> I think you showed (and identified) your personal bias that the existence
> of Red Hat in Fedora's affairs makes Fedora less of a community distro.
My use of "community" was not really describing what I meant. "Independent" is a much better word and the one I used in the article. I did not mean to push the hot button that Fedora folks have (understandably) about being a "community" distribution.
> if you believe "... it comes from red hat legal or at least that is the
> perception", you continue to look for answers that implicate an Evil
I, like most folks, don't know what to believe. Someone is stopping you (perhaps not you personally, but Fedora) from telling us important things like whether you know how the intrusion happened. Whoever is doing that has done a grave disservice to the reputation of Fedora and Red Hat.
You, and others, have implied that it is some kind of law enforcement agency, perhaps even a National Security Letter, that is stopping *any* information from being released. If so, one hopes that Red Hat's lawyers are busy doing whatever they can to circumvent that. Fedora and Red Hat have a responsibility to their customers and the community that is being set aside.
It's not that folks don't understand that Fedora cannot say any more than it has, it's that they fairly strongly believe that more could be said without jeopardizing whatever ongoing investigation there is. While we eventually want to know what all the hubbub is about, what we want to know *now*, nearly a month after the incident, is what, if anything, we need to be on the lookout for. If there is some unknown exploit out there, many eyes are more likely to find it than one. If there isn't, then someone should force the entity responsible to *say* so.