OK, so it's the Fedora Project, but is it still called Red HatLinux?

Bryan W. Headley bwheadley at earthlink.net
Wed Sep 24 14:36:05 UTC 2003


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 at earthlink.net





More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list