test September 2003

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

313 participants
468 discussions

Re: What are consequences of "merger necessitates removal of ...
by Mark A. Hoover 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

From: Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> >> I take great offence at that statement. I've stated many times on >> the RHN lists when they announced the end of the 7.x support on RHN >> that I'd be more than happy to pay the $60/yr RHN fee for continued >> updates down that channel. As for the RHEL channel, I'm sure that's >> a great solution for businesses, but last I checked, I'm not a >> business. > > A single person paying $60 a year does not cover the expense. Heck, it > doesn't even cover the epxense of office supplies for the person doing > that work. > > IOW, the price cannot be determined without knowing the number of > people willing to buy it. Not speaking as a Red Hat cost analysis > person, I'd expect that given the cost of maintaing the OS, and the > number of people actually willing to buy that support for 6.2, the > cost would be significantly higher than $60. First of all, I'm not as nieve as you think I am. I'm sure there's more than one person subscribing to RHN. As for the $60/yr, I choose that number as that's what RedHat is currently charging for the single year, single machine subscriptions. Their number, not mine. As for 6.2, I upgraded that machine to 7.3 when I had to rebuild the machine after the incidient described earlier. The last time the subject was brought up in the rhn lists, there were a bunch of people who would have been happy to pay the yearly subscription, but given the impending end of support dates didn't want to since they wouldn't be getting a full years worth of updates out of the subscription fees. How many this would be world-wise I'm not sure.

1 0

bluecurve misalignment
by Stephen Moore 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

the minimise/maximise/close icons are not always right aligned in full screen mode doesnt happen in rh9 is it a bug? -- ô¿ó

4 3

How about major and minor releases
by Maynard Kuona 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Something like Fedora makes a major release every 12 months, and then a minor update release between major releases. The minor release, like a release 2, would be just release 1 with all the security updates and other necessary updates would be binary compatible with the previous, like a target of 99.9% compatibility, and the major could have a much lower target, like maybe 95%. In short, the releases cycle could be something like Fedora Core v2 Release 1. Six months later, Fedora Core v2 Release 2 Six months later, Fedora Core v3 Release 1 This doesn't have to be set in stone, if there is a real need to jump the minor release and bump up the version number it would be done. Then there could be a beta of the next release from say 2 months after the release 1 of the previous version, which lasts about 10 months and culminates in the next release. This also serves as a test area for the current release packages, since there should be some compatibility between them. So fixes filter down to the current 'stable' from the Beta anyway. I think it would be nice to see the introduction of the stock kernel as part of the distro. Since Fedora is unsupported anyway, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. A contrib kernel section for kernels would be nice.

10 11

Re: Fedora Core, Fedora Project, Fedora/GNU, Fedora BSD, Fedora Coupe deVille, Fedora ala mode
by Alan Cox 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

> Well, depending on the new trademark rules for the Fedora name and > associated logo(s), there may be plenty of opportunities for third party > Fedora Core based products. Even if they aren't lenient enough, I for The goal is to make those opportunities happen, but to protect the thing itself (ie Fedora Core is the official Fedora Core etc), but expecting people to also bundle other stuff with it in many cases, and likewise to recognize that the ability to charge a certain amount for redistribution encourages a lot more ways to get copies. The exact rules are something the legal folks have to draft but its mostly a case of turning those goals into watertight valid legal language.

4 4

module-init-tools package
by Guo Yang 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Hello, When I tried to install the latest unofficial 2.6 kernel (kernel-2.6.0-0.test5.1.43.i686.rpm <http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.5/RPMS.kernel/kernel-2.6.0-0.test5.1.43.i…>), I was told it depends on "module-init-tools" package. I checked the rawhide and couldnot find one. Does anybody else have the same problem? Thanks, Guo

3 3

Bluecurve changes
by Robert G. (Doc) Savage 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Add my vote to those who prefer Shrike's Bluecurve to Severn's. The lines forming the min/max/close cluster in the upper right corner are much too thin. The blue corners that allowed simultaneous vertical and horizontal resizing are gone altogether. Call this one Bluecurve-Lite if you want, but please give us the original Bluecurve back. --Doc Savage Fairview Heights, IL

8 7

Memo: Red Hat Linux & Fedora (fwd)
by Mark W. Jeanmougin 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

