Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: redhatisnotlinux.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to redhatisnotlinux.org.

Comments · 13

  1. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on 6 Months On, Vista Security Still Besting Linux

    Actually, let me add to that:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=RedHat+is+not+linux
    http://www.redhatisnotlinux.org/

    QNX, FreeBSD and Slackware are all more closely related to each other than RedHat is to any of them. (And yes, I realise that QNX and FreeBSD are not Linux distributions, that is the point!)

  2. Other Perspective by Kozz · · Score: 1 · on RH7 Crashes In Three Weeks (But Fixed)

    If /. did not post the story, they'd be accused of some editorial conspiracy or the like. What were they to do? Not post this story? I firmly believe that this story is worthy of attention from the Slashdot community. While we all know that RedHat Is Not Linux, it is still one popular distro (among many). So "whats [sic] the deal"? The deal is that Slashdot is posting a relevant story, and I don't see a problem with that.


    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

  3. Re:not a good measurement? by Sheik+Geek · · Score: 2 · on Red Hat's Linux Market Share Eroding?

    The methodology used is great if you're trying to figure out who's making how much money from selling Linux distributions, but isn't so great if you're trying to figure out which distributions are good ones, or popular ones. This article just goes to show that Red Hat is not Linux. There are many distro out there, each with their own pro's and con's. I am a big Caldera fan(1). The main thing I see from this article is which distro do businesses want to use, verses which distro do the geeks/nerds(2) want use. Obviously Japanesse business want Turbo Linux, IBM wants Caldera, Dell wants RedHat. The geeks well I would recommend the Linux from Scratch Distro.

    (1)This is my personal opinion. Anybody can disagree if they wish(3).
    (2)Geeks/nerds is used as a term of enderment in this case.
    (3)They are coure will be wrong if they disagree ;)

  4. Re:Price? by The_Messenger · · Score: 1 · on VAIO To Be First Crusoe Laptop
    Note that only the more expensive model is available in graphite. That's right, Apple makes you pay not to look like a fruit!

    Actually, even the graphite iBook is a great deal. I'm in the market for a laptop ($1400-$2000), and it looks pretty schweet, but I have two issues:

    1. I've only run GNU/Linux on x86, and I understand that you have to run around in circles to get it booting decently on iBooks.
    2. Several "real" companies now have commercial software available "Linux". But..."Linux", to them, is x86 Red Hat. Ew.

    (http://www.redhatisnotlinux.org)

    Anyway, I'm currently leaning towards the IBM i2000 series Thinkpads. Cheap and fast... (if not very good!)

    ---------///----------
    All generalizations are false.

  5. Re:Red Hat != Linux by peterjm · · Score: 1 · on The New Linux Myth Dispeller

    now that's insightful.
    where on earth did you get that slogan?
    bring something new to the discussion, please. It was getting interesting before you stepped in.

  6. Re:Intelligent by The_Messenger · · Score: 2 · on KDE Developer on the GNOME Foundation
    Very insightful comments (hint hint moderators)... but I'd like to comment on your last point:
    GNOME feels to unix-ey, and not very Mac-ey or Window-ey. Part of this is in the design purposely, most of the GNOME creators are UNIX people, who are used to writing UNIX software in motif.
    I think the difference is that the KDE team is willing to admit they're ripping off Apple, Microsoft, and the Open Group. GNOME stills believes they're fresh and original. To me, GNOME feels like an attempt at a compromise beween the Windows 95 GUI and a window manager like AfterStep (speaking as an AfterStep fan)... and an unprofessional attempt at that... all due respect to Miguel "Yo Quiero Childsex" de Icazza and crew, but GNOME still feels like an unfinished hack. (Yes! Blatant flamebait! Bite me, fanboys!) KDE, whatever gripes I have with it, just "feels" complete. No, the GNOME creators aren't UNIX people, they're Linux people, which is an important distinction... the distinction is implied professionalism. (Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but "UNIX" stills means something to me.) I see this professionalism in KDE. I hope that Sun and HP reconsider this decision. To be honest, I don't see how a group of corporate computer professionals could use both and pick GNOME. I'd love to hear their reasoning, although I fear it would turn out to be something like "Well, Red Hat uses GNOME, and Red Hat is Linux, right? So GNOME is good. KDE is bad because 'KDE' is similar to 'CDE', which we'd like to forget."

    (Btw, I've heard a lot of negative things about CDE in this discussion, but frankly it rocks both KDE and GNOME in terms of stablity, consistency, and OS integration. As I've ranted about before, Solaris 8 with CDE is a living, working example of user-friedly UNIX; an aquaintence who used to do Sun marketing used it as his desktop OS while employed there with no trouble (and I'll emphasize he is not a hacker).)

    This post has surely come off as flamebait, and I'll live with that. I like what I see so far in GNOME, but it's not quite polished... give it another six months and I may change my mind.

    It's funny... I'm an AfterStep man at heart, but I use KDE for my day-to-day work in GNU/Linux. I'm not completely happy, but I get more work done. Which is the same reason I do Java development in NT. Why is this relevant? Because Sun and HP's software is meant for just that: getting work done. That's why I question their judgement.

    ---------///----------
    All generalizations are false.

