Slashdot Mirror

You can find a solution(s) to your problem at one or more
of the following locations:

http://www.centos.org

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/

http://en.opensuse.org

http://www.opensolaris.org/

http://www.ecomstation.com/

http://www.redhat.com

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

http://www.openbsd.org/

http://www.freebsd.org/

http://www.netbsd.org/

http://www.dragonflybsd.org/

http://www.osfree.org/doku/en:start

http://www.skyos.org/

http://www.freeos.com/

http://www.minix3.org/

Added to bypass the stupid slashdot lameness filter which apparently doesn't like a post full of links. WTF is wrong with the
stupid lameness filter? Jeez, what does it want, for us to type paragraphs of meaningless drivel just to get past the lameness filter?
Sheeesh. OK, this is really stupid. Why don't ajfajf al;djal a fa fa lkdf jaa fal ja;ljf af af ajf;lajf alfjalf a fjal;fjafl; jaflakjf af;laj
jalkfaj fjf af af fajjjajal jajfa f afjdlakej2233 2235t2352 dsfalkfjal f 222j2 afdkja f23 2 2 2t2352322 233252352 2323232.

But even if it lacks precision, it is still a good indicator that Linux *IS* in fact popular and much more widespread than people think.

It might be much more popular than they think since yum-updatesd is broken in FC6.

Well, we'll keep doing what we currently are doing. In addition, the idea currently under consideration is an OPTIONAL screen in firstboot where a user can choose to let us know more about their hardware and/or installed package set.

KEY POINT TO MAKE: If a user says "no, go away and leave me alone", we will respect that.

To anyone who wants to be part of the discussion, feel free to follow the Fedora Infrastructure list.

http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infr astructure-list

Microsoft could sue you, you could get into a costly lawsuit, your company could go broke.
Switch to Linux, the open source operating system.

Get Linux today!

* Red Hat Enterprise Linux - http://www.redhat.com/
* SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 - http://www.novell.com/linux/

It offers a complete solution for your mission-critical needs!

If it's not commercial software, chances are Fedora already includes it. And if your distro ships old packages and doesn't update them, then your distro sucks. With Fedora, you get reasonably recent software, and version upgrades of some packages even for the stable release. See for example:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-anno unce/2006-November/msg00159.html
for K3b.

They have been doing this for some time. I have heard that Linux is known to port badly to these machines.

"Hey, I don't really have a problem with it, and I resent your language. Learn to talk nice, even if disagree, please"

Learn not to make nonsense claims with nothing to back them up.

"As I said, it is the glibc team (and yes, Ulrich among them) and Linus that spearheaded rejection of that patch. (I found this out via searching the group with google; I'm sure you can do the same since you seem to care so much)"

No, it was just Ulrich, and I know this because I found so much humour in this particular post: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-08/ms g00061.html so I have no need to google it.

As I said, Linus does use it, its in the linux kernel because Drepper was too big of a douche to accept it in glibc, grep for yourself.

"they are unneccessary (as you should always keep track of how long your string is and realloc as neccesary strcpy or memcpy will do as well. Randomly truncating of stings are not really any better than overflowing. (I disagree about this)."

Obviously this is silly, of course you keep track of how long it is, that's why you pass it a length argument. strcpy and memcpy will not due, as they will gladly overflow that fixed length buffer. strncpy will not due because it fails to NULL terminate strings all the time and is slow. And strlcpy doesn't randomly truncate strings, it truncates strings that are too long, and then tells you it truncated them in case that matters (which it sometimes does).

"They invite the use of fixed buffers of strings, which are unfortunate design in any case where the string length cannot be known beforehand, such as a file name and input"

Yes, lets just keep strlening everything new we get and reallocing our buffer to fit that new size. All machines have infinite RAM, and realloc takes no time, so why bother keeping strings to a reasonable length.

"They bloat glibc, if even just by a tiny amount, making every program in linux (near enough) just that much slowly launch. (and yes, glibc is already way too bloated, everyone agrees in this. That does not adding more stuff any better). "

This is the funny one, as if a 25 line function is going to bloat glibc up, when its got thousands and thousands of lines of bloat already. It won't make anything launch any slower at all, what a pathetic excuse.

"As you yourself say, writing the function out and including them around a configure check is pretty much mandatory anyway."

