Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Is Not Linux (dot org)
PanchoNB writes: "There is a new site on the net. This site is out to show that Red Hat is a Linux distribution but Linux is not just Red Hat."
It's at
RedHatIsNotLinux.org.
We all know this already, but it doesn't hurt to nudge vendors, nor to have a place to point your pointy-haired boss. Sign their petition, or sign up to help maintain a list.
And I don't quite understand why the commercial vendors don't get it. After all, if you believe the poll on the site, only 29% of people are using Red Hat. That means Red Hat-only vendors are missing 71% of their potential market! So put that way, it doesn't make good business sense. That's an argument you can use with your PHB to good effect.
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Although Red Hat is not Linux, Red Hat is very much a part of Linux. While a lot of people have fears, it's hard to point to anything that Red Hat has done that has harmed Linux, or gone against its spirit. In fact, they employ some of the best Linux hackers out there, and everything they produce is released under the GPL. I feel a lot better having them in their position than some other company. I mean... what if Corel had gotten there first, or IBM? I'd be frightened if I had to explain to people that IBM is not Linux... wouldn't you?
---
Some worthwhile comments on the site - BUT - lets all drop this "GNU/Linux" stuff, ok? Sure, you and I know that Linux is just the kernel, and most distros ship with a whole bunch of GNU (and other) utilities. Lets not confuse the masses tho. Call it Linux. If certain fanatics want to have their part recognised, let them rant in the corner. But just ignore them - they will eventually go away.
"Nix" is the name of an anti-lice shampoo in the states. :)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Maybe I'm just confused, but how can you only support one distro? Debian has Alien to allow .rpms, and the actual code FOR Red Hat's Package Manager is free, and will work on any distro (Unless I am mistaken about this?).
:)
Yes, not only does rpm work with other linux distros, you can even get it for Solaris X86. You can also pick up many GNU utils on that site. Just download your favorite source rpms and rebuild for Solaris
--fatboy
Nice and simple. Vendor gets to protect their IP and sell licenses, the lawyers are kept happy, and the customers get the flexibility they need. Infinitely better than binary-only. The only catch is testing, but it's not really too hard to catch the common cases, and specify minimum versions of the relevant compilers, libraries, etc. (which would also have to be done with binary-only, except that this can be much more flexible, since source compatibility is generally much easier to keep across library versions than binary compatibility).
This is the way proprietary software used to be distributed, in the times before microsoft. It was a good idea, one I'd like to see return. Much easier than getting everyone to agree on something like Open86 or LSB. Besides, especially in the Linux world, trying to make libraries and such a rigid specification just harms users, especially those who don't care about proprietary software. Let the distribution managers have the freedom to do what they want...
On a Flamebait rant, am I the only one that gets sick of the GNU/Linux naming stuff? "Well it's using GNU tools, so it's GNU." So a Mac is a Microsoft machine because it runs Word and IE? The kernels the thing. A harsher person would think RHS is jealous because Linux is headlines and the Hurd isn't much past vaporware.
you know, I hate to write flamebait, but honestly..I'm kind of getting sick of RMS and his crap about what we should call the operating system. Who wants to call it "GNU/Linux"?
For example..:
Windows User: "I use windows..what do you use?"
Linux user: "Duh..I use Debian Gee En You slash Linux"
Windows User: "uhm..whatever you say"
I mean..honestly, linux users aren't going to quit calling it linux, and non-linux users aren't going to know what the hell you're talking about saying "Gee En You slash linux" (most don't even know what "linux" is), so why doesn't mr. "i'm better than everyone else, so we should call it what i say to" RMS just SHUT HIS BIG YAPPER.
Just so this post isn't totally off-topic, I think this site is a good idea. Especially for vendors and even non-linux users. All too often, people are starting to see the two as synonymous (redhat/linux).
Redhat is linux. Linux is not redhat.
To say Red Hat is not Linux us to say cheddar is not cheese. No one, to my knowledge, actually believes that Red Hat is THE Linux. And if anyone does, they are either newbies or people who heard about it on the Cnet News.com TV show. So if they have a problem with uninformed people they should quit the human race along with the likes of George Carlin.
"Linux is not Red Hat", not the other around?
Remember Linux laundry detergent? What about Philips audiovisual equipment vs. Phillips milk of magnesia vs. Phillips screwdrivers? What about Sonic the hedgehog vs. Sonic drive-in restaurant? Different fields of business have different namespaces for trademarks, and they hardly overlap unless the trademark is especially strong.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What is the Linux?
...choose the Red-Hat and we stay in wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole goes... choose the Blue-Hat and you go back to your life and believe what ever you want to believe... and run windows.
//
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Linux is... they must be shown.
--// Hartsock
Live to Code, Code to Live!
That is complete nonesense. If you want to advocate compatibility between linux and solaris/bsd/sco, you should be advocating *source* compatibility, not binary compatibility.
Those platforms are just trying to get a cheap ride on the the linux wave by supporting linux binaries. The only reason they have linux-compatibility-modes is because they cant be bothered to port the software to their own platforms. They have the fucking source, tell them to port it and submit the changes to the maintainter. Or if you have the source (i.e. you maintain a closed source app), *you* fix the source to be compatible.
Look, linux is a moving target, and the linux distros try valiantly to keep up. If other platforms want to continue to be binary compatible with that target, they are going to have to track it and keep up with it.
I do a lot of porting among the various *nix platforms and nt, and with the exception of dealing with nt, it is *not* that hard. It just takes some time and effort.
So, in short, stop your pansy-ass whining and get a fucking clue.
It's just like the old Geometry statement: All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. So all Redhats are Linuxes but not all Linuxes are Redhat. Simple Logic fellas, get it right...
Of course, if you read my other post, it's clear that this problem also has a simple solution.
There is also the problem of differing library versions.
./configure wouldn't cut it and it took me a bit to figure out I needed ./configure -s(or something like that)
Mozilla was a pain to install on Caldera 2.3 because I had to change quite a few libraries so I would have the exact same version that the developement team was compiling under. Updating libjpeg was especially fun because plain old
With Redhat 6.2 getting mozilla to work was as simple as tar xvfz.
Holy f**k me in the a**hole!!
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
I'm just questioning why the above post was moderated as informative when it was completely off topic. Submit it to slashdot, and they'll run it more than likely.
:)
And, while Red Hat isn't Linux, inaccurate press is better than no press
This is the linux community from a whole different perspective. One of the main differences between OSS and freesoftware is the fact that it is "free Beer". Interesting that a group that is so pushing so hard for free speech..is in fact pushing for free beer.
think about it....
Not to start a flame war, but RedHat Linux is without a doubt the worst linux distribution. Why do I make this assertion? There are several reasons:
Early adoption of glibc (glibc was a disaster).
Essential tools missing from the distribution. For example, RedHat was late to adopt the QT libs (they worked so adopting these libraries is fine).
Inconsistent quality from release to release.
Many security flaws (read "bugs").
The fact is, you could not choose a more poorly implemented Linux distribution.
Perhaps RedHat's worst problem is the "hiding Linux complexity from the user" mantra. This does untold damage to those folks who wish to learn Linux internals.
If you're serious about Linux you are a Slackware user. It's that simple.
Have a look at my database driven web site.
check it out..... www.redhat.org.....
;)
All i have to say.... COOL
FreeBSD, simply the Best
Try looking there : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
Think what you want of RMS, but if there ever was a good programmer that has contributed code
who is also a GNU/Linux advocate, that's the man.
Now, I'll leave it up to you to decide if he's a wacko...
The http mapping for www.redhat.org is www.freebsd.org. Red Hat isn't linux and like gnu's model they aren't Unix. So what in the hell is it. I'll tell you what it is. It is a microsoft version of the linux kernel applying Microsoft tactics to a GPL product. It sickens me. Linux is the flavor of the month and it deserves better than to be prostituted like a transition OS. Wait for 6.3, I'm sure it will have 65,000 known errors like Bill Gates' 2000 once redhat is done with it. $100 for 6.2 deluxe, a joke that has no punchline. I love linux but Bill Joy makes some interesting points.
Look at there bar graph turbo linux seems to be geting some help.
I think Tux would make a better Morpheus then Neo.
First, you must come to realize... there IS no OS...
Interesting? I don't think so. Red Hat, in fact, has the only completely free distribution - Red Hat Means Source Linux (RMS Linux). Debian has non-free, Caldera and SuSE are packed with proprietary software, and standard Red Hat has a few closed programs, but RMS Linux is the only fully free distribution.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
It is time for the Linux community to stand up to the big corporations and tell them exactly what they are: Money bags with no respect for GNU.
Go Penguin!
You can't handle the truth.
>so what if its commercial, an interesting Slashdot poll would be "who has actually paid for Windows?", I imagine lots of people reading this have a windowspartition and haven't paid for their copy)
And this attitude is a FINE example of why Linux users/slashdot participants are considered a demographic unwilling to pay for software...so why should we make software for them.
Pro-linux columist Nick Pertley's call to download the 'free' copy of Wordperfect is yet another example of the "cheapass Linux bastards" view that must be overcome to get commerical software to run on OpenSource (and unix for that matter) OSes. Two weeks later he DID point out that you should pay to encourage vendors to port software.
(insert other conclusions about wanting copywrite protection for GPL software/calling in lawyers, yet they break these SAME laws in software or music.)
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Hey, got some click-throughs on this, thought I'd check it out.
The comment is true. It'd be GREAT to see a Slashdot article on this issue. The USPTO (and nominees) need to hear from the Slashdot community to understand that patents are important to all of us.
I submitted the URL for our article to Slashdot already, and it was declined. Someone pointed out that Slashdot.org is a GIF patent licensee, and maybe they can't rock the boat on this issue. So my guess is they won't run the story. Sad, really!
But if you care about Internet freedom and Open Source software, you should send in a nomination before the April 28 deadline. It's not too late.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
However, there's no reason to be fanatical about it. Perhaps these folks are going a bit overboard?