  7. Re:MS to Linux users: "Just install this RPM as ro by The_Messenger · · Score: 2 · on Microsoft Porting Applications To Linux (Really!)
    Red Hat Is Not Linux.

    (But Microsoft would probably favor it anyway. "Awww, how cute! It's like Windows for Linux users!")

    ---------///----------
    All generalizations are false.

  8. Re:In a way - I have to agree... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1 · on Michael Cowpland Resigns From Corel

    The RedHat as a standard is good PR work by RedHat and laziness on the part of some software writers. Sign the petition if you don't like it.

  9. Re:where's the tarballs and deb's for Linux? by brank · · Score: 1 · on Yahoo releases their Messenger for Linux/FreeBSD

    I sent them a note about RedHat is not Linux! with the bugs form.

  10. Re:Why does Slashdot Run Every Microsoft Story ? by JimDabell · · Score: 1 · on EU To Take Legal Action Against Microsoft

    They use then because we are safe in the knowledge that they have been strenuosly tested for deployment in large scale organisations.

    Really? I would have thought that the first priority would be to get something that does the job. I'm not saying that Windows doesn't do this (although in many cases, it's debatable), but you seem to be deliberately choosing one relatively small consideration, in which Windows is clearly the winner (due to it's market share), and blowing it up out of proportion.

    I for one, would not even consider using Linux at work for the following reasons :

    Users : Most office people are stupid with computers. It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing. It would be a nightmare with RedHat.

    Which is completely irrelevent. "Most office people" won't be setting up printers, that's what support technicians like you are for.

    Support : Most people do not have RedHat skills, it would be more difficult to find them.

    Likewise, "most people" don't need Redhat skills - all they need to be able to do is use KDE or GNOME, which are both very similar to Windows.

    Qualifications : How would I be able to determine the suitability of an applicant if they do not have something like an MCSE ? I see that you can have a RedHat certificate. So before everyone jumps up and down with delight I think that you should stop and think about the above points, as this helps no one.

    Congratulations, you have completely lost me. First you say that not having the equivelant of an MCSE is awful, then you say that there is the equivelant, but it "helps no one"?

    And please stop using your percieved flaws in Redhat as arguments against using Linux - Redhat is not Linux

  11. Wow. by Accipiter · · Score: 4 · on Fred Moody Says Linux Worst Operating System Ever
    This dude loses credibility pretty early on.

    The best-known competitor is Red Hat, but others - notably TurboLinux and Mission Critical Linux - are in the market as well.

    Notably? Am I the only one who has NEVER heard of "Mission Critical Linux"? (I'm NOT saying it's bad, but it's pretty much an unknown, and he ranks it up there as "notable." How about Slackware? Debian? Those aren't notable, but "Mission Critical Linux" is. He hasn't done his research.

    Linux zealots for years have insisted that the operating system is an invulnerable perpetual motion machine, incapable of crashing or being infested by the kinds of worms and viruses that hackers are constantly sending Microsoft-powered servers.

    Can I ask who has ever said that Linux is "Invulnerable", or "incapable of crashing"? I've *NEVER* heard those claims. This guy is an Asshole! Seems to me, he's overexaggerating this crap just to start up the FUD machine.

    This looks like an alarmingly high number in comparison with Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10, but it is significantly less than the 122 racked up by Red Hat...

    For the 800 BILLIONTH TIME: Red Hat is NOT Linux! This idiot is taking a select few distros, and catagorizing them all as "Linux." Someone smack this moron.

    If you look this list over, and measure each system's number of vulnerabilities against the number of its customers, Linux is arguably the worst operating-system product in history, and Microsoft's the best. As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to
    masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one.

    I could tear this entire paragraph up, but we all know it to simply be FUD. This jackass is trying to generate hits, and he's probably doing a good job.

    Oh, did you happen to notice the bottom of the article? Look:

    Fred Moody is the author of I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year with Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier

    -- THIS ARTICLE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT FOR MICROSOFT CORPORATION. --

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  12. Re:LINUX IS DA BOMB !!!!! by mr · · Score: 1 · on OpenBSD, Reductionist Design

    >TIMe Join LINUX

    Which Linux?

    Look at redhatisnotlinux.org. This site:
    1) claims to not be an anti-red-hat site.
    2) trying to get the world to see that linux is more than redhat

    Given one of the options is:
    >CompileFarm, for comercial entities to build binary distributions for ALL MAJOR Linux distributions.

    It looks like there is not ONE LINUX to join...but MANY Linuxes to pick from. So which Linux distro do you want us to do free work on?

    >WHy do we have soo many different unix variants.
    Answer this question: Why are there over 150 Linux versions?

    Given all the different distros, and the need for a special compile farm, it looks like Linux is more fragmented than the commerical Unix world ever was.

  13. Re:This is all getting out of hand. by gavinroy · · Score: 1 · on Red Hat 'Piranha' Security Risk - And Fix

    Not only did Red Hat screw up, but the media's interpretation of this is "Linux has a back door". This is how MSNBC reports it via their headline. Red Hat is not Linux, it is a distribution of linux*. How do we keep the media (who in turn influences investors and the general business community) from making blanket statements like this which are irresponsible.