Here is a memo that I sent to my employers where I outline how we will be affected by the Fedora / Red Hat merger. Like many other companies out there, we have RHL deployed without paying Red Hat for support. Hopefully others will be able to correct any factual errors I have. I hope that someone else may be able to use this to inform their management of upcoming changes. Thanks, MJ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:52:47 -0400 Subject: Memo: Red Hat Linux & Fedora This week, Red Hat and Fedora Project announced their merger. Red Hat is, of course, the US's largest distributor of Linux based operating systems. "Fedora is a community project dedicated to building high-quality, 3rd party rpms, for the Red Hat Linux distribution." [1] As a result of this merger, the future direction of the Red Hat Linux project has changed. Things aren't set in stone yet, but it appears that we have reached the end of gratis Linux distributions from Red Hat. Red Hat will continue to market, develop, and support their Red Hat Enterprise software products specifically designed around the needs of large corporations, such as ourselves. The Red Hat Enterprise series includes distributions tailored toward workstation use as well as two different server distributions tailored to large or small servers. The Red Hat Enterprise series runs on seven different hardware platforms and has a release cycle of 12 - 18 months to make things easier on enterprise system administrators. The old Red Hat Linux product is now becoming the Fedora Project. Please note that the name isn't set in stone yet. The advantage to enthusiast users is that Fedora will provide more software and it will be updated quicker to ensure that people are always using the latest and greatest software. End users will be able to make contributions easily to improve the product. This frees up some resources within Red Hat to concentrate on the stability and scalability of the Red Hat Enterprise line. Red Hat does not intend to sell the Fedora Project through retail channels. They've found that their current Red Hat Linux product, with it's 6 month release cycles, is too difficult to make a profit on, in the retail channel. By solely distributing Fedora electronically (and for no cost), Red Hat can offer a product with short release cycles to keep the geeks happy. Red Hat does not intend to sell support for the Fedora Project. They will support the Red Hat Enterprise products. This is critical as we consider that all released Red Hat Linux products have had their end of support dates announced[2]. Red Hat Linux 9 goes out of support on 30 Apr 2004. All earlier versions go out of support at the end of this year. There is talk within the community that the community will continue to support the older Red Hat Linux products as part of the Fedora Project, but that is still uncertain. I cannot emphasize enough that there is community interest in this. If we want to continue to run older versions, we should consider adding our support to this effort. Of course, through the beauty of Open Source, third parties (such as IBM or others) may consider to support whatever their customers are willing to pay them to support. The first release of Fedora Project Linux is not yet available. It's due out, well, "when it's ready". At this point, we're hoping that'll be in early November. At that point, the name, support, and distribution methods will be set. Feel free to address any questions to me. MJ [1] http://www.fedora.us/index-main.html [2] http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/ ------------------------------------------ Worms, crashes, proprietary file formats, obfuscated communications protocols...and you paid how much?!?

7 6

Re: What are consequences of "merger necessitates removal of ...
by Mark A. Hoover 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

From: Jef Spaleta <jspaleta(a)princeton.edu> >> Sure, nobody's holding a gun to your head, but if you want to have all >> the security updates, you *are* forced to do the major version >> upgrades. > >No actually you are not...you could in fact...support yourself if you >want to invest the time and energy to watch for security updates and do >the security patch backports and recompile for your legacy systems that >you do not want to touch unnecessarily. But really what you want is the >option to have someone else do all the work for you...for as long as you >want that work done..without paying a reasonable fee for that time and >energy expenditure. I take great offence at that statement. I've stated many times on the RHN lists when they announced the end of the 7.x support on RHN that I'd be more than happy to pay the $60/yr RHN fee for continued updates down that channel. As for the RHEL channel, I'm sure that's a great solution for businesses, but last I checked, I'm not a business.

2 1

Re: What are consequences of "merger necessitates removal of ...
by Jef Spaleta 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

> I take great offence at that statement. I've stated many times on the > RHN lists when they announced the end of the 7.x support on RHN that > I'd be more than happy to pay the $60/yr RHN fee for continued updates > down that channel. As for the RHEL channel, I'm sure that's a great > solution for businesses, but last I checked, I'm not a business. The definition of a reasonable fee is a hard thing to come to consensus on. If $60 a year makes for a reasonable service business model, hopefully we will see someone offering such a service at that price based on Fedora Legacy. Hopefully we will see several people competing for that type of service and then rolling their contributions back into the community. -jef

1 0

Re: What are consequences of "merger necessitates removal of ...
by Mark A. Hoover 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

From: Alan Cox <alan(a)redhat.com> >> Sure, nobody's holding a gun to your head, but if you want to have all >> the security updates, you *are* forced to do the major version >> upgrades. > >Or get enough other people together doing fixes as a group. Its a hard >and expensive business and it gets harder and harder with time. Nobody is >stopping groups of people getting together and doing the work though. Easier said then done I'm afraid. While I do progam a little on the side, a lot of the code I've seen is way beyond anything I understand.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
47
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test September 2003