--- Speaking only for myself,
Uh, I don't know about anyone else, but I already submitted this story, and it was declined.
~Mr. Bad
-
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
This has been rehashed to death, but I think the point is that it either should be "Linux" as a collective term, or it should be "GNU/XFree86/KDE/Gnome/.../Linux" so that everyone gets credit. Obviously, the latter is absurd, which brings forth the absurdity of "GNU/Linux". If the advocates don't like Linux as a collective term, then let them come up with a new collective term, not devalue the old one in silly ways.
But the point is the advocacy. I've found that someone who brazenly pushes forth "GNU/Linux" is also going to tend to have a very political outlook, and very little of a practical outlook. "GNU/Linux" is clearly incredibly awkward as the name of an operating system, and is not going to enter the mainstream conciousness. Given this practical fact, why would anyone stubbornly insist that it should be used?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I don't think they have their semantics right.
RedHat *is* linux. Or it is *a* linux, at any rate.
Linux, however, is *not* RedHat.
NO CARRIER
I originally was a GNU/GPL believer. They have a way with words and a way of building convincing arguments. But I'm sick and tired of the fanaticism, the anti-corporatism, and the hours and hours of rhetoric on something that is essentially just a set of tools.
The people who set this up need to learn that when you want people to agree with you, you shouldn't mix political issues. If you want people to sign this petition, make it JUST the one issue, and people like me won't get pissed off when you (indirectly) bring up an entirely different issue by calling it 'GNU/Linux', which is NOT the standard accepted term.
In former times, there was proprietary software, for proprietary systems. Now there is a Free (speech) system [Linux], and you can use any distribution of Linux, and you can compile, configure, install any Free (Open Source) software that you can manage to port to your distribution. If you are in charge of a distribution you can make the proper package, or else if you are not, then you can contribute that package. At the very least you can make it work.
But then a new thing comes up, proprietary software running on Linux. There can be no Freedom with proprietary software because you are no longer free to modify your distribution (or more likely, use a modified distribution). So long as you are required to use a defacto standard to use proprietary software, you really aren't any better off than using Windows, in the long run.
> If a company releases a binary-only RPM, and there is no way to actually get at the
> source and change some things (like the location of libraries that other distros may have elsewhere) then it doesn't matter if you
> can get the binaries installed or not. They simply won't work right.
Um, pardon the off-the-cuff response, but isn't that what symlinks are for? (neglecting, for the
moment, library version conflicts)
Nevertheless I feel your pain. Have a friend with a linmodem. (didn't know it when he got it) they
have some (crappy) binary kernel module rpms that drive it. Redhat 6.1 that is.
He's stuck with the 2.2.12 kernel.
First of all, Red Hat has no different APIs than any other distro. In fact, I much prefer Debian as a development distribution, MANY more libraries come with it. Red Hat itself has no API, it's a software collection. Supporting Linux is no harder than supporting Windows. Usually a product for Windows has to be tested on Win95, OSR1, OSR2, OSR2 with IE4, OSR2 with IE5, 98, 98 with IE5, Millennium, NT4, NT4SP, Win2k, Win2k beta. Proprietary Unices are the same deal.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
We just saw Linux From Scratch- and not counting those, there are still over 100 Linux distributions. Do all of these have to be supported?
When you've got several distributions, you have to accept this. It's the cost of not working together.
-bugg
I think he was just refereing to the use of Widgets. And the difficulty which cmes in when you have several different widget sets.
Spencer Ogden
I hope to be wrong but I can easily imagine that with this kind of holy wars between Linux distributions (mine is better than your and so on ...) all that we can get is not "world domination" but a great mess and some pleople laughing (Gates,Balmer and company). Personally, I use 4 partitions on my PC with RedHat, Debian, Mandrake and SuSE. No problems. I like to choose but not confusion. And IMHO all those divisions don't help at all Linux. Remember "divide et impera" ...
I recall a recent survey of retail sales, and Corel is catching up quick. With RH/Mandrake and Debian/Corel, there are two viable "big-name" distros to compete with each other to prevent RH only stuff.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Consider the following: When you really think about it it's beneficial to the "Linux community". Because of Red Hat that there are more linux users.. which is a good thing. I consider my self a good web programmer.. my clients do what ever I say.. untill I got a hold of redhat I was having everyone of them on a NT host.. now I know enough about linux to recommend the useage of it which I would have never been able to do with one day going out and bying the redhat box and installing it and running it. Sure now I would rather use Debian but with out Red Hat I would be spending thousands a month of Microsoft Products.
Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
The SMART move would be to say to all the in-fighting linux-vendor weenies is this:
"You people can't agree, so instead we are going declare the linux compatibility mode BSD uses."
If you want to declare the BSD compatibility mode to be a "standard" then go ahead. I can't see that it makes much difference whether it's you or anone else that does it, declaring a standard in a marketplace is a pointless exercise unless you can get the people in the market to go along with it.
...at least not after the DOJ gets done.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
This is one of the reasons why I am going to start a unified configuration program for linux, one that will work on all distros the same. This way people could go from one distro to another easily because they will have a common configuration program. Every distro now has a different configuration program which makes going from one distro of linux to another a whole new learning experience, yet they all claim they are "linux". I plan on turning this into my graduating project for my college so I'll have support from my school soon.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Most geeks wouldn't consider Linux an operating system, as it is simply a kernel. Debian is an operating system
No, "Debian" is a project or a non-profit organization. "Debian GNU/Linux" is an Operating System, as is the planned "Debian GNU/HURD". Oh, I can also go to the store and purchase a box that says "RedHat Linux Operating System" or "Mandrake Linux Operating System", etc. This is shorthand for nothing -- the Debian and RedHat OSes operate my system, where the Linux kernel alone does not.
So, the conclusion should be that "Linux" is either an OS or just an OS kernel, depending on the context of the discussion.
It's also time that we called bullshit on this whole "distribution" word, when what we really mean to say is "Different, Semi-compatible Operating System that uses a distribution of the Linux kernel." Maybe this will become clear when someone builds an OS with a totally un-UNIX like user space on top of the Linux kernel.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Interesting document; I've never bothered to read it before (mostly because X/Open is pretty irrelevant these days). According to that, just about anything is an abuse of the trademark, including your *Nix (they cite UN*X, but it would presumably apply). In fact they'd much prefer that you never, ever say anything about Unix (my preferred spelling) without fully stating your terms, as in "UNIX® Operating System", which is perhaps admirably accurate, but doesn't lend itself much to conciseness (ironically enough for an OS with mostly two-letter commands).
The paper taken as a whole is actually pretty absurd; it just goes too far. Even if the trademark weren't diluted all to hell, we're basically talking about four letters; how many slightly similar variations can they reasonably expect to control?
In any event, I don't think the original poster was commenting on the names of the systems at all; s/he was pointing out that software that conforms to the Linux API generally conforms to the Unix API (sorry, I meant the UNIX® Operating System's Application Programming Interface). In other words, that it would be nice if people who've adopted and started coding for Linux would discover that they're actually coding for a much broader audience (with very little extra effort, or none). Which is actually the source of the whole UNIX trademark dilution problem in the first place.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
OK troll, I'll bite (if only to refute the obvious disinformation).
The term "newbie" has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It is not derived from "nubian" but from a contraction of "new" and "beginner". Similarly, "gnubie" (which you may have seen in use) is the obvious contraction of "GNU" and "newbie" and thus, also has nothing to do with race.
(By the way, if you were not trolling, seek help immediately! You have a doozie of a chip on your shoulder.)
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
So if you were a company just starting to play with Linux support, what would you do? Take the time to support everything, or just support the most uniform and common distribution?
-cwk.
First, I agree with the site wholeheartedly. I run Debian on all my computers but one, where I rolled my own, and too often I see "Linux" meaning "Red Hat", whether it's distribution via RPMs (easily solved), or highly customized programs and support programs. I recently offered to install GNU/Linux on some computers at school, and the administrator was scared out of his mind at the swirl (I liked the penguin better...) instead of the hat.
:/ how come everyone complains when people think "Linux" means "Red Hat", but object to calling the distributions "GNU/Linux"? I know it's asking for trouble, but I'm curious.)
However, the site mentions VA as a 'Red Hat only' supporter. Nothing could be further from the truth. VA ships with Red Hat because Red Hat has argueably the best tech support; Debian has none; Mandrake wasn't much different until recently; Slackware's commercial support future remains to be seen. Others just didn't have anything to offer for VA over other choices. However, if you look, VA pushed a boxed Debian, and is working on commercial support. My friends at VA love Debian, and want to ship with it.
(As a side note, and probably going to start a flame war
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
...it's mostly either "yeah they're right RedHat sucks blablabla ... RPM .... blablabla" or "this is stupid blablabla ... get real ... RedHat is the major Linux distro (blablabla)". But this is not an anti-RedHat crusade, it's a protest against the confusion RedHat == Linux, especially in the medias. Their best ideas are to point out incompatibilities between distros and to get commercial vendors to support Linux as a whole and not just RedHat.
:))
So IMHO it's a good idea, and not too tough to accomplish. People tend to exagerate differences between distros. Come on : if you can support RedHat, you can simply support Linux
BTW I'm running Mandrake, I wonder if that makes me fall under the 'RedHat goon' category
At the risk of getting a -1 flamebait moderation, I'm going to tell all the Debian people (it seems that they're some of the major instigators of this) anyone else why RedHat is getting all this support. Once I'm done, you can do either one of two things: flame me, moderate me down, and write me off as one of the Redhat-brainwashed masses; or you can actually listen to what I say, see what truth I have in my arguement, and maybe use the advice I give to better the positions of non-RedHat distro's.
