Subject: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: arch advocates]]
From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:58:01 -0700 (PDT)



   Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:

   > I think they dangerously mismanage those projects, but this is not a
   > RISKS list.

   I mentioned two kinds of projects.  Which ones do you think they
   mismanage?  The external projects or the internal projects?


Yow -- that's a big can of worms and I already get in hot water on
this list for taking up too much bandwidth.  Can I just give some
hints in reply to this (very good) question and, perhaps, take it off
list?


Here's a really *mild* bug -- there are much, much, more serious ones
out there (but I don't like hanging "kick me" signs on people or
projects):

If my linux supplier goes away, as nearly as I can tell, the CDs I
have from them are next to useless.   If my BSD supplier goes away, I
think I have everything I need here to muddle by on my own or with the
hackers in my neighborhood.

-t




   Ian

   >    From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
   >    Date: 28 Aug 2002 22:15:04 -0700
   > 
   >    Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:
   > 
   >    > Ok...my (extremely informed) view on good (distributed, decentralized)
   >    > revision control is that RH needs to pick up arch-related practices in
   >    > house and build services for their customers on that foundation.
   > 
   >    Hmmm, it seems to me that Red Hat's biggest projects are things like
   >    the Linux kernel, gcc, gdb, etc.  Those projects have open mailing
   >    lists.  You can convince those people to switch to arch without going
   >    through Red Hat as such.  Moreover, Red Hat can not switch those
   >    projects unilaterally.
   > 
   >    Red Hat does have internal projects as well.  But if you can get the
   >    well known free software projects to switch, Red Hat will probably
   >    also switch.  The reverse is not true.