Hi, Anita,
I've been travelling, and am clearing email -- You said:
> I just read this. Here's the article....I would like
> opinions as to whether this is good or bad.
In another forum, I offered this:
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: R P Herrold <herrold@owlriver.com>
Subject: Re: [ctlug] Re: Red Hat better hide under the table
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Joe Cooper wrote:
> Donn aka N5XWB wrote:
> > Tom (W5LON) sent this rather interesting insite to me. You
> > Red Hat folks might check it out.
> >
> > "http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=1884&a=27405,00.asp"
> >
> > If you find further info please point it out.
-------------------------
> Of the following Linux distribution vendors, which one
> always releases their software under an Open Source license and ...
>
> A. Caldera
> B. SuSE
> C. TurboLinux
> D. Red Hat
... ahhh .. I get it, the first post of the bare link, housed
on a server running .asp terminated content was a test troll,
seeing if some other yammerhead would 'key their mike to make
sure the repeater was still alive' as well ...
Let's see: Caldera is still a walking zombie wearing the
shrouds of SCO, and laid off its Webmin developer last year
(Webmin is revialaized for it ...); SuSE parted ways with its
US division president and laid off lots of staff last year in
their main office in the Bay Area (YaST and YaST2 are still
non-Free); TurboLinux withdrew from the US market -- hmmm.
The queston did not mention Connectiva, which is rather nice,
GPL'd, employs nice guy kernel hacker Rik van Riel -- but has
no US market presence. Reading Portguese is not too hard if
one reads Spanish.
Let's see -- RH re-organized for LSB conformance at its ver.
7.0 - two years ago -- No completed standard and Certification
process exists even to the present -- it is now scheduled to
start "LSB Certification begins, 7/1/2002 (McNeil)" -- see:
http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/20020508.html -- at the
05/07/2002 meeting, it was 5 % documented, task 27941, opened
2001-06-28.
We hit this topic 3 months ago:
http://alamo.satlug.org/pipermail/satlug/2002-February/000189.html
I was interested to see that the UL co-venturers cannot work
within the LSB framework; not surprised -- I have posted
before elsewhere on the dyfunctionality of the LSB,
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/private/rpm-list/2001-July/012047.html
and maintain at:
http://www.owlriver.com/projects/SLUG/
one of the earliest presentations on the
project: see third oldest talk at: http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/
dating from July 1999. Working through the minutes at
http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/mindex.html is disheartening.
I see no news here until the UL group ship (or set a RawHide
devel anonymous FTP server) with GPL'd content -- all that is
left to the troll's story is marketing.
-- Russ Herrold
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:27 EDT