RedHat, Fedora future?

[Nils Philippsen]

On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 04:31, Tim Kossack wrote:
> Am Fr, den 06.02.2004 schrieb Nils Philippsen um 23:44:
> > Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, not my employer's.

Same disclaimer still applies.

> > On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 17:51, Tim Kossack wrote: 
> > > (sorry for the long response)
> > > i tried to verify your statement in looking what comes included with
> > > rhws, but i couldn't gather any info if it ships with those plugs
> > > installed. given red hat's general stance in regards shipping
> > > non-oss/free legally questionable whatever software as part of their
> > > products, quite frankly i would be very surprised if they do.
> > > as far as the "apples to oranges"-comparison is concerned, my critics
> > > was and is primarily aimed at their commercial desktop offerings - also,
> > > as i already stated above, plugins are just one part of the problem.
> > > reg. fedora, yes sure, i don't expect them to provide those plugs for
> > > free, although if red hat would finally change their stance and just
> > > license/include the stuff like lindows, suse, sun etc. do, i wouldn't
> > > complain if they would include them for free in fedora either...;-)
> > > it's just that i'm asking myself why they seem not interested at all to
> > > tackle the issues (let alone seeing that there's one in the first
> > > place), when their competition seems not having to have any problems
> > > acknowledging and adressing them... 
> > 
> > I guess the point you are missing is that Red Hat is an Open Source
> > Company. While we have shipped and do ship some proprietary stuff now
> > (if I'm not off track, it's only Java, but we're working on the java
> > issue as well), we (as in what I think, see disclaimer) have some
> > problems with "oh let's put all that stuff in 'cause the others do it as
> > well" -- probably we wouldn't be where we are today if we had done that