Pretty much mandatory because Ulrich Drepper is a tard and thinks:
*((char *) mempcpy (dst, src, n)) = '\0';
is nicer than:
strlcpy(dst, src, n);
If it were in glibc, then standardization attempts would succeed because of it being in all the most used unixes (BSDs, OSX, solaris and linux) and then it would end up everywhere and wouldn't need configure checks.

"Yes, valgrind helped in Z/Os, not that you can run it there, as I well know, but the bugs that appears in one system tends to be hidden on other systems as well... but for various, the bugs aren't triggered."

Existing bugs are not part of a linuxism though. Valgrind helps be a very slow version of just developing on openbsd to start with, yes. But those bugs are there on linux too, they just don't trigger reliably. I wasn't saying software is buggy (which is obviously the case) I was saying that its written for linux.

Distros should NEVER backport features.

So how should RHEL and SLES support, say, Ethernet cards developed years after their kernels were released but within the seven year support lifetime? Both vendors backport features and drivers. Red Hat even has a web page boasting about how they backported most of the important 2.6 kernel features to their 2.4 kernel distribution!

We've had all kinds of fun with new drivers (needed to support new controllers on some of our machines) changing functionality and combinations of bugs in each update but waiting for and switching to a complete new OS release isn't an option even if one is available.

With two more betas to go before the summer, Bletsas was unfazed by the glitches. He also called the current state of the software "barely useable," but again was confident that it would be where it needed to be by launch.

"It would be nice if that were true, but given the secrecy and lack of information about exactly what the NSA did we have no idea how "helped" any of us are."

Given the fact, that nobody is pushing NSA to say anything on the subject, it is unlikely, that they are lying. The kind of "help" you suspect NSA of providing needs no press-releases...

I'm not suggesting there's any subversion of Vista by the NSA. You're assuming that I'm a conspiracy theorist. I'm not. I'm complaining about the fact that a very unspecified and broad association is being presented in the media to the public which suggests that Vista is secure because the NSA helped to make it secure. I consider that to be bullshit until there are specific details of what was secured and how.

In any event, if the government wanted to help "the users" it would make it very clear as to what security criteria [...]

That's very strict requirements you are placing there, actually. Making anything "very clear", coming up with reliable estimates of saving/loss from using a particular product, making recommendations -- hairy stuff, which NSA is rightly stearing clear from...

Actually, the government already has security specifications for computer systems, there are a whole raft of them for different levels of security, (e.g. this is a completely random example, if you want to find more then google about for "information assurance" and "Department of Defense"). The only point of having government agencies is to be able to certify and standardize systems by some method like this so that the public can have a good idea of what it's getting instead of some nebulous hand-waving about "the NSA guys, and they're real hard-core security ya know? hung out for a few days and if it's OK by them then it gets the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, know what I mean?".

Seriously, the press release is remarkable for the lack of detail that it contains. The fact that it doesn't specify exactly what was done suggests that very little was done.

[...] helping hand to a private monopoly, because the roll out of their latest software abortion is looking like a flop.

And why does NSA help BSD [trustedbsd.org] and Linux [nsa.gov]?

Em, because they are public, not private entities that are composed of tax-payers who by any reasonable standards should expect their government agency to do stuff for them and not for a private business monopoly.

Sorry, your conspiracy theory is less convincing,

Sorry, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a simple objection to two things: 1. To the government helping out a private business entity; 2. To near fraudulent advertising.

Fedora's media check has historically been pickier than it needs to be. If the media passes, you know it's good, but there are things that will make it fail other than an actual bad disc. They suggested booting the installer with "linux ide=nodma" if it fails with the default settings. The release notes for FC5 and FC6 don't include this note, so they may have fixed the bug. I can't say myself, since FC4 was the last time I installed from CD.

jumping from a 2.4 kernel to a 2.6 kernel is a big step and 2.6 doesn't support everything that 2.4 does. redhat 9 had 2.4 and fedora 4 has 2.6 i don't want to state the obvious but this is something you should consider before saying "Or do you mean that Fedora Core can't be regarded as the same distro as the original Red Hat series?" and therefore concluding that you need to purchase RHEL. I used to use the various Redhat products, I even purchased RH8 professional and had a subscription to the redhat network for a while. I would have kept paying for that service but Redhat decided that I was not a market they were striving for, and realistically it was the correct choice for them to make. I am very happy with Fedora and I like the choices they have made with their plans for 7.

jumping from a 2.4 kernel to a 2.6 kernel is a big step and 2.6 doesn't support everything that 2.4 does. redhat 9 had 2.4 and fedora 4 has 2.6 i don't want to state the obvious but this is something you should consider before saying "Or do you mean that Fedora Core can't be regarded as the same distro as the original Red Hat series?" and therefore concluding that you need to purchase RHEL. I used to use the various Redhat products, I even purchased RH8 professional and had a subscription to the redhat network for a while. I would have kept paying for that service but Redhat decided that I was not a market they were striving for, and realistically it was the correct choice for them to make. I am very happy with Fedora and I like the choices they have made with their plans for 7.