Ya wanna know why Redhat is at the forefront, because of all the linux distributions (which is still not saying too much) Redhat was the easiest. I'm sorry, but I think Debian and everyone else needs to stop complaining. You can make your distribution whatever you want it to be. You have absolutely every right in the world to make your linux distribution a massively confusing, living hell for newbie users. Just understand that all our actions eventually have consequences. In the computer world, if you do not make a program easy to use, linux or otherwise, people will not buy your stuff if they have any choice in the matter. If they do not buy what you make, what you make will have little support. Meanwhile, stuff that is well designed and has good ease of use will be move like hotcakes. That's just how the world of the "the desktop" (and capitalism) works. Ease of use is not so much about auto-detection and dancing paper-clips and sappy wizards, but basic common sense, respect for the newbie user, and clear and consistent layout. Case in point: My first linux distribution was Debian (1+ years ago) because I thought that it would be really cool to go with the most "free" linux there was. Well, guess what? Debian had absolutely no default pager exported for the man pages. None. As a new user trying to stumble my way around a new and confusing operating system, the absolute last thing I needed was the help section flying past my eyes at 8 million miles and hour. I heard RedHat was good, I installed that over Debian, and I was impressed. "Finally", I said to my self, "I can actually scroll through the man pages". From this point on, I developed a strong liking for Redhat-based systems and a strong bias against Debian. They could have exported a default pager for the man pages and it wouldn't have infringed on the flexibility the power user had to choose whatever pager he wanted. But they didn't have the common sense/courtesy to do it this way. They were free to make that choice and they made that choice. And they reaped the consequences of my disdain. To end this first argument: you want marketshare, make your stuff easy to use. It's just that simple. Free software means having the freedom to screw yourself in whatever way you see fit.
Second, the first two syllables in "marketshare" are "market". If Debian et. al want maretshare, they should market what they put out. That means giving speeches to pointy-haired bosses, building strong relationships with developers who aren't currently developing for your OS, advertising, etc. Basically, doing the stuff that Microsoft does. Yes, they're evil but they have a killer marketing dept. Apple has already proved what happens when you have a great product but a poor business strategy. Perhaps the anti-redhat crowd should rent "Triumph of the nerds" and watch it...several dozen times.
There. I've said my piece. You can either spend the time to flame me and moderate me down, or you can spend the time thinking about what I've said and using that to make your distribution better.
This story should have been entiled
'Linux is not Redhat', because Redhat IS Linux.
People is getting confused
I'm foreign!
This is okay and all, and it is appropriate to raise awareness of various other linuxes as well as other similar platforms (BSD, for instance), but there's the practical matter of "we can't support every possible *nix distro you could possibly have". I could make a linux distro with all networking support compiled out by default - would it be reasonable to expect id software's telephone support to resolve problems people have getting multiplayer to work on such a distro?
What would be REALLY useful would be a (open) linux standards group, which defines what is appropriate to expect from an install, so that developers need only test a limited space. You can never guarantee that something will work on ALL linux boxes. But it IS valuable to be able to know whether a given app will work with your system.
I feel the purpose of redhatisnotlinux.org is to get people to be more conservative in their statement of what linux X runs on, but just saying "I run under RedHat" is not so good either. Saying "I run on a LinuxBox 2000.3", or some sort would be quite reasonable. That standard would encompass several elements of the GNU/Linux OS, such as ensuring certain versions of shared libraries, various kernel options, and so on. You could go further for specificity and have "LinuxGameBox 2000.3" and "LinuxDevBox 2000.3" and so on, if more granularity was needed.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
3.1x, 95/98, NT4, or W2K... those are not all supported/working at the same time. But then, linux users rarely distinguish between those either. 8)
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
LINL.... Linux is not linux... How is this recursive???
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Ha! "Linux binaries" are about as much of a standard as my stinky asshole. Linux hasn't had a stable C library for longer than 15 minutes, so um, what's so "standard" about it?
In fact, if your standard existed as you suggest it does, we wouldn't have RedHatIsNotLinux.com and we wouldn't have 2000 posts on this thread. So what's your point again?
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I agree with about porting to Unix. But the market reality doesn't agree with your POV on porting.
The REALITY (as reflected here http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html) is "linux binaries" are the de-facto standard. You think people would be HAPPY about this turn of events...."Linux binaries" have a chance to act as a way to PULL together a market, yet this chance is NOT being treated this way.
So, in short, if *YOU* are such an ungratful whiney bastard who can't stand that Linux has been annointed a de-facto standard and instead want people to "not get a cheap ride" you need to remove the stick from your ass and get a clue. I know you can get a clue....because you understand why shrink-wrapped binaries exist.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Actually last time I looked at LinuxOne's site it was much less offensive
No mention of the IPO
Are they reforming??????
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Well, Stallman is the ultimate example of who I'm talking about (particularly more-harm-than-good from an advocacy perspective), but I wanted to avoid the easy target. :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
First recursive link.
Yes, Yes and thrice yes. Redhat is a great distribution, and one of the definate movers and shakers in the Linux world. Also one of the first companies to get Linux accepted in the mainstream. However, this petition is not a "let's have a go at RedHat". This petition is not a "we hate Redhat". This petition is about getting people to see that Redhat is not the only distribution out there, and trying to get them to produce hardware/software that is compatible with ALL distributions.
/.er to research and let us know.
If a company made knitted steering wheel covers for Oldsmobiles would it mean that you hated Oldsmobiles if you asked them to make covers for all different makes of cars?
Bob Young (Redhat CEO) is a clued in guy, who I'm sure won't take this petition the wrong way. In fact he'll probably support it. There is already a Bob Young from Rayleigh North Carolina on the petition. Whether or not it's authentic I'll leave for some resourceful
Phil
Hmmm...that must have taken you at least 2 or 3 minutes to type up. That time could have been better spent doing things like rolling on the carpet, or dousing yourself with water, or...
(Hope you're alright, though).
To me, stability means invisible fixes rather than user interface revamps. No two redhat installs look alike, and yet the bugs get carried over from release to release :(
This is not a signature.
test test
"There does exist a prgram that is supposed to convert RPMs to a .tar.gz file that you can simply unzip (in your root directory?) to install the files."
;-) Once it's a tgz, you can use installpkg on it.
I think you mean rpm2tgz, a nice little script that converts rpms to tgz format.. Authored by one Patrick Volkerding, and available with your friendly Slackware distro
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
(Subject translated from german: I wanna have it, too.)
Wow, that's great!
Here in Germany it is the same with SuSE - everyone without a clue (read: he who decides what to buy) associates Linux automatically with SuSE. Well, according to the latest poll by german "Linux Magazin", they have a market share of 75% (at least, among Linux Magazin's readers), but I don't like these commercial distributions - we are lucky that we finally are going to get rid of this proprietary stuff which ruled the last twenty years, GNU Victorious, so why shall we open up the next dependency on a commercial solution?
What you say is pretty much right, but Red Hat is in the right on all cases, actually :P
/opt hierarchy is for custom installed packages, according to the Linux filesystem standards. OTOH, KDE is definitely binaries for use by users, so it goes in /usr. If you install it yourself, it goes in /opt/kde or /usr/local.
./configure command line. Most GNU/Linux distributions put GAIM, as they should, in /usr. However, as I said earlier, custom stuff doesn't go in /usr, it goes in /usr/local/. Again, as it should.
The
Your GAIM problem sounds like --prefix=/usr wasn't used on the
Configuration is a big deal for support, and is definitely a problem across distributions. People offering GNU/Linux tech support should definitely offer for more than Linuxconf/Anaconda (ie, Red Hat), but often don't. Or they should label themselves as "Red Hat Support", not "Linux Support".
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
... and Red Hat Is Not Linux? Some dumb could associate this as "RedHat *IS* Linux", hey, GNU forms most of what we know of unices today !
It is not flamebait. It is simply a misunderstanding of the topic.
The site has nothing against RH.
The purpose of the site is to inform hardware
and software vendors that there are distributions other than RedHat.
If they would like a piece of that market then they should
support the other distribution formats.
Of course this task would be made much easier if all
distributions standardized file locations and other things better
Is their a good site out there that documents what known discrepencies there are??
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
What you are proposing is basically the Linux Standards Base project. It was formed to do pretty much what you just said, and that was almost 2 years ago. Hate to say it, but they haven't come terribly far just yet.
People will be people, and they will have divergent opinions. But this seems to be the best hope for something like that. And it has at the very least, token participation from all the major players (Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Corel, Debian, etc, etc.)
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> choose the Blue-Hat
Ummm... shouldn't that be "Blue Screen"?
< G >
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
The article said in introduction that VA Linux is specialist of free (as freedom) OS. The article spoke about RedHat, MandrakeSoft and Suse as editor of Linux without mentionning that two of them are from Europe. And the conclusion, mentionning "Andover.net, portail de la communauté des développeurs Linux" (Andover.net, portail for Linux developper community) is to really make you feel Linux as the only free OS on earth, that is Americain. And you have also a picture of Linus Torvald in the paper edition without mentionning that he was born in Finland.
Supporting Linux is no harder than supporting Windows. :-). Supporting "Linux" means how many vendors? This week? Next week?
BS. Windows is single source - get a support contract from M$ and you're set (kinda
Usually a product for Windows has to be tested on...
Wrong. Turbotax is supported on 3 platforms: 95,98, and NT4.0. It works on more. Pharaoh is only supported on 95/98. The key word here is SUPPORTED - the both work on more. Same goes for "RedHat" software.
... dont even belong in the same idea.
t /usr/bin as an option to ./configure ?
./configure scripts just ruins anyones day that would like to try and experiment with that software.
I have 6 computers in my bedroom and 5 Operating systems. _None_ of them are linux anymore. As it turns out, nearly every jackass writing GPL software is running x86 redhat. And thats nearly all they test it with.
