Slashdot Mirror

There are also other flavors available...
CentOS at http://www.centos.org/ and probably TaoLinux at http://www.taolinux.org/ will also follow suit with a new release.

One interesting software release that takes advantage of North-American Linux Enterprise distribution, is Asterisk@home, which comes with a recent CentOS 3.4 build. Spin your own VoIP infrastrucutre from http://asteriskathome.sourceforge.net/

Umm, why bother when you can just grab CentOS 4.0 instead?
(or one of the other RHEL-rebuild projects like Tao or Whiteboxlinux)

CentOS is one of several projects that took the source rpms from Redhat and recompiled them into a working set of isos (minus Redhat copyrighted material). Whitebox Linux, Tao Linux, and Scientific Linux are some others.

They were basically all started independantly of each other.

Whitebox (being the only one I have really used extensively) is run out of Beauregard Parish Public Library by a a JMorris. He rules with a tyranical fist and has no desire to offer anything other than the bare minimum of changes needed to make the rebuild possible. Now I like this hard-line leadership, but it has caused some friction as to the timelyness of updates.

I did recently convert a machine that was Whitebox Linux to Tao Linux to verify that it could be done. I followed this basic procedure. With this basic procedure, picking one of the projects over another isn't that much of a life or death decision. It is relatively easy to move between this projects.

As far as I can tell (not having seen an actual RHEL box) both Whitebox and Tao are very accurate representations of RHEL. I have yet to see an instance where a package desigend for RHEL didn't work with Whitebox and Tao. I have installed Oracle, vmware, various rpm's that were packaged for RHEL without much troubles.

Before the RHEL/Fedora split, I was running Red Hat 9 on my server and desktops. I also purchased one subscription to the Red Hat Network for my server. When they told us there was a split coming down the road, I take a look at my options. Fedora looked to risky because it was bleeding edge and Red Hat is not supporting it directly. I wanted to go with RHEL but the price was too high. For some time, I tought I was nailed.

But then, I learn about RHEL respin projects. Many were available (CentOS, TaoLinux, WhiteBox Linux, etc) and they were free. After looking at those projects, I chose TaoLinux and I'm very glad with my decision. The maintainer for this project, David Parsley, is commited and serious.

Did I stayed loyal to Red Hat? Yes, I did. But I'm no longer an official customer of Red Hat.

linkified for the robots:

Although those looking for a FREE ALTERNATIVE to RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX should also consider Scientific Linux, Taolinux, and Whitebox Linux.

FREE ALTERNATIVE to RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX
FREE ALTERNATIVE to RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX

linkified for the robots:

Although those looking for a FREE ALTERNATIVE to RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX should also consider Scientific Linux, Taolinux, and Whitebox Linux.

FREE ALTERNATIVE to RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX
FREE ALTERNATIVE to RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX

CentOS is basically just a totally free and open version of RedHat Enterprise Linux

There are a couple of projects doing this.

See also Tao Linux and White Box Linux.

There's a list of similar projects on the Tao Linux site, including a roll-your-own-distro-from-RHEL-SPRMS HOWTO.

CentOS is basically just a totally free and open version of RedHat Enterprise Linux

There are a couple of projects doing this.

See also Tao Linux and White Box Linux.

There's a list of similar projects on the Tao Linux site, including a roll-your-own-distro-from-RHEL-SPRMS HOWTO.

Yes Red Hat is propriatary according to:
Whitebox
SCI-Linux
CentOS
Lineox
Taolinux
Those are the RHEL builds feel free to ask Mandrake, or RedFlag, or Fedora how propriatary other builds are.
Can I have more FUD please? mmmmm thank you.

There's nothing particularly wrong with a reinstall for major upgrades as lots of things can get broken in the process. RH et. al. don't want to carry on supporting legacy versions of packages with their major releases. With Anaconda and network kickstarts the pain of doing complete reinstalls is pretty much eliminated - assuming you manage your configurations well.

