On Maw, 2004-01-06 at 19:33, Chris Cox wrote:
> Are you saying that Red Hat's RHL was always targeted
> at the corporate customer?  I don't think so.

Of course not. Its something that drifted over time. It started out
as a 2D (1 source) distribution that was basically 'Slackware with
packaging done right' and produced by a tiny group of people then
released onto ftp.redhat.com which at the time was a 14.4 modem.

I am reasonably sure Mark Ewing did not have large banks as his
probable market for Red Hat 1.0/1.1 8)

> I guess what I'm hearing is that until the creation
> of "Fedora(tm)" and RHEL, Red Hat really did NOT portray
> clearly the distinction that existed (IMHO) already
> between RHL and RHAS.  Is that it??

RH had become a mix of both developer and business well before
RHAS/RHEL IMHO. Certainly by Red Hat 6.2 and 7.0.

> Uhh... yes... we agree.  I certainly did not have any
> problem with the goals of Fedora... which.. in summary were
> to "fix the shortcomings of RHL".  That is to say, RHL, which

Some people wanted RHL to be more business some wanted it to be
less business. So Fedora and RHEL both fix "shortcomings", they
just fix different people's shortcomings

> turned it over (with some RH help of course... and apparently
> some "guidance") to the community based Fedora project which
> proved it was much, much better than Red Hat at delivering what
> the consumer wanted (more updates, better support).

No Fedora isn't "throw it at Warren". Large parts of Fedora are
very much Red Hat work and will remain that way. The original
Fedora project people had been doing lots of add on packages for
the base system and a lot of the setup/skills/knowledge to make
that side work. They joined with Red Hat to create the Fedora you
have now, especially in working on yum and providing a lot of
standards and add on packages.

They aren't the only people who are involved either, all sorts of
groups of people are providing things like Yum repositories of packages,
Dulug are running the giant bittorrent feed of Fedora and so on.

> the more confused it all seems to get.... but I will
> admit, there is a common thread of what I'll call
> hatspeak: A RH sponsored spinoff of orginal
> community generated truth.

Unfortunately I can't do anything about what you decide is
truth any more than NASA can convince people who believe the
moonlandings were faked.

Alan

Reply via email to