#$!@

[deadpoint]

this thread needs end, if you wish to continue this little flame war 
please take it off list.

David W. Aquilina wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:33:33PM -0700, Richard Hubbard wrote:
> 
>>2. the fedore core 3 kernel source did not come with
>>the installation cd, but could be downloaded by either
>>finding an individual package (that is how i got it,
>>at
>>ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Linux/fedora/linux/core/3/SRPMS/
>>), or downloaded with a packge of cd iso's called
>>FC3-i386-SRPMS-disc?.iso
>>(ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Linux/fedora/linux/core/3/i386/iso/)
> 
> 
> Why didn't you do the same for FC4 then if you knew it worked? 
> 
> ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Linux/fedora/linux/core/4/SRPMS/kernel-2.6.11-1.1369_FC4.src.rpm
> 
> 
>>3. my particular 'bitch' is RedHat's failure to comply
>>with the GPL because the SRPM they make available with
>>FC4 does not unpack to the kernel that they distribute
>>with the installation cd.  This is new for redhat.
> 
> 
> This situation hasn't changed from FC3. Instructions for obtaining a full buildable kernel tree is contained within the release notes for each release: 
> 
> ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Linux/fedora/linux/core/3/i386/os/RELEASE-NOTES-en
> ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Linux/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RELEASE-NOTES
> 
> Regarding their supposed breach of the GPL, I suggest you bring the matter up with someone who has copyrighted material in the kernel and thus has standing to bring a case against Red Hat. I'm sure you understand the GPL better than their lawyers do. 
> 
> 
>>4. my other bitch is being treated like a newbie by
>>people, in and out of redhat
> 
> 
> The way it looks to me is that you made a simple mistake, and instead of owning up to it you just want to blame the software. That's not a reasonable thing to do, IMNSHO. 
>