smail as an "important package" and replacement at least exim if vmailer isn't stable ..... There's LOTS we'd like to do. We won't get it all done for slink. Slink is really an attempt just to meet a deadline. Most of this stuff won't be ready by then---or if it is, no promises it'd be stable yet. When any fair amount of it's done, it's really time for 3.0... => > i think all the archs should be released simultaneously starting the > release after slink (i.e, "rc", if i have my way). that is, assuming they > aren't with slink... This is a good thing. I am really wanting a PPC box. > interestingly enough, Harmony and QTK are both advancing rather quickly... I know what harmony is, qtk is another free qt? thing is, what does it matter if the KDE people don't want to use a free qt? RIght now they have a license NIGHTMARE. If they want to use qt, they have a substantial amount of code that they can't use with KDE because qt is not able to be used under the same terms as the GPL.. Note not under the GPL, but under the same terms. Many licenses fit the same terms, qt doesn't. Whether or not using qt is Right or Wrong, it's a mess in the legal sense.
Attachment:
pgprL_NdZ6S81.pgp
Description: PGP signature