Well, I agree that the word alpha used by Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens was not the best choice to describe Fedora.
However, the fact is for non Open-Source user - that is to say Ms Windows users - it is quite
difficult to understand the mechanism used by Red Hat or other open source organization to deliver their Operating system or softwares
without using theirs vocabulary.
I mean it is like using the word daemons instead of services or modules instead of drivers during a conversation
with a Ms Windows user. I am pretty sure after few minutes he will believe you come from another planet. :)
You see the problem ?
So I could understand the utilization of this term.
Nonetheless I admit the Red Hat CTO should have to refuse to use the word of Alpha for Fedora
in explaining how works Open source and in that case the Alpha word could not apply.
For my part, this is what I tell to people who ask me the difference between Red Hat and Fedora.
The fact is that Fedora Linux distribution is working very very well and I can prove it.
In addition a lot of peoples, organization, governments, companies, are interested to use it.
However in order to be in accordance with the business world Fedora have to offer a strong support.
Thing that Fedora can not.
And that is reason why Red Hat is there.
To conclude, I think that we should not hesitate to add explaination, examples
when we are using technical words in order to avoid misunderstanding.
On 8/31/06, Rahul <sundaram fedoraproject org > wrote:I would read encourage everyone to read the full interview instead of
Super. All we have to do is make sure the 100M people on the Internet do likewise. It's probably easier to make sure this mindset changes. Then when you're put on the spot in a live interview, you know what terminology to use.
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list redhat com