On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 09:17, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Axel Thimm (Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de) said: > > I'll also go with your suggestion, Rex. I'd call it the "it's written > > rh10, but it is pronounced Fedora Core 1" idiom ... > > Now that's just patently misleading. It's *not* Red Hat Linux 10, > it's Fedora Core 1. It's a shift in the development model, shifts > in the goals of the release, and more. Hence, the new name, and > new version. Yeah, but the actual collection of RPMs and installer aren't going to be completely new; in almost cases, they will just be upgrades. Versions ought apply to file releases, not development models, goals, names, ..., especially when there won't be a radical break in the actual conventions used with existing releases. (I.e., package files aren't going to be forced into 8.3 names or AIX-style names). Maybe if it were a true fork--a clean break started by a completely different set of people--resetting the version counter would be reasonable. But as it is, Fedora Core is still going to be under the auspices of Red Hat, Inc.--still subject to the good taste that Red Hat, Inc. has generally shown. For all intents and purposes, it's going to look like what "Red Hat Linux 10" would have looked like had Fedora not happened. Wil -- Wil Cooley wcooley nakedape cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc * * * * Linux, UNIX, Networking and Security Solutions * * * * * Tired of spam and viruses in your e-mail? Get the * * Naked Ape Mail Defender! http://nakedape.cc/r/maildefender *
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part