Ah, I see what happened. I was using an x86_64 install. There are 6 CDs in that one. My apologies for the confusion.

If the NSA can help Microsoft tighten up it's shitty systems then that's good. There are already positive benefits from NSA research into the Flask OS in the form of GNU/Linux's SElinux.

The only problem I have with any of this is that this is another government subsidy (read our tax dollars) going to subsidise a private company which should (given the vast profits it makes) be able to pay for its own security research instead of dipping its snout into the public trough.

Indeed. Clearly, it's the fault of the people who made gcc 2.96. *ahem*

Dude, let it go. People have been complaining about that for six years, and the complainers have been wrong for six years. The truth is that 2.96-rh was a better compiler than any previous gcc release. The "bugs" were actually increased strictness - see this page for details.

There's 5 install cds, and then theres the rescue-cd. Just have a look here: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/6/i386/iso/ I'd be running Fedora if their version of KDE didn't look like shit.

Next to "does not show it" the author clearly states it isn't there.. To try it yourself (and succeeding in finding the url-bar), go to the url: http://thefinalzone.blogspot.com/2006/10/running-o lpc-emulator.html In short, get Q-Emu running and download the image from: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/devel opment/

*Virtual PC is better because...

• It doesn't take over your machine (even VM Ware player installs funky drivers)
• It has a much better workstation experience than VM Ware's free offerings (Player or Server) .. the UI is minimalist and easy to use, yet fully functional (compare to VMWare's gargantuan MDI/tabbed interface), and its tiny (<20 megs) compared to VMWare's bloated offering

Red Hat users might like CentOS. It is the free version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (a.k.a. RHEL).

The appeal of CentOS is that it is extremely stable, and is supported for a very long time. It is designed for users who want to track security updates and major bugs, but who don't want to "upgrade" every year.

Old RedHat's didn't disappear. They moved them off of the main FTP server and added a README file to give you the new address. Everything back to the 1.0 release is at ftp://archive.download.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux /.

Last time I checked, over pretty much any timescale there were more exploits found in Linux than in the Windows NT kernel. If you are going to compare all of Windows, then you need to include a set of comparable applications

Then you also need to define exploit. Or look at it objectively, the leading Linux vendor has spent a huge ammount of time integrating SELinux support throughout it's entire distro. ... as well as a bunch of other less global security measures (no exec, randomisations, glibc _FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.). Microsoft have done what? Fixed IE yet ... ahh no.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2006-April/msg00118.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2006-April/msg00358.html
Read about ESR's ridiculous attempts to troll the Fedora Project into violating the GPL and shipping proprietary software. ESR continues his irresponsible crusade. This is NOT in the best long-term interest of the community. Please do not give this "leader" any credence.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2006-April/msg00118.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2006-April/msg00358.html
Read about ESR's ridiculous attempts to troll the Fedora Project into violating the GPL and shipping proprietary software. ESR continues his irresponsible crusade. This is NOT in the best long-term interest of the community. Please do not give this "leader" any credence.

RedHat has a release plan, and they won't deviate from it. In any case, RHEL 5 is already in advanced beta stage.

I really don't know what you mean about 2.6.9-EL getting in the way. True, it does use mostly 2.6.9 API/ABI, but not strictly (as anyone how tried to compile some external kernel modules, like ieee80211 and ipw2200 have found out), and also contain lots of updates. The only external driver I use is ipw2200, and that only because I wanted monitor mode. And, since I was already recompiling it, I went the upgrade path as well.

Many people see 2.6.9 and think: "OLD!". That is really not the case. Using the latests version on any production server is very dangerous. In any case, "STABLE" beats "NEW" every time in my book.

Lastly, please remember it is 2.6.9-EL, and not 2.6.9. They are very different beasts.
Please read "speaks backport".

Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS

Ideal for power users and a wide range of high-performance technical client applications such as visualization, software development, and engineering design. Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS supports large-memory client systems with up to two CPUs.

Red Hat Desktop

Designed for general users who need a variety of software from email to web applications. Red Hat Desktop is designed for volume deployments that require a secure and centralized management infrastructure for client systems.

Wanna see the actual numbers? Red Hat's report to investors is here.

Is it just me, or did they spend almost twice as much on marketing as they did in the same quarter, previous year?

You have just described RedHat. No thanks.

Yikes. This is so wrong. First, RHEL 4 comes on 4 CDs, not one or two. Second, many packages supplied by RH are patched so far that the original developers won't provide support on the mailing lists (Squid, OpenLDAP for concrete examples). Others are maintained by RedHat, which either makes them massively patched, or not patched at all. Neither of the points given really apply to RedHat.

I would rather have Debian release schedules, but have all the packages that are in it. Most of the sysadmins out there who deploy debian do it exactly because "Resistance is futile, you shall be packaged" and because "apt-get install light" works 99.99% of the time.

I'd bet that most of the sysadmins who prefer Debian do so because it's what they are familiar and comfortable with it...such as yourself.

As a result there is a working platform on which to build services and commercial software regardless of what insane libraries your developers have chosen this time. Whatever it is, it can be apt-get installed. In the very rare cases you sometimes have to backport a version from testing, but someone has already solved most of the dependencies for you.

Trying something similar with RedHat quickly brings you into the land of RPM hell. I always love watching sysadmins suffering while trying to support development in a RedHat shop (especially where developers have su/sudo access). It is immensely entertaining to watch the network fall apart and be reduced to a random collection of machines all different from each other and each in its own circle of the RPM hell none being able to produce a release build.

Am I to take it that you are saying Debian based systems are immune to this? Not so much the RPM hell (duh, Debian doesn't use RPMs), but the random collection of machines all different from each other even though the developers have root access? How, pray tell, do you manage that? Block access to the apt repositories?

So from the perspective of someone who has been running Debian driven networks for 6+ years and with 5+ years of supporting Debian as a base for commercial development I can say - no thank you, you misunderstood what brings most sysadmins to Debian. It is the best *nix development platform out there.

First, what does System Administration have to do with developing software? A Sysadmin's job is keeping the boxes running, not crafting applications to run on them. If a system admin WERE to develop software, perhaps he wouldn't use libraries that require such acrobatics his box is endangered? Second, big commercial software developers seem to disagree with you. For example, BEA, BMC Software, Hyperion, IBM, Sybase and Symantec, Lyris, VMWare, Oracle, and Elluminate. These are just software products that either I deal with on a regular basis or came up with in a quick search.

Why, if Debian is the best development platform in existance, would that be the case? Debian Stable changes at least as infrequently as RHEL, so it shouldn't be a matter of code stability.

Perhaps your dealings with RedHat based distributions have been less than plesant, but if you want commercial application support, it's either RH or SUSE. Tools for dealing with RPMs have advanced quite a bit in the last 5 years, and FWIW, I have no problems getting a bo

Red Hat is important in only one way, from what I can see: they make Linux a commercial venture. Other than SCO, I don't think anybody has done a worse job from that perspective, either. Ximian, eventually bought by Novell, at least contributed to the development of Evolution and other GNOME software. Corel got into the Office for Linux market at a time when the biggest complaint about Linux was that there were no good applications available. IBM has contributed to the idea of commercial Linux more than anyone I can think of, both in terms of GPL-ed contributions to the codebase, and as a vendor promoting Linux-based solutions. Red Hat has been a purely profit-based venture, sacrificing the quality of the free distribution to make a few extra bucks.

Right, because Red Hat has never contributed anything to the community:

http://sources.redhat.com/projects.html

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions

Fedora isn't perfect, and RH did make - IMO - do a poor job of transitioning from the "old" RHL series to Fedora, but to suggest that they don't
contribute anything to Linux and OSS is just ridiculous.

I agree that we can't support all the versions in perpetuity, but I thought it would have been more helpful if they had included some reason other than "sorry, we just can't do it anymore". Did it not fit into the big picture of their support? What about future security fixes? etc. etc. As it was, it was very abrupt.

It's been hashed out on the mailing list. The upshot is this: Fedora Legacy depended heavily on volunteers. While there has been demand for them to release updates, there have never been enough volunteers to keep it going. This has been true almost since the beginning, but it finally got to the point where the people running the project looked at it, said "we really can't keep up, can we?" and decided to fold the resources available into the main Fedora Project.

