jtd wrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009, steve wrote:
Hey !
jtd wrote:
<...snip...> It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
I find it ironic that you want to use GNOME and then are complaining about bloat :D
Umm. No i dont use Gnome most of the time. It's KDE.... And it's not about me. I can wind my way thru - including rolling my own distro if needed. It's about the stupidity of exposing a whole swath of users to potential patent liability. The only users who would be protected are ones who have distros with patent protection clauses signed up with M$- Novell, Lindows and RH?. We know that codevelopment deal was partly about virtualisation. But that's what they told us.
Well, what i said was just a joke but if you insist on being pedantic:
a. Don't know about Novell and Lindows but on my Fedora box: [steve@laptop ~]$ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) [steve@laptop ~]$ rpm -q gnome-desktop gnome-desktop-2.24.3-1.fc10.x86_64 [steve@laptop ~]$ rpm -q tomboy package tomboy is not installed [steve@laptop ~]$ rpm -q mono-core package mono-core is not installed
so, if it is separate in Fedora, i'd assume it is the same in RHEL too (i don't have access to an RHEL box to confirm)
b. About the virtualization interoperability deal, rather that not 'telling us' whether there are any patent protection clauses, Red Hat preferred to be *explicit* about the fact there *isn't* such a clause:
https://www.redhat.com/promo/svvp/?intcmp=70160000000HiHHAA0
(bullet 5 under key components of the agreement) ...which sounds a like going a bit too far to hide a fact, if that was the intent :)
Anyways, you still can choose the reality you wish to live in and defend it.
cheers, - steve