On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:01:36 -0500 "David G. Mackay" <mackay_d bellsouth net> wrote: > No. I was thinking specifically of FC1. Since all of the succeeding > Fedora releases build on each other, they are all, in that sense > derived from RHEL and RH9. Of course, you could claim that > everything for FC1 was conjured into existence independently, which > would give a whole new meaning to "installation wizard". > You have it wrong still. FC1 was literally RHL10 until the project name changed. It was not built on top of anything RHEL, it was built on top of RHL9. This thread has turned into a history lesson, and that's too bad, because we're no where near the original point of this topic. > > Fedora doesn't have to be everything to every person. It doesn't > > have to solve all the problems. There are perfectly viable > > alternatives to Fedora, that are even based on Fedora, that solve > > some problem spaces that Fedora itself just isn't interested in. > > Duplication of effort is not fun for anybody. > > Oh, I don't know. Take a look at xen and kvm. Those of us that > aren't down in the trenches for those stand to win either way. Not the same duplication I was talking about, but oh well. You do bring up an interesting topic in Xen, in that what we have in Fedora for Xen is a very sad case of dragging something forward. xensource has no interest in tracking upstream kernel unlike Fedora, so we have to continually forward port their release to newer kernels. Not Fun. I wouldn't expect it to last for too many more releases (just my opinion, nothing of authority here). -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Description: PGP signature