With the RHEL product, there will be security updates for 5 years, which do not require reinstalling the entire system. There are "free" clones of RHEL, check out WhiteBox Linux or CentOS or Tao Linux. I'm using WhiteBox in a production environment.

Try to replace a typical Windows Server of your Company.

You can learn more with simple tasks: implement a little samba configuration, a
simple apache+php site with some users auth (htaccess), a print server, etc...

You can "build" your linux skills really fitting your needs, try to look at
The Linux Documentation Project...

The distro is not really important. Form the Windows world I can suggest a modern distro, based on
RPM or DEB (like RedHat, Mandrake, Debian...).

If you work for Company (so Oracle DB, Qlogic Hardware, etc...), probably you can choose RedHat (or Tao Linux http://taolinux.org/...)

You can rebuild a complete RHEL3 (minus the few bits of proprietary stuff I haven't noticed yet) from the public source, so long as you change the name and remove any Red Hat trademarks.

Some RHEL3 based distributions:
http://www.centos.org/
http://whiteboxlinux.org/
http://taolinux.org/

I recommand you Tao Linux. It's based on the source RPMS of RedHat Enterprise Linux 3.0. All security upgrades distributed by RedHat are recompiled and made available to the Tao Linux community. Yum is bundled with Tao Linux and is the default way of installing/updating software.

David Parsley and Pasi Pirhonen are the main developpers of Tao Linux. They promised it will be supported as long as RedHat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (year 2008).

There's a reason nobody runs client-server. Desktop systems with fast processors are just too cheap.

The thin clients, once in place, are good indefinitely. If I need more speed or capacity, I just upgrade the server - not a whole lab of 30 workstations. The savings continues from there. With no internal moving parts the energy consumption for the lab goes down, and the lab also stays cooler - requiring less energy again from the H/VAC system. Small savings, but with 30 labs - it adds up. On top of this, I don't ever have to touch the clients. They PXE-boot from a central Tao-tc Linux server which loads a small kernel and rdesktop on the client and then severs the connection. The client connects to a Dell rack-mount Windows 2003 Terminal server or one of our Fedora LTSP Terminal Servers, depending on our needs.

This means that, for any given lab, I have, at most, one machine to manage, install apps on, patch, secure and otherwise babysit. This saves big bucks on time, OS upgrade licenses, Patchlink licenses, Antivirus licenses, etc. that I would have needed for every computer in the lab (assuming they were Windows desktops). I also have much greater reliability: if one of the servers goes down I just change a setting on the Tao-tc box, have the lab reboot their clients, and presto, they're pointing to one of the other servers in another building and sharing it's power while I re-ghost the dead server.

We also allow our users to disconnect from their sessions instead of logging out. This means they can come back later to any of the thin-clients in the building, log in and be exactly where they left off before. This is a godsend during power outages - the servers are on UPS's, when the power comes back on, the users reconnect to their existing sessions and no work is lost, no data is corrupted.

Granted, the thin-client scenario is doesn't work for every situation - we use high-end workstations for CAD/CAM and Video Production Labs. We also use dedicated workstations for those staff who need to sync Palms or use local USB devices, etc. but for "normal" staff, classroom and lab use - it rocks!

One Dual-processor 3.2GHz server with 4Gb of RAM can serve over 100 clients running Office at blazing speeds. Word and Exel load "instantly". You should see the look on peoples faces when I show them an empty IBM 300PL (P2 133 MHz) system net-booted to windows, and I click on Word. It invariably blows their workstations away. And because people using the Terminal Server can't install every shiny, blinky piece of software that shows up it STAYS fast. And saves me more money and headaches in the process.

The best part is that our our Mac OS X users can use RDP to connect to the terminal servers too - allowing them to use the Windows-only software with ease - instead of forcing them to give up their Macs. In fact we just did a week-long class on some proprietary Windows-only app in our iMac Lab. With the 3-button scroll-mice plugged in, they never even knew the difference; worked, like a charm.

So, yeah, you aren't going to use thin-clients for gaming and surely not at home, but in a controlled corporate or school environment, you can't beat it for ease of management, performance and cost savings.