For instance. GNU autoconf is either intrinsically broken, or people dont ever figure out how to make useful configure scripts. I'm going to guess its the latter. Autoconf is supposed to _fix_ portability issues. Yet it _causes_ them. "Oh boy, now i can manually edit 237 levels of recursive gMakefiles - joy!". Would it have been so difficult to just allow --with-nonstandard-shit-like-gtk-installed-in=/no
Honestly. My main boxes are Solaris SPARC and Irix. Anything _not_ written by linux junkies tends to work great. It's ridiculous though. I've got a _real_ machine that does _real_ GL, and half the software out there these days wants all my libraries to be named "Mesa*". _Mesa_ isn't the standard. OpenGL is the standard. Mesa is a means to an end.
Source code does _not_ a portable product make. It certainly helps, but fucking it up with _no_ consideration (or more likely, no exposure) to other OSes, and shitty
I'm not sure if I should be surprised though. When I started using linux, it was "the alternative", and everyone was happy just to get it working, or to get some new feature implemented. I remember when redhat formed and their business model was "we're going to sell Linux on a CD, for alot more than the cost of the CD, because somehow, we add value to software other people wrote". How alien that was to SLS, MCC, and Slack 1.x users, back in the day.
Things have gone down hill from there. Now linux seems to be the hot ticket for all the former "0-day-warez" folks to latch on to. Can there be any question about the state of linux users today when it seems everyone is using "Bitch-X" and making screen shots of their "Themable desktop" ?
I'm all for improving linux and making it easy to use, etc. I'm _not_ all for the attitude that people seem to have taken---namely "linux is better than everything else - linux will take over the world!". While linux may take over the world someday, that day is very far off as long as there are a few rational people running systems that count.
Linux is a great idea. The attitude of many linux users, and many people who's first development experience is with linux, is fucking _awful_.
I saw this amusing quip a while ago, maybe the moderators will enjoy it:
"People that think linux is free obviously don't value their time."
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
This site is soo stupid, as to hurt linux.
There is no mention of the LSB effort. Linux
needs a package format, and RPM is good. Before
you freak out, the debian people agree, follow
the LSB mailing lists, and find out why (basically, RPM's will be converted to native
install format like deb), it's just so that the
package format will be a superset of what all distro's need.
This stupid site makes no mention of LSB, or
of anything. RedHat has done a lot for the community, and stupid campaings like this will not solve anything.. A focused effort like LSB which
has distro makers support does. Unfortunetely LSB isn't as focused as it should be, but it remains that this lame campaign will never have any effect.
Thanks for listening.
The BSD's such as FreeBSD have an advantage here. There is only one variant (or 'distribution' or 'operating system' whatevery you want to name it) maintained by a group of people called core.
This group develops the kernel and the rest as one unit (of course different people in the group have different responsibilities).
For software suppliers, the BSD situation must be endlessly more pleasant and predictable. Yet somehow 3rd party support for FreeBSD is much less than for Linux.
Up to now this division hasn't hindered Linux's success. But it might, and to say the least it is annoying for the users and also for 3rd party software developers that have to account for all the little differences.
If only the main Linux distribution providers and kernel developers could get together and form a similar group that develops the Linux OS as a whole (concentrating on the core OS, leaving all kinds of add-ons and ports to others).
> but how can you only support one distro?
See here for an example. This is Metrowerks' CodeWarrior for Red Hat Linux. You may care to note the system requirements.
Now granted, they do also have a SuSE version, but still. The program is only available for those two distros. The mentality comes from the same place.
The problem in this case (I believe) is that they are distributing neither as source nor as RPM/Apt/Deb/pkg/etc. Rather, they are distributing just as binary and with their own installer, or whatever. And I believe (again, I don't know, because I don't actually use the program; I just know about it) that it looks for certain libs in certain places, and so on, making it difficult to "simulate" a Red Hat/SuSE environment.
It definitely is possible, as this example shows.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
--
Have you ever heard anyone ask to use the "Xerox machine" even though the copying machine may be made by any number of companies?
Or "I'll have a coke" even though the menu clearly states "Pepsi Served Here".
How many people refer to tissues as tissues rather than "Kleenex"? The box may even say "Puffs", but people will still ask for a Kleenex.
Many more examples: Band-Aid, Formica, Jell-O, Krazy Glue, Q-Tips, Velcro...
These examples are borrowed from Jack Trout's excellent "Differentiate Or Die".
RedHat is doing a great job with branding. Eventually you may here someone ask the guy @ Fry's if this RedHat is any good while holding a SlackWare box...
--Lucabrasi
Damn, looks like I gave too much credit to GNU users. Okay, let's try this: Only fungi and communists need GNU utilities.
Redhat and Mandrake (which is Redhat with the training wheels polished) make up over 50%.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
Yes by todays current standards linux is just that... Intel or AMD. The question is should it be any other way?
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
The libc info pages, and other GNU docs, often say "this is a GNU extension, and only available on GNU systems". I see it as Debian GNU/Linux is an implementation of the GNU operating system, using the Linux kernel, GNU userspace tools, with a Debian-flavoured package management/system setup style. It makes sense to me, but that's just me... :)
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
aol is not the internet hackers are not crackers sushi is not sashimi
They have worked with hardware vendors, software vendors, and most recently, they are working with real to get a good realplayer on linux.
Of COURSE they will set it up to support red hat.
If redhat is going to be spending time and money to get this type of support, why try to cancel out that support? (it's probably difficult to achieve in todays corporate mentalities) One of the most beautiful parts of linux is that anyone can build off (most) anything that is in any distribution. If anything is compatible with redhat, and you want it on your distribution, you *CAN* add support in your distro for it also, you just have to be open enough to actually not do everything just how you want, and expect everyone to come begging at your door to support you and the other 50000 incompatible versions. What is so bad about using *some* of the precedents redhat is setting in making other distributions compatible in those areas?
If there is one thing that can really slow the development of linux, it's all this type of fighting within the ranks. Companies looking at supporting linux, and seeing nothing but anger if they don't support each of the 100 individual distribution and platform combinations wouldn't be acting unreasonably if they ran in the opposite direction screaming back to microsoft's easy single windows distribution.
Linux is not redhat, but it seems very self destructive to try and "blacklist" companies supporting redhat, or act in any negative way towards the very companies we should be courting.
RPM is an open format, despite the vicious statement on that site noting that it stands for Redhat Package Manager (is the hatred that intense that even the name of redhat inspires anger?) Instead of fighting against RPM files, why not put an RPM handler in other distributions by default?
________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"
>lets face it - we need the linux standard base out there NOW. cmon you LSB guys - WTF are you guys doing ?
The Linuxbase (LSB) movement is beset with political strife of Linux vendor vs Linux vendor.
The SMART move would be to say to all the in-fighting linux-vendor weenies is this:
"You people can't agree, so instead we are going declare the linux compatibility mode BSD uses."
Think about it:
Access to the source used.
A testable platform.
And this is here NOW.
If the kiddies won't play nice together, bring in someone from 'the outside', and to hell with the in-fighting. And, perhaps NEXT TIME the 100+ linux distros need to all play nice together, they will remember how the LSB was defined as an outside source and they will pull TOGETHER instead of apart.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Linux is not SuSE which is very popular in Europe or at least in Germany, Red Hat, Debian (my favorite by now (this may change in future) or any other dist. Point 1 is Linux is more a kind of philosophy. ;)
:)
In a more pragmatic way, you choose a dist. which
satisfy you most. As I have a leased line I prefer
debian, because it is easy to install (if you
know how to handle their strange install tool), alos you can update very easy your system over night.
On the othe hand a Redhat linux works fine as
small (very small) office server at my friends place.
So my mother is using SusE because the german lang. support is better than in any other (known) dist.
=> Linux is what you need, but in no way Redhat is Linux as suse is not Linux and also maybe in the future M$ is not Linux
cu
reiner
p.s
sorry. grammar and vocabluary is so bad after 5 or 6 (german) beers.
There will be growing pains and Linux be nature has always required more user intervention. That is a neccessity based on what the end goal is. If you want easy and a complete lack of ability to choose M$ is always there for you. Otherwise I am sure the time it took you to make the changes helped you learn and made your system better a win-win situation in my opinion.
I'm with you there. Hell, even Star Office, made buy the guys who sell Sparcs, and who have a Linux version, doesn't do Sparc. It's annoying as hell.
And the next time I hear someone complain about their lack of browser choices, they get a boot to the head. Mozilla? Recent builds won't run. Opera? Forget it. Navigator? Stuck at 4.5.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
You have to remember that one of their suggestions is that vendors support both RPMs and tarballs for binary distribution of software. No mention of DEBs. If that doesn't make you wonder, I don't know what else would.
All in all, it looks like just a bunch of 'leet Slackware whiners. Nothing to see here folks, move on.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Actulally, AFAIK, and as per TNHD, "newbie" orginates from Britsh public schools and comes from a tipically British contraction of "new boy".
Then again, I am afraid you've been badly (and not subtly) trolled.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Someone pointed out that Slashdot.org is a GIF patent licensee, and maybe they can't rock the boat on this issue. So my guess is they won't run the story.
/.'s impartiatlity as a "news source" at times. Oh, well, I sent in my nomination (RMS). Here's hopin... :)
You really gotta wonder about
I agree with you when you say they're only doing 1/3rd of the job. ...BUT at least they are doing something. Personally I'm not using the Linux operating system in itself, I'm a FreeBSD And OpenBSD user. Try explaining the advantages of *BSD to companies and you get the answer you can't support every single OS, or worse (quoting) : our clients do not and will never need that kind of power ! Or even better (about Firewalls using OpenBSD vs Linux, you know blowfish ao): The client still has to understand what's going on inside the mashine. As if they know it using M$, but hey, that's the standard, right ? These examples to show that supporting RedHat is hopefully the first step towards supporting multiple OSes. The problem is often the installation procedure (what company doesn't like flashy graphical installation procedures ? Even if it works in less cases ?!) That is, I hope they will, one day, eventually recognize *BSD distributions as worthy alternatives for not only power users ! Speaking of which FreeBSD for instance is not just a kernel. BSD : Can YOU follow your OSes speed ? http://www.freebsd.org http://badlands.rug.ac.be
Red Hat's not Linux? Think again... look at the distro poll.
