[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux



On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 13:18 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > 
> >> So I don't understand.  Are you saying that VMware has no right to
> >> impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support?   Are
> >> they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free
> >> product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS?   Or, are you saying
> >> that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for
> >> free?  And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support?
> > 
> > Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued
> > otherwise.
> > Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support
> > their semi-broken RPMs,  half-working SELinux support, missing upstream
> > kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only.
> 
> Fedora, support?? What's that?

..... Arghh.

> 
> > FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on
> > qemu-kvm and virt-*.
> 
> I suppose working toward a linux binary standard that would actually 
> make it possible for 3rd parties to build programs that install and run 
> as expected on different distributions is too much to ask...  As, 
> obviously, is asking for interface stability for more than a week at a 
> time so 3rd parties could specifically target the distribution's 
> nonstandard quirks in a useful way.

... I'd accept that - but there's a problem with your argument: VMWare
already uses a rather wildly accepted binary distribution system (RPM).
Problem is - their RPM's are poorly built...

- Gilboa



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]