On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:28:45PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Well, as you say, we already have Debian (and many other
"truly open"
> community distributions). We also have many "not completely open"
> commercial distributions (fill in the names yourself). And we had
> a (truly?) open commercial distribution: Red Hat Linux. IMHO this
> is what we seem to loose now: a fully open distribution, but still
> controlled by a single entity (company). Red Hat Linux played this
> role, between the community distributions and the not-completely-open
> commercial distributions. So I still think we *do* loose something.
Well, you have to define "open" - Red Hat Linux had open source
licensing, but the devel model for Red Hat Linux was not the open source
methodology.
Yes, maybe I should better use the phrase "freely available and
freely distributable" here, i.s.o. open, but even this could start
many discussions ;-).
--
-- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204