Answer the pertinant question, Rahul. Here it is again, just in case you missed it:
"""
If a conservative and long release cycle project like FreeBSD is going to standardize on a
binary compatibility environment, why should the standard be based upon the most
ephemeral Linux distro in existence, and in particular, a version which has less than one
month of life left to it, rather than upon a target which is slower moving and guraranteed to
have a real-life user base, and thus packages targeting it, for years to come?
"""
It's a very valid question. And for some reason, some people want to dance around it,
attacking the questioner rather than addressing the question. Surely the FreeBSD guys had
some rationale. And I would like to know what it was. And without all the defensiveness from
the Fedora camp regarding my asking it.
Posted Dec 1, 2009 23:47 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
I don't see why I am expected to answer a FreeBSD decision. It is clear that they disagree with you and find Fedora suitable for their requirements and they are free to take advantage of it.
I am just pointing out that you are presenting your opinions as facts and discarding others opinions as somehow less relevant than yours. That isn't helpful for any discussion.