So our optimum solution is this: Each location will have one or more Windows 2K3 Terminal Servers (for Windows-specific apps) and one or more Linux Terminal Services Servers (LTSP and TAO-tc). The building file/print server is an Apple Xserve which can serve AFP/SMB/NFS home directories to all our clients. Those classes which need "special" computers (G5's for Graphics and Video, PCs for AutoCAD, etc.) get high-end standalone computers - everyone else gets a "thin-client".

The thin-clients net-boot off one of the Linux or Xserve boxes and start either an X-session with the LTSP server for a Gnome/KDE desktop (home directories NFS-mounted from the Xserve) or they start a full-screen rdesktop/rdp session to one of the Windows TS serves for Win2K3 desktops. You literally can't tell that it didn't just boot off the hard drive (except it only takes about 20 seconds).

So at each location (barring the few high-end standalones) we have maybe 2 windows servers to manage, secure and patch and maybe 1 or 2 Linux boxes to manage. All the clients have no moving parts and never need to be upgraded or touched - they are literally disposable. They get their configuration from our centralized dhcp server and all accounts are single-signon with kerberos through Active Directory (PeeCees won't play well with OpenLDAP :-\ ).

The only downside is that these workstations can't run the myriad mac software titles the schools have invested in. Our solution to that is to use the new CD-ROM-less eMacs. For $599 we have a bullet-proof all-in-one workstation that we net-boot off an Xserve to OS X. Home directories are auto-mounted on the desktop using Apple's Active Directory Plugin. For those users who want/need to access Linux software they can click an icon in the dock to open an X session to the Linux server and run Gnome full-screen. If they need to use windows apps they can click an icon and instantly have their desktop replaced with a windows RDP session. Same credentials, same home directories, same printers, cross-platform.

When it comes right down to it, the eMac as a terminal is the BEST choice. It can function as both a Linux and Windows desktop and run Mac apps as well and costs $599. An Intel-based thin-client costs about $200 plus a monitor ($150) = $350. It is about half the price and can "do" both Linux and Windows (and never needs to be replaced) it just can't run Mac Apps. Whereas a low-end Dell workstation with monitor runs about $600 + virus subscription + patchlink license = $630 and can ONLY run windows (I haven't found a good FREE X11 "client" app for windows yet). On top of that, assuming we don't turn it into an expensive thin-client in 4 years, it will have to be upgraded or replaced. Not to mention the headache and overhead administering stand-alone Windows boxes with their ad/spy/virus/warez problems. There's no contest.

My philosophy is you should use the best tool for the job. My primary workstation at work is a low-end Fedora Core 1 box. I don't need much because I always have multiple sessions going to the LTSP/WinTS servers (which are really fast). I also have a G4 TiBook with OS X for my mobile solution, because, again, I can literally open a fullscreen session to Linux or Windows as well as run ARD to admin Xserves.

Our students will graduate knowing how to use Macs, Linux and Windows, and be ready for ANY market. Meanwhile we are able to better manage and can afford to upgrade only a few servers. This will give our students and faculty a much better experience and, who knows, maybe even give them the courage to go home, blow away their windows box and install Linux.

Hey, it COULD happen :-)

Since RedHat still provides its source code for RHEL, there are some alternatives other than the cutting edge Fedora distribution: Tao Linux, CentOS-3 and White Box Entreprise Linux. These distributions are build from the source packages of RHEL 3 and are almost identical to RHEL except for some artwork and logos.

For those who appreciate stability, reliability and long-term availability (4-5 years lifecycle), those distributions are made for you. Personnaly, I prefer Tao Linux because it has a rather large user base. The Tao logo looks great too!

I installed RedHat on a machine today, but to get their updates I'm gracefully guided to a page where I'm to pay money for the support. Ummm.. Not nice. But until either Slackware comes up with an x86_64 distro, or I roll my own (that'll be a while), I'm stuck using one someone else has already thrown together.

Since you mention having far more servers than workstations, I'll assume that Fedora isn't what you're looking for. (x86_64 support, free updates, but sometimes a wee bit too much on the bleeding edge.)

