[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Rule-www] Navigating the web site

From: Michael Fratoni
Subject: Re: [Rule-www] Navigating the web site
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:46:01 -0400

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 21 April 2002 06:02 pm, Marco Fioretti wrote:

> > I like left side navigation, personally. If done with frames, we
> > should provide a noframes version as well, no?
> Right, but unless we come up with a way to make php do it, let's stick
> to top and bottom links (see also Martin's comments)


> to me it is OK to have all binaries only on savannah (official mirrors
> can come later) as long as we state clearly in the web site where they
> are (I've got several private emails complaining that the current site
> doesn't make it clear, and it's true)

The only problem with savannah is that we lack access other than upload 
permission. For example, I uploaded some files to the wrong directory, 
and we can't get rid of them. It isn't a problem, except for the fact 
that it doesn't make the directory structure any clearer. It was a dumb 
mistake on my part, but being unable to fix it is annoying.

> About sources:
>       miniconda, we'd like RH to incorporate it some day, don't we?
>       So the best way to handle it is to let them find something
>       which could merge happily with their QA flow, and whatever. We
>       shold ask to RULE member Brock Organ, which is a RH QA engineer

We do. However, I really don't believe Red Hat has much interest in 
supporting the old hardware that the Rule installer will give a new life 
to. I'm of the opinion that if Red Hat is interested, that's great. If 
not, well, we'll have to promote it ourselves. :) I'm not being negative, 
I just see these old machines as a support nightmare. If I were trying to 
generate income, I wouldn't want to have to provide support for i386 and 
i486 machines with 8 or 12Mb of RAM.

If Red Hat really had any interest in supporting these machines, they 
could just reduce the hard coded anaconda memory limits. However, doing 
so would cause failed installs, which might generate bad press. Stock 
holders hate bad press. :)

>       slinky, for all the reasons you listed, is much more complex,
>       and at the same time much newer than the other: for now,
>       having everything documented sounds more than enough to me.

It's actually much less complex than anaconda. It just takes a ton of 
source code to get it built. :) 

- -- 
- -Michael

pgp key:
Red Hat Linux 7.2 in 8M of RAM:
- --
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]