Slashdot Mirror

so what's the etc., come on... Michael Hasenstein PS: (No, I deleted the comment about the first part of the sentense. It's just not necessary.)
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

SuSE is at least as big as Red Hat, but much of their coding effort goes into proprietary stuff that you and I will never benefit from. Where did you get THAT bullshit from? my alternative email address: Michael Hasenstein
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

RHIDE is also available for Linux!
I found a URL for y'all:
http://www.tu-chemnit z.de/~sho/rho/rhide-1.4/rhide-linux.html
I think it's one of those apps that's in a perpetual beta stage [kinda like ICQ for winbloze...]
I used RHIDE it when I was still looking through Windows. I was happy when I discovered I could use it in the Open [source that is]. It came with my commercial copy of the SuSE[5.3 or 6.0 or 6.1- I canna remember] distro...
HTH,
Steelehead

I for one would love to see Borland port their tools to Linux, but if they don't (or until they do), people may like to check out RHIDE, which provides a similar thing to Borland TC.
Oh yeah, Borland site is still /.'ed.

Redhat talks about risks of their going public. They don't mention any competitor, but everything else. Also, I've heard (ok,ok, hearsay) that Mr. Young (Redhat) used the words "...our little competitors..." during an event. Redhat felt a little TOO secure and important.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Reason: ISDN is very popular in Europe and _especially_ in Germany, where SuSEs home market is.
Just wanted to mention this explanation to not let anyone think I'm biased (more than usual).
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Major problem: although SuSE probably spends the greatest effort of all distributions on ISDN (they also employ one of the core isdn4linux developers, Karsten Keil) they, like everyone else, have the problem that 2.2-ISDN (I'm not talking about standard-2.2 ISDN, which is ooold, but also about the newer patches) is buggy compared to 2.0. If you really need/want ISDN and it doesn't work with 2.2, what the hell, go back to 2.0 and try again. 2.2 needs to mature quite a bit anyway. Remember, 2.0 is at sub-sub-level 37, while 2.2 is at 10 and also significantly more complex.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

It would be honest. Right now lots of inocent newbies are told about Linux' stability. Then they go and buy the latest 2.2 based SuSE/Redhat/whatever. And it's indeed mor estable than Windows on the average, but I didn't need to turn the power off because the system was completely frozen for years (only time was long ago when I tried an ealry dosemu version) until I started using 2.2. It happened 3 times so far.

The problem is we can't really compare Linux to Windows, we have to compare it to other Unix'es, and most of them are a lot more stable than our beloved (irony) Linux.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

That's what I said. I don't see how the much more aggressiv way you both did it can be of any help. Yes, sometimes (more and more often) I get very tired of all this Linux stuff, especially since there are excellent systems out there that already have all the features needed for big(ger) systems and are also a lot more stable than Linux (ok, partly(mostly?) because they run on well-defined, proprietary hardware, not on PCs).
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Second: you can't blame Redhat (nor anyone else).

Reason: All three major core components are in some sort of Beta state right now:

• the kernel
  2.0 is at patchlevel 36 now and considered stable, 2.2. is at number 9 and much more complex - so it seems it's going to take (a lot?) longer to mature then 2.0 did)
• the libc
  glibc2.0 was never meant to be used in a distribution (read the glibc mailing list archives). Redhat went ahead and used it anyway, forcing the other distributors to do the same. Same situation with glibc2.1 now. Well, I don't want to blame them, sure there are reasons. There's some interesting new technology there.
• the compiler
  a new compiler generation is replacing godd ol' 2.7.2.3....

These changes have two sides: we have a stability problem now (compared to the older distros). On the other hand , using the new stuff NOW leads to faster change, besides, some features of the new stuff are needed. SMP with 2.0 can hardly make anyone switch to Linux (just had a call from a _big_ potential Linux customer who started evaluating Linux, but only after trying 2.2 I could convince them that Linux' performance is good enough for them). So, to summarize, yes, there is a stability problem right now, but personally I don't see how else it could have been done. The new features are _needed_, and others (e.g. logical volume management, e2fsck time down, and lots of stuff I'll remember immediately after submitting this text ;-)) we don't have yet as well. All this stuff takes time we don't have. Maturity (and with it comes stability) takes lots of time and it's only possible when few things change, which is not the case right now. It's a difficult situation.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