As I understand it, the current plan is to drop Fedora Legacy entirely, but extend official support for the immediate previous release (which right now would be Fedora Core 5) for several months longer than the old EOL policy.

Now, if only they would fix the embarrassing bug in RPM. :)

Drepper's paper explains why it takes so damn long to work through C++ symbols. This is a limitation of the ABI, not of the compiler's ability to optimize or the programmer's ability to code.

C++ also makes a lot of indirect addressing crap, due to having to bounce through classes and virtual tables; this is about 5 times slower than immediate addressing.

Meeks' paper shows exactly where most of the load time for OOo is spent; this happens to be a lot of symbol look-up through C++ symbols. Practical example of the stuff in Drepper's paper.

C++ brings things like namespaces (useful, but they do cause the longer symbol look-up time) and operator overloading (evil, causes code to be obfuscated massively; most so-so programmers like not having to type myMatrix.Add(otherMatrix), while many experienced programmers seem to hate having to check the types on 'x' and 'y' when they see x=x+y somewhere). Still, you don't exactly need these; namespaces change your functions from gtk_window_do_crap() to gtk::window.do_crap(), and allow you to tell the compiler that if you don't specify anything, gtk:: is assumed.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux product lifecycle provides seven years of support for every release. New versions are introduced on a predictable 18-month schedule. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 - released in February 2005 - is the latest release.

A better and more modern reference to RPM building would be this:

http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/

Maximum RPM is very long in the tooth these days and despite some ongoing development is broadly replaced by the RPM guide.

of course, a link to this on the rpm.org website would do no harm at all...

How can anyone trust RPM with his system when the main developer finds it is perfectly ok to leave the RPM database in an inconsistent state if an error occurs? I thought it was a joke when I first read this bug report, but apparently it is not.

...as all three sell (or resell, in the case of IBM) commercial distributions including support. I know RedHat has an extensive training and certification program as well; haven't bothered to look into the other two I mentioned but I would be shocked if they didn't have some similar resources. These vendors also usually cut schools deep, deep discounts (I can't quote specific numbers but think campus-wide unlimited licenses for less than you might have currently spent for a 2003 server license and associated swarm of CALs). Just for grins, here's the link to RedHat's "landing page" targeted at the education market: http://www.redhat.com/solutions/education/
and here's the page for training and certification: https://www.redhat.com/training/.

Good luck as you explore linux. You may well find your first six months a "down the rabbit hole"/"not in Kansas anymore" experience, but I guarantee you that if you stick with it in a year or two you'll wonder how you ever got along without it. It's one hell of a great tool to have in your solutions toolbox.

...as all three sell (or resell, in the case of IBM) commercial distributions including support. I know RedHat has an extensive training and certification program as well; haven't bothered to look into the other two I mentioned but I would be shocked if they didn't have some similar resources. These vendors also usually cut schools deep, deep discounts (I can't quote specific numbers but think campus-wide unlimited licenses for less than you might have currently spent for a 2003 server license and associated swarm of CALs). Just for grins, here's the link to RedHat's "landing page" targeted at the education market: http://www.redhat.com/solutions/education/
and here's the page for training and certification: https://www.redhat.com/training/.

Good luck as you explore linux. You may well find your first six months a "down the rabbit hole"/"not in Kansas anymore" experience, but I guarantee you that if you stick with it in a year or two you'll wonder how you ever got along without it. It's one hell of a great tool to have in your solutions toolbox.

Exactly. And this is why:

Compare that with things like this:

See also: Straw man

Novell SUSE is trying to set themselves up as the desktop Linux vendor, a market that Red Hat has abandoned.

In contrast, "Pro" versions of Windows (e.g. 2000 and XP Pro) are guaranteed 10 years of security updates and "Home" versions get at least 5 years (XP Home gets 7+ years).

I don't understand why Apple doesn't get criticized for not having (AFAIK) an official support lifecycle policy. Red Hat gives 7 years of support for Enterprise Linux. Heck even free Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) versions get 5 years of support. Is Apple even trying to be taken seriously in the enterprise?

This bugs me because I thought 10.2 was Apple's first very good version of OS X. Many people who bought 10.2 or a Mac less than 4 years ago should be perfectly fine running 10.2, but they are forced to upgrade if they still want security updates and bug fixes.

