Eric Wood wrote:
Havoc Pennington wrote:
>has none of the guarantees of a commercial product; but also, it
>should have more packages and be more up to date than RHL was. RHEL has
>guarantees and features much more in line with what people traditionally
>expect from an OS
It would be interesting to here from some 3rd party driver developers (liek
Nvidia, LSI Logic, etc) about this split. Wonder if they'll shy away from
Fedora driver support and only support RHEL. Sounds like a lot of
pro-linux hardware/software companies _need_ to be on the Fedora Steering
Committe. I see this as the new "United Linux" but with more openness for
ye who doesn't work for the 'man' ;-). Is there a petition going on right
now tying to get members of this new "United Linux"? Can we see who's
signed up so far and what they'd like their responsibilities be?
They have problems as it is. The VIA people for instance released binary
drivers for their Mini-ITX's CastleRock video chip. In doing so, they
targetted RH 9, which meant kernel 2.4.20-8. What they didn't understand
is that RH will release new kernels (and are at 2.4.20-20-9) during the
lifecycle of a release, and things stopped working as soon as users
upgraded. Alan has those drivers in his AC series now, but that's
neither here nor there: when major bugs or security holes are found,
kernels are replaced, even on stable platforms. If you add to that the
desire to support other packagers like SuSE and Mandrake, or even
previous releases, things are still moving targets.
--
____ .:. ____
Bryan W. Headley - bwheadley(a)earthlink.net