Have you considered FreeBSD ?
Surely none of the problems are large enough that they require more than a bit of hacking to surmount though.
There's no reason for a sig here.
kuro5hin is one.
Or if you don't like what's on offer, start one of your own, but don't complain.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
If a distro wants to chip into Red Hat's market, why they offer to support various programs? They could make an agreement to do install, etc. support for a program if the software company will put "Certified for ______ Distro" on the box. The distro would get free advertising and a better reputation for support while the software company has lower support costs.
The distro wouldn't do all of the support, of course, the software company would still be responsible for usability type questions.
If the software is so buggy that it is difficult to support, the distro just wouldn't support it. It doesn't matter because someone that cares about these type of certifications wouldn't be using a buggy program anyway. If the bugginess is distro specific, the distro would be responsible for providing a patch for the program.
Isn't this the point of the support model that all of the Linux IPO's are basing their projected revenue on???
Red Hat is NOT the next Microsoft, despite what anyone will tell you. It just won't happen with Linux as open source. As long as we choose Red Hat, it will survive. If we don't like the way it's going, we stop using and supporting it. Simple as that. As long as Linux itself is controlled by the people, there isn't much of a problem.
From what I've seen, Red Hat is a very honorable company. They make their innovations available as open source, they provide good support for the community, and they're all-round doing a good job. Maybe the Micro$ofties were right -- perhaps many of us DO hate the smell of success, because that's what this looks like.
I wish everyone would just shut up about this. Yes, it's important that people know there are choices. But calling Red Hat the next Microsoft is unfair and ungrateful -- without Red Hat and similar companies, Linux wouldn't be where it is today. Distros don't matter as much as people think. I wish everyone would wake up and realize that.
-----
Many times I have downloaded open source for 'Linux' from some site or other and it's compiled first time under IRIX or FreeBSD and yet people still insist on say 'Linux version' on their web sites. Sometimes people might be missing out on a bigger audience for their work :-)
--
-- SIGFPE
Just wondering if having different distributions -isn't like the functional equivalent of having different products?
/every/ newbie choose Red Hat and likely stick to it thereafter, creating an even greater rift in marketshare as Linux gains in popularity?
Given the incompatibilities that make RH different from Debian, which is different from SuSE, which is different from TurboLinux, etc., would a Red hat user find it difficult to use a box running some other distro?
Of course, different distros would still be able to run any Linux binary, but given a choice btw. Red Hat Linux and HardToUse Linux, wouldn't
I use Red Hat myself, and like it. But can you imagine what would happen if Bill Gates were running the company? Brrr.
If I was running a hardware company I'd support one or maybe two distributions at most. There are probably 10 major distributions. Are you kidding?
The company would have to be proficient in all those distribs to provide a meningful support. Follow packaging tools in all of them, pay attention to all pitfals and idioticities present in each of those, follow updates of every distribution, know which version of which program, glibc, kernel, apache, samba, etc is installed in those distributions, etc.
I'd rather have them support just one distribution and do it right instead of having them support a dozen of dists and doing a sloppy job (or a good job at pretty high price probably).
There is nothing wrong with Redhat being what it is. The GNU top guys don't mind people making money off their stuff. People do what they want to do. IF you guys don't like what Redhat is doing, don't buy it, but its wrong to talk shit. Redhat has done enormous things to help Linux get where its at, and while they are doing it, they want to make some money.Red Flag Linux
People is getting confused, the average slashdot reader knows all about the varius linux flavors. And what they offer(and dont), but take my dad for an instance. He almost only uses his computer for text editing, soo i convinced min to install a redhat linux + staroffice, so he did.. but next time i visited. There was a windows OS up and running again. The problem he had encounterd was, he needed to get some burning software. ok, simple.. NOT.. he had ud with some software that needed TCL/TC, and that wherent installed. And he eventually gave up..
I guess what im trying to say, is that non-geeks, can have serius problems with the object oriented part of linux. Think of the problems directX versions have caused some PC users.
I think a what-is-linux.com would be great for these users.. many want to start using linux.. but have bad experinces..
"Theres alotta savages in this town.."
"Surreal".
And it would have to be an upward moderation.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
>but whining that they should be binary compatible with linux is like whining that cp/m should be binary compatible with linux.
o rs/cpmemu
Given that SCO/Solaris/BSD have Linux compatibilty and have had it for a while, there is no SHOULD...they ARE. It is a matter of having vendors who write code to decide that "RedHat is not Linux" and support ALL of the "linux environments".
Given the Unix world has had a CP/M environment compatibility for over 10 years, it looks like your wish has been answered along time ago. Odds are at that time you were still suckling your mothers breasts, so you wouldn't remember the 3 part SHAR from comp.sources on UseNet.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/emulat
By picking a Unix box with a Linux compatibility layer, you get Linux AND CP/M. The desire to run X and wordstar 3.3/Multiplan/TurboPascal on one box is satisifed.
Now, if you verbage was to seek 32/64 bit opcodes of a totally different processor architecture to run on an 8 bit Z80, then the reality is you know *SO* little about computers that anything you post on the topic should be dismissed as the posts of someone who does not know of what she speaks. Perhaps taking some computer electives would educate you in the topic of computers?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Some companies don't even bother to provide binaries linked against libraries that are commonly used on other systems. e.g. some companies ship binaries linked against glibc 2.1, and did so when rh 6.0 was one of the only distros using 2.1 (They were early to adopt it, right?) apps linked against glib2.1 won't run on 2.0 systems, but usually 2.0 linked binaries will run on 2.1 systems.
:) )
And that's only libc. The biggest problem is probably other library versions. (X, gtk, jpeg, etc.) I don't really know, having mostly avoided commercial stuff these days, to see what it's like getting stuff done with libre apps. (I've only got a couple commercial/demo versions of things, and 18 packages from non-free installed, according to vrms, but I hardly ever use half of those. (The whole concept of vrms is hilarious! try it
As an aside, it seems that to get by without commercial apps, you have to know LaTeX and some programming, to replace word processors and easy-to-use spreadsheets. I usually use AWK for physics data manipulation that most people would use a spreadsheet for.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Ok, you seem like a smart guy, you spelled terminology. Then when you was in the univeristy, and you learned about object orintation/classes , what did you learn? That they are a TERMinoligy, you can use a class / oo-model to descibe almost anything. Like in this case, we have a application. A object, which needs various other libs and stuff (other object), hence, its object orintated. Thanks for wasting my time, and stop being such a baby..
"Theres alotta savages in this town.."
I kind of like Redhat Linux.... I've used Redhat 5.2, Suse 6.2 and 6.3 and now Redhat 6.2 I think Redhat is the best. (personal opinion :) ) I think Redhat is much faster and stable. It's like they build there kernels better than Suse does. I don't know...but one thing I do know: Redhat is good, suse is good, slack is good, .... They all have their good and bad points. Lesson is: never blame somebody else unless you're "bugless" yourself My opinion by HDCooL
MEEPT!!!!!'s guide to gaining market and mindshare!
This MEEPT!!!!! was brought to you by the letters A, Q and N and the number
MEEPT!!!!!
What are you talking about. The time it took me to bitch with another system (slackware in this case) was utterly wasted. Take the recent QTDIR thing that is needed to make KDE software compile on RedHat systems. Is there really a need for this difference? Does it teach anything to the user? Absolutly not. It is idiotic, but is allowed anyway because there is no standard. The consumer allows it because the know that no distro will be totally standard. However, if the LSB defines such a standard, then people can choose to buy only LSB complient distros. It's just like only choosing to buy POSIX complient systems. I don't know why people have the idea that stuff that is harder is automatically a learning experience. /lib/qt-2.0.1 while Qt 1.44 is under /lib/qt-1.44, wow, great, why can't the damn system figure it out itself?" However, I learned a great deal about BeOS and Windows. I tweeked Windows to the point where it doesn't feel like windows anymore (I crash maybe once every few weeks, and that is using 3D Studio, and Visual Studio, and AOL 5.0 - which, strangly, is probably the most demanding on the system!) Even though BeOS is ridiculously easy to use, I have it customized the way I like it, and actually bothered to go in and find out how all the servers work and how the attributes work and how messaging and app scripting work. If someone wants to learn the system, they will. However, many people don't give a damn about the system. They just want to get their work done. They shouldn't be forced to learn.
A) It presents a steep learning curve that prevents people from using the system and learning more about it. It might even be counter productive. Think, if the average user encounters the QTDIR problem, will they bother to search the READMEs down to the trouble shooting section to find the problem? Probably not, they'll give up compiling and switch to RPMS, or worse, abandon the system entirely after encountering many such problems. That is a Bad Thing. (TM)
B) It is unnecessary. If a user wants to learn and tweek there system, then they will do it on their own. I learn nothing everytime I have to fuss with RedHat. I see the QTDIR thing, and I think, "oh great, Qt2 is installed under
Lastly, there is no complete lack of ability to choose. If there is an LSB, not all distros have to follow it. Take RPM, DEB, and TGZ for example. Even though RPMS is the defacto standard, there are still distros catering to different tastes. Where is the loss of freedom there?
So, if at best it is a pain in the ass, and at worst it drives people away from the system, why keep this fragmentation?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
exactly. What needs to happen is that the companies that distribute a single binary for linux need to make binaries linked against glibc2.0, and glibc2.1, (libc =5 can be forgotten about, IMHO. People with libc5 systems can install libc6 and have it coexist.)
Then there's the architecture problem. Linux is not x86 Linux, but I can't think of the last time I saw a commercial demo download present more than an x86 linux option.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Let's spend out time on more important things like making Linux more user friendly so that the rest of the public can use it instead of only the pimply faced geeks.
funny..
"Theres alotta savages in this town.."
Prefered Linux Distribution is not Linux? Woah... contradiction.
There's no reason for a sig here.