Here's what I have in my CD case, in approximate order of how regularly use them...

Memtest86--because the RAM in the cheap PCs I come across sucks. Some of the other tool CDs have this one as well, I like to get the latest one regularly here. Good for stress testing, and even handy for figuring out things like whether the RAM is running correctly in dual-channel mode.

SystemRescueCD--I particularly like the partition editor and imaging utilities. Been weaning myself off Partition Magic/Drive Image even for Windows work with these two.

Ubuntu live CD and DVD. The CD works in more systems, the DVD version is a completely usable system with a lot of stuff in it. What most impresses me about the Ubuntu live disc is that I can download packages over the network and install them, even thing that run as services, from the live environment. I actually got PostgreSQL installed and some database tests completed, all without a single Postgres file on the media.

Knoppix--Some days, your first choice in Linux live CDs just doesn't work on a random machine; that's why I still carry around this one as a backup.

Bart PE--A bit of a pain to build the first time, but very handy for fixing Windows machines.

Offline NT Password & Registry Editor--this one has been less useful lately, as I've been running into NTFS partitions it really doesn't want to write to. My fallback position is to use this to generate a new SAM file, then copy it over with a BartPE disc.

RedHat Enterprise 3 and 4 CDs. While not technically live CDs, you can do a lot with booting into this environment, and I deal with enough people running RedHat versions that they're worth carrying around. I still keep one of the older versions around so I have something running the 2.4 kernel to tests against; occasionally I'll run into some old hardware that 2.6 pukes on, while 2.4 still works great.

Have a look at the Red Hat Directory Server http://www.redhat.com/solutions/directoryserver/ which is a commercial offering or the Fedora Directory Server http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/ which is free. This is the offspring of the former Sun/iPlanet Directory Server and way up on the enterprise-grade scale and includes a java based management console.

Have a look at the Red Hat Directory Server http://www.redhat.com/solutions/directoryserver/ which is a commercial offering or the Fedora Directory Server http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/ which is free. This is the offspring of the former Sun/iPlanet Directory Server and way up on the enterprise-grade scale and includes a java based management console.

The assurance program assures customers that if there is an intellectual property issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux ("RHEL") or JBoss Enterprise Middleware Suite ("JEMS"), Red Hat will either (i) replace the infringing portion of the software, (ii) modify the software so that it becomes non-infringing, or (iii) obtain the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software without interruption.

Solution/s: Fedora, Debian, et al. Take your pick.

This is Red Hat's list: http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/leadership/dev elopment.html
This is Red Hat's contributions according to the Fedora Project (gives more detail about Red Hat's role in projects) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions
This is just another list of different projects: http://sourceware.org/projects.html

A lot of people underestimate how much Red Hat does. They have significantly more code in the kernel than any other entity, they are also responsible for a very large part of the GCC development, and most of the recent big improvements in GCC can be attributed to Red Hat. They also do a ton of dev for Gnome and have done wonderful things with GCJ. People give them a lot of shit, but a lot of OSS development would slow down drastically if they were taken out of the equation.
Regards,
Steve

Can someone please mod the parent down as a troll? And someone else please post a link to the page I can't find?

In the interest of full disclosure, you should mention that you have Foe'd me when you ask someone to mod me down. I have a couple of serial downvoters modding various comments incorrectly already and now you ask people to do more of it? This is not a troll. This is my genuine opinion.

Actually, if you don't even know what a troll is, perhaps you shouldn't ask people to mod things with that modifier. Trolling is when you say something you don't believe to elicit a desired response. If my GP comment deserves any negative moderation, it is Flamebait. However, many unpopular views are often modded Flamebait. The slashbot party line is generally supportive of the Fedora project, although in times past it has gone the other way, like when Fedora was destroying people's CDRW hardware. Ah, how quickly we forget. I guess this is why over the years we have forgiven Sony its many trespasses, and why probably 99% of the people all incensed over their misplay will be buying a PS3 ere long. I can only assume the same element of human nature is responsible for simultaneously bitching about our government yet continually voting for the incumbents.

Oh, and this is the list you were looking for. I googled for "redhat open source projects" and then clicked about four times to get there. You couldn't find your asshole with both hands and a depth gauge. No wonder you foe'd me, I must have had endless reasons to cuss you out for stupidity in the past.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Source RPM repository

http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/
http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/devel opment/latest/livecd/

http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/
http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/devel opment/latest/livecd/