On Sunday 08 October 2006 14:34, Felix Miata wrote: > On 06/10/08 21:16 (GMT+0200) Robert Schiele apparently typed: > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 03:04:17PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > >> I was counting from when it became open, not from when they diddled with > >> the name. There were no freely downloadable isos, or open testing and > >> bugzilla participation, until after 9.3 was out the door. > > > > Sure? > > > > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.2/iso/SUSE-Linux-9.2-FTP-DVD.iso > > I don't see the 5(?) installation CD isos there. For many who have no DVD > capability or limited space for downloading huge files, that's close to or > fully useless. There's still the "open" testing (factory) issue. Until > after 9.3, it wasn't exactly open, just free for ftp installers or DVD > downloaders.
Felix, I like many of your articles because of strong logical reasoning. Today you have a bad day. > The first OpenSUSE version was 10.0. You used OpenSUSE as a word, not as expression "open SUSE". While I'm not sensitive is it OpenSUSE or openSUSE, I see the difference between word and phrase. Open participation, free iso's etc. is not required for distro to be open. If you would say:"Version 10.0 was open because there was no proprietary software in it.", I'll accept that as fact, and said that you are right, as many times before. The fact is that SUSE, SuSE and S.u.S.E. were de facto free long time before 10.0, but contained proprietary YaST, that made them not open distribution. -- Regards, Rajko M. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