Your right, Red Hat is not Linux. It is only a part of what Linux has become. The problem is that the media needs something tangable to speak of, the Linux community is too fragmented. Obvioiusly, when I say Windows I'm only speaking of one thing. Linux can mean many things.
I'm from North Carolina, and I lived in Durham for 2 years. I'm kinda partial to Red Hat myself, though I try to stay about all distros.
"The wino and I know..." --Jimmy Buffett
Thad
Thad
The problem is that RH is the most common distribution that is used by newbies, you can't tell a newbiew something like: "Stop using RH, because of people like you no software is done for other Linux distributions, you better start using Mandrake (Options: Slackware, Debian, Corel, S.u.S.E. and etc.)". AFAIK RH is most user friendly but least fixable, advanced and useful.
lets stop , this is getting silly. I really have better things to do with my time than discussing this with you. But I really dont get you. I state a comment, about a subject posted here. And then you see one phrase you can flame, and there you go.. And what i have a even harder time understanding is that when i tried to explain that object oriented termoligy, is not just limeted to OOP(object oriented programming, etc C++). You again, where mr. smartass. But im telling you, again, it seems like the only way you brain can think in objects is when it sees objectname.proberty , with is really sad. You can also use object oritated logics for databases. example.
databasename.tablename.coloumname | tablename.coloumname
This is object orintated logics/termoligy , which is not limimited to programming methodoligy. If a compontent wont work because a other component where not present on the system(like in the senario i first described), you can say that the compontent fails because of a object is missing. But yes, this would not be correctly put, the correct way of writing offcource would be to say a depending component was missing. Cause it is a component(but what is a component? a thing, whats a thing? it could be a object.. depending on usage/view). ill give you that. I just code C++/JAVA each and everyday, from 8 - ?. And therefore tends to look at everything as objects. Which offcource is wrong(but it works for me, and i youll like a pissing contest, im up for it choose you weapon. Java, C++ or Perl. We could do something like, who makes the coolest apache module or something. And let people wote on them, im pretty confident), but im pretty sure most people understood what i meant. But I WONT give you the pleasure in thinking, that i find your OO == OOP ideá correct. I recommend that you read:
Design Patterns : Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software and mayby:
Object Oriented Perl
Im pretty sure that you would look a little different on the "buzzword" Object Oriented when done...
"Theres alotta savages in this town.."
I don't use Linux therefore I do not have any Linux brethern. I am not a member of the Linux community and it is an extreme generalization to assume that all Slashdot readers and posters are Linux users. I use many, many implementations of Unix but Linux is not among them. Want to know why? Here's why: I do not agree with the GNU philosophy. I think it will damage the lives of all programmers. Linux is buggy and slow. Yes, compare it to any other Unix. Linux does not scale well. Beowulf is actually proof of this. Compare that to an E10k. Linux is totally insecure. I think the last Red Hat remote exploit was within the last week. Linux is unstable. Compare it to any BSD or even Windows NT. Linux is bloated. Why does a Unix implementation ship with emacs by default? That is just wrong. Why is there no consistent documentation? Last time I looked at Linux (RedHat 5.2), 30% of the utilities in /usr/bin had no manpages. Most of them I never did figure out what they did and more than one segfaulted when run with "--help". Ouch.
So guess what! I hope I make life harder for Linux users. When the smoke has cleared, Linux will have destroyed the industry, rather than been its saving grace.
By the way, if you are interested in learning more, my website is listed above. Click and send me email.
Leaving aside the non-rarity of people named Bob and pople named Young, I'd be more inclined to believe it to be *that* Bob Young if he had spelled it Raleigh. Even more so if he had spelled it Durham.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You think SPARC is tough, try MIPS....
(...and let's not forget S/370 and SH...)
no matter whether you like it or not redhat is a standard, and standards are what we need in linux, they bring us together. trying to push people away from redhat only serves to fragment linux and the community. (no, i don't run redhat(or mandrake for that matter))
Don't be mean or my friend Oog will smash your head
I've tried so many different distros. I still use Redhat. someone making money (God forbid) is not the equivalent of someone "taking over the world".
Redhat has a great distro, let them profit from their work. please.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Ok Redhat is not Linux. Fine, neither is any other distro but this alienates one distro for having been succesful just by virtue of the domain name.
Great so we are alienating Redhat who has been good to this community because they have a huge market cap ( or did ) and because they are most popular.
Now I agree that products should be distrobution independant and perhaps they aren't though I have yet to really run into a problem with this myself and I've ran RH 5.1 ( 5.2 ), Caldera OL 2.3, Mandrake &.0 ( current flavour ) and good old slackware way back when it was king of the heap.
Sould we have an anti Suse site in Europe or an anti TurboLinux site in asia.... Oh yes I know... I read its not an anti Redhat site... its a pro general independant linux site.... then why not a better name? Could not their goals have been met by calling it whatlinuxis.com or similar...
Sure Redhat has used marketing ploys to gain support from other vendors and even some exclusivity ( I assume ), but the name of this website is a ploy in and of itself... designed to draw people in because of the insightfulness of its name.
I want linux to be distrobution independant and third parties to support it in this manner but I dont agree with part of the method being used to achieve said goal. Redhat deserves better!
This is a good site. Give it a better web footprint by linking it to other sites.
Personally I don't like RedHat, but this isn't the issue that is being dealt with here. RedHat have put in a lot of effort into Linux and there's a very common misunderstanding that the two are one and the same. What I hate is that this misunderstanding is being further propagated by the large number of distributions that are actually simply extensions or subsets of the RedHat distribution.
Yours truly,
Fanatically Slackware.
Good job. Honesty pays. At least you didn't claim to have the first post.
1. Take an Arby's cup and flatten it.
2. On the cup, inscribe with a sharpie, "Linux rules".
3. Tape it on your chest.
4. Walk around the expo like you own the place.
He DID spell it Raleigh. It's me that's the foreign jerk who can't spell American towns.
Phil.
Most geeks wouldn't consider Linux an operating system, as it is simply a kernel. Debian is an operating system -- Linux is just an important component.
So, Linux is pretty well defined. However, when most people use the word, they are either using it as short-hand for "Linux distribution". Or perhaps they mean the "Linux movement", which I guess would be more accurately described as the "free software movement", but the term "free" is even more confusing than "linux".
As long as people understand the distinction between distros and kernels, it's fine to use shorthand. With new folks this gets confusing, however. Quite a lot of people don't even understand the division between hardware and software, let alone the division between various software components. For them, we must be patient and break it down.
--Lenny
> Instead of
> fighting against RPM files, why not put an RPM handler in other
> distributions by default?
It's already there: alien(1)
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
We should be glad these companies support Linux at all! I happen to use RedHat (its not the only distro I've tried, either), and it works great for what I need it to do. The problem _I_ have is hardware compatibility. Some companies, like 3DFX, have contributed code and made great strides in making sure thier hardware works well with linux (and, for the most part, it does). Some companies (cough cough CREATIVE), do not fare quite so well. I think we should worry a little more about hardware support before we start whining about specific distro support for such-and-such program.
*RANT* See, I just bought a Creative Modemblaster v.90 (model 5660), to replace my burnt out Creative Modemblaster Flash II (model 5601, I believe)... One would think my new modem would place nice with Linux... Hell no. This particular modem is a WINMODEM!! Did it say that on the box? No. Did it say "This modem will ONLY work with Windoze"? Nossir. I think the hardware vendors need a kick in the nuts much worse than companies guilty of not supporting every damned distro do. *end RANT*
Though redhatisnotlinux.org has its heart in the right place, I think they are jumping the gun a little bit. I think www.supportmyhardwareinlinux.com would be more appropriate at this time.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
By the way, that very interesting site fails to distinguish between binaries that work on all Linux compiled for x86 architectures versus PPC architecture.
This is a big obstacle for turning my trusty G3 Powerbook into a Linux PPC powerhouse. Many apps arent available in PPC version.
My favourite (well most used app) is Oracle 8i for Linux which doesn't work on Linux PPC...
I think first the binary imcompatibility should be solved between different libraries. The linux loader can take care of different major versions but why should I have to keep 4 c-libraries for every distribution floating around to make a decent binary distribution?
Keeping track of new c-libraries that cripple my app kept me stay away from additionaly providing Yudit in a binary format, but some commercial vendors can not give you the source they are commercial !
And why should I care? If SCO/Solaris/BSD runs Linux binaries, wants to be part of LSB (BSD does), yet is treated as a platform UNworthy of making sure "linux binaries" work with BSD/SCO/Solaris...why should anyone give a damn about what this site is trying to do? They are just as bad as RedHat.
This site is NOT about "wanting fairness in linux"....they want fairness defined as GNU/Linux. To hell with Solaris/BSD/SCO.
(Keep in mind that when the X86 based Unixes all tried to get together and define a standard shrink-wrapped binary, http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html "linux binaries" was what ended up as the result. When OTHER VENDORS have tried to meet GNU/Linux 1/2 way....they have been snubbed.)
If you want to support these people, fine. They are only doing 1/3 of the job. They need to 'educate' about the LSB *AND* the BSD/SCO/Solaris linux compatibility modes to do the job.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I think it's about time that the linux distribustitions more or less shoud be standaristed. See link: LinuxBase . I think the cause of the problem is the differance between the linux distributions. If this contiues than we might indeed get a fork. What people are already fearing of.
First, the load that we produce is based on Red Hat as the starting point.
We then modify about 100 packages, add some kernel drivers when needed,
and generally make it "ours." This is not unlike what Mandrake and Caldera used to do.
(For those that may not know, Caldera Network Desktop 1.0, their first packaged
distribution product, was essentially Red Hat 2.1 with a few tweaks and some extra packages.
Most of the rpms were built on porky.redhat.com. I have a couple copies of both sitting here.)
Anyway, I digress.
VA has standardized on one load over the past year or so for one reason, to ensure
that we could scale our production in an effective manner.
We are in the process of deploying some new systems that will allow us to offer other
options for the software load on our hardware products.
