opteron ?

[Michael K. Johnson]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:40:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> at the very least I'd hope red hat linux project 'directors' or what not
> wouldn't undermine or oppose such efforts.

No, we would not.  That's part of what we say on the web site...
http://rhl.redhat.com/about/faq/

I don't see how it would really be possible to expand archs for
Cambridge, practically speaking (others might disagree with me),
but since we're looking at a short cycle for Cambridge++ (we hope
-- assuming 2.6 testing/ fixing goes well) aiming there would make
sense.

Our expectation is essentially that Red Hat will do the work
for the x86 architecture.  People/organizations that want other
architecture support in Red Hat Linux can provide hardware and
people to the Red Hat Linux project.  Red Hat might from time
to time determine that it is in its interest to do work on another
architecture, but you should not assume that this is going to
happen at any particular time.  (Obviously, this rule is 
explicitly for Red Hat Linux, not Red Hat Enterprise Linux.)

Note on nomenclature: Severn is the beta component of the Cambridge
release, the gold version is not yet named, in long-standing Red
Hat tradition.  See the discussion of the two kinds of names at
http://rhl.redhat.com/about/history/

michaelkjohnson

 "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
 Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
 http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/