[SATLUG] Fedora 9

Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron at camerontech.com
Tue May 20 20:23:56 CDT 2008


On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 00:27 -0500, luis wrote:
> Greg Swift wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Chris Lemire <good_bye300 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Has anyone made the leap to Fedora 9 yet? I'm still considering it, but I don't know how much trouble I will run into. I've got everything working great in F8, and would hate to mess that
> >> up by upgrading, and I probably can't resist doing it. I'd like to know how anybodies experience has been, and I look forward to having a few kde4 applications. Anyone using Fedora 9 recently?
> > 
> > If you are that concerned why not atleast give the live cd or usb a
> > try?  the liveusb even has persistance now... rather slick concept..
> > can't wait for the dvd to finish downloading so I can set it up
> > myself.
> 
> For all the things that Redhat does, it is at the very least, active.
> For me, the server is stable and works.  It does not need baby sitting.
>  Fedora, as a server, has always worked for me.  But I do admit that I
> have had a few problems setting them up as desktop.  It see to need too
> many additional downloads, like flash or a pdf reader.  It does not
> support mp3s, more downloads.  The Totem player needs codecs, more
> downloads.  And them sometimes, it just does not work.

Fedora is Free Software.  Period.  Red Hat will *not* include any
technology which is encumbered with patents or non-Free licenses.

Other distros see fit to compromise F/OSS ethics for ease of use.
That's fine for them, but we will not compromise.

There are a number of reasons for this.  The most important one is that
we are committed to F/OSS.  Yeah, it's harder that way, but if we force
ourselves to be disciplined, we will come up with F/OSS alternatives.
If the community backs us, then we can help the so-called mainstream to
adopt open formats.  Open formats in the mainstream means easier
adoption across the globe - including under-served and economically
challenged countries.

As a small side note, the MP3 license allows for free *personal* use.
If we distribute it to someone who uses it in a commercial environment,
there is a chance, however small, that we might contribute to license
violation, exposing them and us to no small legal liability.  

Additionally, that license does not allow us, a commercial vendor, to
redistribute without paying license fees.  There is literally no
effective way for us to determine exactly how many people are running
Fedora.  We have a rough idea based on yum updates and the like, but
that is not concrete.  Does it make sense for us to pay license fees for
software we're giving away?  From a touchy-feelie perspective, that
would be great, but as a business, that's a no-win situation.

So ethically and financially it is just not feasible for Red Hat to
bundle proprietary software in Fedora.  Other distros might be OK with
taking those risks, we're not.

-- 
Cheers,
Thomas Cameron



More information about the SATLUG mailing list