There has been tremendous effort put forth to implement this and we're excited about
the possibilities.
With respect to other Open Source operating systems, I'd like to point out that
SourceForge not only has multiple Linux distributions available in the compile farm,
there are also BSD variants available. Over time the available platforms will continue to expand.
--Kit
Director, Community Projects
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
okay, i have not looked at the site yet .. it does not seem to be working for me at this precise moment ..
.. linux is a kernel, not an OS .. the OS is mostly GNU.
..
but anyway, from what i remember, none of the distributions -are- linux
also, red hat is a company, it is not linux nor an operating system at all, so i dont see any problem with the phrase "red hat is not linux"
on the other hand, gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html) has been preaching this message for several years already, so it is not really news.
-abf.
And, of course:
-Denor
I use GNU tools... guess why? They come with Red Hat Linux, the distro I use. Do I give a crap who made the tools? Nope. I'm just glad I know how to use them. Am I glad I can see the source and modify it and distribute it freely, should the ambition strike me? Yes. Its unfair to classify GNU users the way you do, because SOME of us had the GNU tools forced upon us. If that makes me a fungi and/or communist by proxy, well, I guess there's not much I can do about it, really. Though I would be interested to see this fabled Perl/Linux I've heard about. But anyway the point I wanted to get across is that if members of the Linux community flame each other over stupid stuff like whether Linux should be called GNU/Linux or not, we're gonna scare off people that might otherwise use Linux. This may not seem relavent to some Linux users, but it really is. The more people that use Linux, more vendors will get off thier asses and make sure thier products will work with Linux (this applies mostly to hardware, I suppose). That is good for the Linux community in general. So do us all a favor and do something more constructive relating to Linux than flaming your Linux bretheren, because that makes it harder for ALL of us... even the people that hold the same views as you do.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
547. Michael Dell from Dallas Texas - Prefered Linux Distribution: Microsoft WindowsNT and Windows 2000
I get there point, but Red Hat is not linux says that Red Hat is something other than a Linux OS or distrabution.
It should be: Linux is not Red Hat
Is this maybe a little bit of sour grapes? According to the site the company is:
Ready Set Net, A Open Source, Linux Based, Internet Development Company.Since RedHat is getting so much attention many potential Linux users (i.e. companies) have been talking to them about support and services (which is how they intend to really make money). Obviously if companies are going with the big name, then Ready Set Net is facing stiff competition.
Justa thought.
Given that there are many "competing" distributions and a concentration of vendors writing/porting code to Linux, does it not seem that a shakeout of the distributions is inevitable. Or at least a more rigorous standard as to what defines a proper Linux distribution. If you are a for-profit company, won't you pick the winning (or at most 2 winning) distributions and forgo the rest?
---K2K was here---
How about LINL.ORG, then you'd have a recusive, self contradictory acronym.
VA Linux Systems
The name was actually changed about this time last year at Linux Expo in Raleigh, when
VA Research announced the acquisition of Linux Hardware Solutions (my former company)
No one person or company is, or ever will be, "Linux", that's the beauty of Open Source.
--Kit
Director, Community Projects
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
Red Hat in the Media
Linux open to backdoor password - This is a good example...
(Reported by MSNBC)
Im sure Microsoft created this error intentionally to discredit Linux.
-Earthman
Earthman
Say it to me face w/ out wasting space...
There are basically only two installations
that companies need to worry about.
1) SysV style scripts and init
2) BSD style scripts and init
(Slackware, which uses BSD styling, at least tries
to give users a way to run SysV only software)
The rest is no different than buying WinBlows
software (Win95, DirectX 7.25 or WinNT 4.0 SP4
or higher)
ALL software has minimum requirments, but the
init style you use shouldn't matter.
They just need to say what libraries are required,
obviously, a program linked with glibc2 is not
going to run on Slack 3.0 (libc5).
-Chris
--
...and it's being addressed by most of the distro's. However the closed-source folks are missing it. Linux runs on everything but the kitchen sink. RH, SUSE, Mandrake, et al support platforms other than x86. To their credit, Applix does as well. Most commercial software assumes that the platform is Intel. Oracle 8i is an example. Until they get off dead center and release source, StarOffice is another. Real Player, anyone?
Yes, RH has the public perception. But there's no reason you can't run most packages released for 'RHLinux' on any other distro. rpm is GPL, and as such can be used to unpack an app on any x86 box.
My personal goal would be to see more high-performance hardware supported by more 3rd party vendors. RH didn't steal the position they're in (like another well-known outfit).
I don't see any sense in beating them up.
In a lot of commercial software companies, there's a strong sentiment not only in managers, but also in development staff, that supporting Linux opens up a Pandora's box. It's not so much compiling for all those platforms, because most developers and managers can be convinced that the API is not very different, so few actual code changes are required. The big problem is in testing. For a glimpse of the problem, look at Netscape's Tinderboxes, and remember that Netscape is one of the most Linux minded commercial developers out there.
For a commercial developer that sees Linux as a platform deserving to be served with tested software, the cost of testing each of their new releases on each distribution quickly becomes prohibitive, and higher up management resolves this issue by drawing a line in the sand. There is a risk that this line winds up including no Linux at all.
Oh well. There is no clear answer here. I'd like to see more distributions supported (as much as I'd like to see commercial software for Linux being tested on *BSD under Linux emulation). I'm just afraid that some companies will get second thoughts about Linux if they get roasted over not supporting less prominent distributions.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
It dosen't matter right:
(x != y) == (y != x)
May your soul reach heaven before the devil realizes you are dead
From the petition list:
360.Bill Gates from Redmond, Washington, USA - Prefered Linux Distribution: MS Windows 3.1 and redhat
whoo!
(no I didn't put it there)
-- iCEBaLM
Maybe, Rat Hat is the most important dist, but in Germany, SuSE is definitely much more important and has the most count of users, because it has the best ISDN support (which is very important in Germany) and the largest software collection.
And, if I read the list on RedHatIsNotLinux.org, SuSE ist also very successful in USA...
The good thing for SuSE users is, that SuSE uses the RPMs too. Normally, every RPM can be installed on SuSE w/o any problems.
The fact that they refer to Linux as GNU/Linux gives them no credibility in my eyes.
I know many people are going to look at this as flamebait, but I am dead serious about this. I have yet to see one advocate who calls it GNU/Linux not be a wacko, and do more harm to the cause than good.
Now, that's not to say that there aren't some good programmers out there who have contributed code that happen to use the term. But the advocates all seem to be of the harmful variety.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
They've got the momentum behind them. Why would ISV's support anything else? Why would a user submit to more headaches with another distribution?
Pretty tough to control a positive feedback loop.
Too bad those who don't understand this are the least likely to go to that site. Oh well, at least I have a URL to post in message boards that might help get the point accross.
But I really think it is ridiculous that the Linux community has to waste CPU cycles on trying to educate people about this distinction.
It would be one thing if all the stuff I saw in the papers was "Redhat blah blah blah", but this is simply not the case! I have by far seen "Linux" in the headlines, and not "Redhat"... Do lots of other people really feel differently?
One of the big problems I have with organized religion is that the adherents of various congregations get their panties all in a bunch when they think they're being passed over. Redhat may well have the strongest following for the moment, but that could change in a wink. Linux, however, is a software movement that is here to stay.
Get some sense people and spend your energy on something more productive to the open source movement! (And this comes from a die hard Slackware user!)
-dbm
If someone really believes that RedHat is Linux, then they don't know the first thing about Linux. This begs the question of why they have a strong opinion about something they have little experience with.
Ignorant people with strong opinions rarely are swayed by the facts, nice try but it'll probably fall on deaf ears. You could have easily pointed them to an informative Linux site, I don't why this site is even needed.
While we're on the subject of Red Hat isn't linux, I think it's time we should reserve the following domain names, just to increase clarity amongst the general public.
r s.org o uldntBeUsingLinux.net t ToImplementIt.com e t r Linux.com A reTwoVeryDifferentOperatingSystems.com
www.Linux6Point2DoesNotExistyet.TryAgainIn12Yea
www.IfYouDontKnowHowToDeleteAFileInWindowsYouSh
www.YesLinuxIsFreeSoQuitAskingHowMuchItWouldCos
www.ItIsPossibleToHaveMoreThan24HoursOfUptime.n
www.NoMicrosoftDoesNotHaveAnySoftwareReleasedFo
also
www.NoMicrosoftDoesNotMakeLinux.WindowsAndLinux
and my personal favorite
www.LinuxIsntJustForGeeksAnymore.org
Wouldn't something more positively oriented like "linuxvariety.org" be more along the lines of what people are looking for?
Wow! I cannot believe that this kind of story is more important to slashdot.org editors and staff than the chance to get an Open Source advocate on the Patent Public Advisory Committee!
The US Patent Office is starting a Public Advisory Committee to "review the policies, goals, performance, budget and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with respect to patents." Can you imagine what could happen if Tim O'Reilly or Richard Stallman was on that committee?
This is so important for the future of the Internet and Free Software, and we have a chance to make a big difference. Make your voice heard! There's a deadline of 4/28/2000 for the nominations. See this Pigdog Journal article or this Burn All GIFs page for more information.
a lot of people complain about RPM, i know i used to. some of my friends bitched at me endlessly about it, and it rubbed off. oh well.
i'm persoanlly in favor of RH. maybe they could do more towards establishing a standards board, or participating in one, but they have certainly released nearly all their stuff under GPL. what more do you want?
i'm pretty sure RPM is under the GPL. presumably, debian's PM (apt?) is under GPL as well.
the only thing stopping some kind of grand unified linux PM is a lack of programmers capable of understanding the deep problems involved in recursive version checking.
if someone were to make such a GULP, with it's own new extension (gpm?) and allow conversion between the other two into the new, that would essentially make everyone shtup about it.
tarballz, in my opinion, are NOT the best way to go. not unless they have some type of autoconf script (even for binaries).