What for? After installing redhat 6 I got a core dump while doing an innocent 'finger root'. Come on. The glibc developers themselves call glibc2.1 beta, and it was pre-beta when redhat made the master CD. RedHat always goes ahead with new stuff that's highly beta (glibc2.0 was never meant to be used for a distro by the developers, read the glibc mail archives!), thereby forcing other distros to follow, making Linux more unstable than it has to be (other distros have to follow because of poeple like you: no idea about the background story but only looking at and comparing stupid version numbers). All current Linux distros are significantly more unstable than teh previous generation! Ok, lots of new features, but we pay a high price for that! New beta kernel (2.0 needed 36 sub-releases to become stable and 2.2 is much more comlex, and caldera/suse/redhat all came out with 2.2._5_), new beta glibc, and new beta compiler (egcs). All three major core components in beta state! I never had to turn off power because of a system freeze until I used the latest 2.2.x distros. NEVER happend to me with 2.0! This is the other side of all this Redhat early-release stuff (was the case with glibc2 and now with 2.1). Yeah, I can (and do) use the old stuff, but what about all the new people who check out Linux for the first time because they heard it's so damn stable? I already had quite some bad feedback about this from newbies! Linux stable, ha!
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Second, it's not true anyway. They do the same thing RedHat is does by including commercial demos, only a lot more than RedHat. The only annyoing thing is that Applixware is included by default when you do a default install, other than that all comm. packages are in series 'pay'. Also, often, when you install something not GPL, you get a warning message that you have to 'OK'. I HATE people like the one I'm replying to, who obviously never tried themselves what thei're talking about.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Go and try KGI yourself!

No SuSE user has to use YaST, just like 'you don't have to use linuxconf & co. in RedHat.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

I can tell you - without identifying any sources - that it's not the only cash-rich Linux company. A much greater problem is speed of growth. Yesterday a 100-people company, next week 1000 people? Impossible, even if there'd be enough people to hire, which is not the case anyway.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

It doesn't matter that the product is free when 90% of the people are convinced they need to have the name of one company on it.

Why do you think the Coca-Cola company is as big as it is? Everyone can mix a similar drink!
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Oracle has formed strategic relationships with major Linux vendors-including Caldera Systems Inc., Pacific HiTech, Penguin Computing, Red Hat Software, S.u.S.E. Linux, and VA Research Linux Systems.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

I dohn't understand that part about the special glibc.... Oracle is alive and well on my SuSE based server (I also use RedHat, no preference).
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Ahhh, another typical AC posting... strange that exactly THIS one appears on slashdot again and again... (special mark: the claim about what RMS has said, which is anything but true because he didn't say did, it's not even close) there must be a _very_ lonely and aggressive child somewhere out there using the anonymity of the Internet to hurt others. An answer based on facts and reason seems senseless, unfortunately. Poor track record of SuSE, haha. Look at the kernel sources (but the SuSE people rarely use their SuSE-email address) and lots of other programs out there, and _especially_ look at XFree86, where SuSE has a leading role in development.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

It's bad for competition between distributions. It doesn't matter how good or bad other distributions really are and how much effort the others spend (or don't spend), _the name_ is not RedHat and therefore they will have less and less (ifthis trend continues) chances to compete successfully with RedHat. Who's going to use SAP on another distro than Redhat now? I know of a big company that used another distribution on their systems where they wanted to test SAP R/3 on Linux, since that distribution was the only one to support there hardware (special patch that's only in very recent kernels and therefore on very few boot disks, of course _after_ installation it's always easy) AND (much more important to them than which-distribution-is-the-best gossip) they had direct contact to the makers of the distribution who also supported them very well, but they where forced to use RedHat now although they didn't want to.

The discussion wether it makes sense to support just one distribution instead of doing what Oracle did (saying which kernel+libc version is upported) is senseless, because it doesn't even take place, no chance, because the (more and more successfully developed due to brilliant RedHat marketing) RedHat brand name already decides the issue for them, no technological arguments or competition between distributions necessary.

--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

??? Linux never created a single distribution. People did it themselves (private or Debian) or (small startup) companies did it. Linus didn't even contribute the majority of current kernel code, he's just the maintainer mostly managing the input of many. The kernel is only a small part of the entire system. Your comparison is BS.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Second: It is extremely hard to get a larger booth at the CeBIT, not even money can't get you one! You have to order your booth at least a year in advance, and to get a big one you have to be one of the big guys (MS, IBM,...).
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

what do you think he wrote the software for
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

Anyway, whatever he said, your very stupid. Your posting says 'I don't have my own brain, but someone else said so and so, and since people generally like him that's my opinion as well, because I hope the think _I_'m smart when I repeat things other people who ARE smart have said'
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/

--
Michael Hasenstein; Siemens SBS
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/