RE: Linux/Mozilla related Short-Term Contract

["Jonathan Shore" <jshore@example.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:turnbull@example.com]
>     Jonathan> nor am I requesting that the proposed work be folded
>     Jonathan> back into any public distribution.
>
> But all of us would have to take issue with this statement.  That is
> _exactly_ what you should be aiming at.  Of course, you have a
> business to run, but how expensive would it be to

Chris's initial comment was that he saw a source fork in the works.  Your
comment is essentially that it should be one and submitted back in.

I know all of the arguments of open source, been there done that, will do it
again.  Short term goal is to accomplish the practical objective.  Later if
the changes seem to be generally useful will submit back.  It doesn't
require much  to know that this may be a good thing (tm).


> Bitflicking always comes high, and the hardware people are slow to get
> the concept of "open".

You're right about the low-level support.  On the other hand there are open
standards which still don't have fully working apps.

> I thought that was a bid.  Eh, Chris?  If he does (1), (2), and (3),
> and you can subcontract the distasteful parts (ie, building---bletch---
> RPMs),

Re: RPMS: well to be truthful that's why we're contracting out -


>
> Watch out for that; word your contract carefully with respect to
> future upgrades to the stuff you are funding, or you may find yourself
> stuck with M17 indefinitely.  Ask anybody who's still using Pine 3.9x.

As you can imagine - we plan to get these changes done cleaning and
integrated back in at some point.