>If you go to
>the Third World and find 100 people who have never tasted ketchup
before,
>you find out two things: one is that people don't actually like
tomato
>ketchup, the other is that they dislike all ketchups equally.
I vastly prefer catsup, it's so much better than the so-called
ketchup.
>If you go to
>the Third World and find 100 people who have never tasted ketchup
before,
>you find out two things: one is that people don't actually like
tomato
>ketchup, the other is that they dislike all ketchups equally.
I vastly prefer catsup, it's so much better than the so-called
ketchup.
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Ed C. writes:
> > If a compromise is not possible, then an 'install-rc' tool *accepted by
> > all dists* would be the only other choice, and it would essentially have
> > to know the details about every dist that conforms to the LSB. Writing
> > (and maintaining) the thing
[I've made some big cuts. If I cut out anything you think I should have
addressed then feel free to bring it up again.]
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > > <...> Anybody with
> > > better knowledge like to speak up here?
> >
Ed C. writes:
> If a compromise is not possible, then an 'install-rc' tool *accepted by
> all dists* would be the only other choice, and it would essentially have
> to know the details about every dist that conforms to the LSB. Writing
> (and maintaining) the thing could be real hairy.
The idea i
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Ed Cogburn writes:
> > For the issue of a software package that needs to get a daemon running at
> > bootup, I don't think the problem is trivial. The layout and use of the
> > /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d dirs is (I've read) far from compatible
> > between RH and Deb.
>
> H
Ed Cogburn writes:
> For the issue of a software package that needs to get a daemon running at
> bootup, I don't think the problem is trivial. The layout and use of the
> /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d dirs is (I've read) far from compatible
> between RH and Deb.
How about an install-rc tool? It wou
Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > I don't want
> > to see RH disappear any more than I want to see Debian disappear.
> > I want to see enough cooperation between distros that allows app
> > makers to write software that will work on most distros withou
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > So the scenario is that some proprietary, closed source, program is what
> > you want, and that it has been built with RH in mind. To be forced into
> > dual booting RH to run it would mean that the software relies
After writing the previous post I found this:
http://www8.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014092,00.html
Notice the "reservations" from Red Hat.
--
Ed C.
Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> So the scenario is that some proprietary, closed source, program is what
> you want, and that it has been built with RH in mind. To be forced into
> dual booting RH to run it would mean that the software relies on a
> specific kernel version (poorly programmed or
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > > The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> > > as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> > > developers are writing their software only for
Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> > as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> > developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open
> > source' community would no
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open
> source' community would not be terribly affected, and wou
King Lee wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, eric Farris wrote:
> > A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands
> > to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be
> > (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from
> > my exp
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> George Bonser wrote:
> > Yes, Red Hat is well on the way to becoming Microsoft-like Linux. They
> > screech their shrill cries of "But everything we do is open source" but
> > when you look at it you also find that it is also incompatable with every
> > other distro and would
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, eric Farris wrote:
> A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands
> to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be
> (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from
> my explorations, fits this defini
eric Farris wrote:
>
> So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the
> current state of affairs with Windows, Linux is open, meaning, (and
> here's where Debian comes in) it can be improved. If RH becomes the
> definition of Linux, it will be Linux-lite. If Debian can somehow
A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands
to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be
(1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from
my explorations, fits this definition.
So RH gets to "become the definition of Lin
George Bonser wrote:
> Yes, Red Hat is well on the way to becoming Microsoft-like Linux. They
> screech their shrill cries of "But everything we do is open source" but
> when you look at it you also find that it is also incompatable with every
> other distro and would take so much trouble to mod
On 28-Mar-99 Guido A.J. Stevens wrote:
> George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I wish I could find that "Heinz Ketchup" article again. It was Red
>> Hat's president saying that their #1 mission is to make Linux=Red
>> Hat. If you send someone out to get Linux, he wants to be 99% sure
>> t
George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish I could find that "Heinz Ketchup" article again. It was Red Hat's
> president saying that their #1 mission is to make Linux=Red Hat. If you
> send someone out to get Linux, he wants to be 99% sure they are going to
> come back with a Red Hat box.
>When a company issues a new product touting Red Hat Linux support, rest
>assured that it is designed to sell more copies of Red Hat and may not
>install on any other distro cleanly.
It strikes me that the Red Hat strategy may be to get Linux software
released for their platform and not others. Th
I've been toying with Linux for about 3 years now. I do not have it
mastered, but I haven't given up either. Part of me is delighted with
the current regognition of Linux (RedHat), but the other part fears that
some entity such as Microsoft will somehow crawl out of the woodwork and
take over. W
24 matches
Mail list logo