If you want the stability of Red Hat Enterprise software on an x86_64 but don't want (or simply don't need) a support contract, you might want to check out:

• Tao Linux
• White Box Enterprise Linux

Both of these distros are based on the Red Hat Enterprise SRPMs (legally they can't say that they are Red Hat Enterprise), and provide updates for free.

FWIW, I'm currently using Tao on a dual Opteron system. (Back when I was setting the box up, White Box hadn't quite finished their x86_64 release). Installed without any problems. If you've got a spare x86_64 machine to test with, you might want to take a look at these distributions.

Warez version of RHEL?

I know at least four projects of this kind, namely CentOS, White Box Linux, Tao Linux and Fermi Linux LTS from Fermilab.

As they are all based on RHEL 3 we will factor lots of stuff, the admin will be very similar, so will the automated install using kickstart.

And to boot we will not have to worry about some critical components like a JVM being only available on RHEL for example, if it runs on RHEL it has a 0.9999999 probability of doing so too on one of the clones.

And for some apps like Oracle we will go with RHEL since they impose it to us. But in the end we will not get commercial supports for the 70 or so servers we've been running on 6.1, 6.2 and 7.3 without support for all those years.

Also, if you do not care for support you can take RHEL and install it on several computers with as many CPUs as you wish.

As far as I understand it the restrictives terms are only about SUPPORT and not redistribution.

This isn't correct...

The RHEL binary RPMs and ISOs are distributed under a per-machine/per-year cost subscription license. You cannot (legally) install more copies than you have licenses for, irrespective of support options.

This is all fine in the eyes of the GPL, which talks about _source_ redistribution. To remain compliant RH must make the SRPMs available for download for the GPL'd software in RHEL.

This is why the RHEL clones (taolinux.org, etc...) are possible and in fact practically identical to RHEL. They have taken all the GPL SRPMs and recompiled them. The handfull of remaining RPMs are RH trademarked logos and the like. These packages get replaced by custom artwork.

Since Red Hat is open source, you have at least the following choises: Cent OS, and Tao Linux. Both being clones of RHEL.

There's nothing wring with Mandrake, or any of the other major Linux distros. I've found them all to be of top quality. But with the myriad of RH options available now, I don't understand why anyone who has been using RH for a while would ever want to change.

Just doesn't make sense.

For those that are used to RH and don't want a big change, there are many distributions that are compiling the RHEL source and making their own distro. Thank you GPL!

Whitebox Enterprise Linux
cAos
Tao
just to name a few

If we're going to be starting another distro war, I think everyone should take a look at these three projects which aim to release a free edition of RedHat Enterprise Linux. Once you've got one of these running, even if these distro go under, you can still get SRPMS security updates from RH and build them yourself through 2008.

Tao Linux
White Box Linux
cAos

I am not a lawyer, but I will try to answer this in that I have spoken with Red Hat directly before regarding most of this stuff.

Now that RedHat no longer offers a free desktop version of their product, would it be possible that a Linux-running site could be sued by RedHat for illegally running a 'pirated' copy of Red Hat Advanced Server?

Only if you actually purchased a license do you give Red Hat permission to audit your facilities for license violations. Installing Linux is allowed by the GPL, as many times over as you would like. But you are only entitled to Red Hat services on the machine you paid for. IE NO UPDATES/BUG FIXES.

Would this be any different to Microsoft calling in the BSA to investigate a site running unlicensed copies of Windows?

Not really, you can always get Red Hat workalikes built from the source code available to us all. For Free!
White box Linux
Tao Linux
CentOS
Just to name a few.

What if the RedHat site was running a hybrid type of installation, with portions of the distro taken from the unlicensed 'illegally obtained' version of RHAS, but others, such as package management (apt-get, for example), taken from the free GNU/Debian distro?

Depends on whether the machine is licensed or not. I assume a jacked up installation (debian packages on rh system) would void any warranty or compatability assurances that come with Red Hat.

It's basically YARHELR (Yet Another RedHat Enterprise Linux Rebuild)