PS: anyone have the "Storm Trooper/Whazzup/Elian" flash thing mirrored? I hear it's illegal now, so I'd like a copy ASAP...
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Linux, as defined by CmdrTaco of Slashdot is: "the GNU license operating system created by Linus Torvalds and the rest of the internet. Unix-like and free, it powers power systems maintained by power users."
Does anyone else find it very humorous that Rob Malda serves as the authoritative definer of Linux?
Not to pick on him in particular, but celebrity is ridiculous sometimes.
When did you make your last kernal diffs Rob?
It isn't!
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
Even if Red Hat had 99.9% of the market it is ok. Why because I have the right to put out a Linux Distro of my own. Microsoft Windows is Closed. Linux is Open and Free. There is a big difference between the two. I wish Red Hat nothing but the best even if I don't personally use it. Linux needs someone to carry the torch and be the first step.
I understand that not every tech-support can know everything about all Linuxes, but in reality, how big are the differences?
Most company's have only a limited range of products and those products use only a small part of Linux. Most programms won't need anything from the system but libc. Maybe it needs to add a few libraries or configuration files to the system, but the location for these files is fixed. Anyone can show me a distro that doesn't use
I can think of only a two "big" differences between distro's that are not likely to be changed by a sysadmin:
Almost anything else can and will be changed.
- An operating system
- Costs about the cost of a blank CD
Windows:- An operating system
- Costs about the cost of a blank CD (so what if its commercial, an interesting Slashdot poll would be "who has actually paid for Windows?", I imagine lots of people reading this have a windowspartition and haven't paid for their copy)
so using your logic Windows = LinuxYou are not me, therefore you are not important
Nothing against the creators of the site, but you all on SlashDot should know that the Enlighten Distributed Systems Management tool runs on SuSE, RedHat and a couple of other distros.
BTW - It's actually a pretty cool product - you can manage (add users, change configs, etc) several hundred boxes covering a couple dozen different OS' from a single interface. You can download a copy of it from FreshMeat and try it out on your own distro.
Regarding the site inaccuracy, I don't think it would be appropriate for me (just another *nix whacko) to contact RHINL.org, but my Enlighten Sales Engineer is sending an official response soon.
Lessee here. Is stability uptime, or is it slow releases? IIRC, Linus always said 'release often'. And your problem is....????
I have read most of the comments and looked at the site. I totally agree with the site in that people who prepackage software should devote some time to making sure that their apps can run on other distros. That's smart business. But, I also understand some of the hardware vendors viewpoints on the issue. If you are dell and are selling more PC's than about anyone else in the world you want to make sure that you can service what you sell. Same with the little guys. If I sell someone a pc and they call in with an OS related question, i want to be able to answer it. If i say as a company that our hardware is compatable/we support "Linux," then we have just opened ourselves up to a plethora of questions that we may or may not be qualified to answer. Take dell for example. If someone calls in to tech support they know that they going to get first-class service (or at least their reputation says that they should). Now we just said we supported "Linux." Should the rep be able to answer a Red Hat question? What about a TurboLinux question? Slackware? GNU/Debian? Now that we can't answer the question, our tech support looks dumb. Some reputation for quality tech support we have. User decides that they will buy their next PC from HP or IBM or Apple or etc. See where this is going? Now imagine if you are the little guy in this situation.....
Now, suppose that we started out by saying that our hardware is Linux Compatable/we support Red Hat. Same user calls in with a Red Hat question, we can answer it no problem. But, when they call in with a Debian question, we tell them up front that Debian is not fully supported but we'll do our best. Now we live up to our reputation and then some. We've went the extra mile. How can we as a community expect every company to support and answer every question about every distro. We cant. To even begin to think that they should is wrong of us. You have to remember that these companies are running a business and have an obligation to their shareholders.
I can also see why many of the companies support Red Hat in lieu of the others. Red Hat is fast becoming the "standard" (if you will) in which all other distros are built. SuSE, TurboLinux, Mandrake, etc...all are built around a Red Hat model. Supporting Red Hat gives a company the chance to possibly be able to "semi-support" other platforms. Again, these folks are running a business here.
No, i am not a owner or employee of Red Hat, Dell, or any simular company. I just think its good to see things from their perspective.
Matt
So what's the generic term for "operating systems that imitate System V"? According to the Open Group's guidelines (PDF here), NetBSD's "UNIX-like" is an abuse of the Trade Mark. There are several abuses and their alternatives listed, but "UNIX-like" is the only abuse listed without an alternative. I've been dropping the U and calling them "*Nix" systems, or simply "Nix" systems.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Anyone who reads "RedHat supported" and gets upset should know better. If you run some other dist, you'll know if the software will work. Soon other Linux Vendors will claim things like "RedHat compatible". Just deal.
Why does VA Linux only support Red Hat when they /sell/ Debian? I would think that they would be all over Debian, even to a point of advertising for it as a server OS.
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''Why is the point so important for you to prove?
Seriously.
RedHat is a commercial venture stuck with the interesting problem of squeezing money out of a product they can never own and which anyone can cherry pick the features out of. Apart from selling service or hardware, their obvious counter move is to evolve their beast and add features so fast that no one else can quite claim the same degree of sophistication, and no one can quite figure out the art of making modified copies. This means lotsa bloat, lots of new bugs, instability, and generally the very opposite of a nice, stable and mature operating system. Even M$ doesn't try to rev their users as fast as RH (5.0, 5.1, 5.2 6.0, 6.1, 6.2) and all the utilities and admin tools get revved too, as does the user interface out of the box. Ouch. Hence I consider RH to be an opponent of stability, for reasons of corporate survival. I want a stable OS. I therefore consider RH harmful! BTW, I find the most interesting posts on /. are often the ones that have been modded down. Therefore, many moderators are IMHO morons. Go ahead and mark this down as troll and off-topic, my dear friends.
This is not a signature.
recusive? perhaps you meant recursive? ... it's not? it certainly
and if so
is self contradictory, but unline GNU:
GNU -> GNU is Not Unix -> GNU is Not Unix is Not Unix -> and so on.
LINL -> Linux Is Not Linux
and stops, because it doesn't contain LINL?
just feeling bored here.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
that the site will only serve to promote Red Hat because
the message is that Red Hat is the best supported
distro and that application vendors target it specifically.
I could say 42... but I'll write a brief, rambling thought instead
:) Anyways... kudos to redhat... they got something going to bring in the masses. Don't count Corel out either. However, I still like Slackware and tarballs
Face it... Redhat brought Linux to the masses. Of ALL you recent Linux users, what was your first distro... Redhat 4.2? RH 5.2? C'mon, some of us are running 6.1 or 6.2 for the first time. It's a likeable distro b/c it's easy to install, set up packages, yet have the feel for a *NIX-like OS. If you run it right, it can be just as secure as Slackware and Debian (so you'll have to tweak it some, but hey that's something to learn). It's got a cool name and a cool logo, so it will grab new newbies as well.
Now I'm not a big fan of proprietary software (aka M$ Office Suite) but even though those have its uses. As long as it stays cheap and run by the little people, I'll never have problems with it. Evolution and moving up has it's risks and it's growing pains. Look at the Internet (something that didn't need security to cc numbers floating everywhere), hardware standards, and such. It's unfortunately Darwinian, but just think of the exciting idea of when someone else rises to be popular to the uber-users.
OK, but what if you had LINL = LINL is not LINL. Then it would be recursive and self-contradictory.
You could also have LINL = LUNL is not LUNL, where LUNL is Linux, UNlike LINL. Which, while a stretch, would give you a mutually recursive, self-contradictory acronym.
..I can fully understand why people would pirate windows, when I was studying I wouldn't have been able to afford windows, I couldn't afford a computer either, so pirating windows would have been fairly pointless, but I was commenting on the general philosophy of not paying for software which seems to be prevalent on slashdot
You are not me, therefore you are not important
Redhat is Linux. Linux is not just Red hat.
So shouldn't it be Linuxisnotredhat.com?
How about Pentium is not CISC
Or PPC is not RISC
Who knows, better yet, who cares.
I swear sometimes people can get way too anal retentive.
GNU/Linux for example or the whole BSD code fork or
Intel's rush for USB 2.0 (cuz' it's not apple). Etc, etc, etc...
Whatever, not like I care.
Moderate me down, but if we're going to credit GNU, then we might as well tacking on XFree86, etc...
remove cap letters to email
this one, too!
382. Janet Reno from Washington DC - Prefered Linux Distribution: Redhat Linux W/ Fidel Castro & Elian Extensions.
don't even think about it.
I'm number 707, thank you very much.
I don't really see them as being fanatical - I think it's a good idea. I'm a Debian/Red hat user (home/work) and I think it's a good idea. Sort of like the equivalent of preventative maintenance on the linux "image".
Do we really have to wait for it to become a problem before we talk about it? Why not address the issue now and try to 'nip it in the bud'? It is an issue for sure. IMHO debian is the best distro, and sometimes it bugs me how binaries for certain programs only run on the latest redhat.
Linux so far has been about shaping those around us in the commercial world. Why sit around and let the commercial world shape us into thinking that redhat is the One True Linux? Doing something about it now rather than waiting until redhat is the only "desktop viable" package because of corporate support sounds like a good idea to me.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
software that conforms to the Linux API generally conforms to the Unix API (sorry, I meant the UNIX® Operating System's Application Programming Interface).
"UNIX® system API" would be fine by the Open Group (they just want a noun after the trademark), but I think I realized (looking at it from an API perspective) that the UNIX system API is just the POSIX API. Checking the Patent Office's trademark search engine, I find that POSIX® is a registered trademark of IEEE. I didn't see any off-the-wall trademark guidelines on IEEE's web site.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I love the irony. The most popular distro on the RedHatIsNotLinux.org poll IS RedHat %)
---
I would like? I would like a trip to Europe...
/Suse/ is not linux? Well please, do tell, what is linux?
I would like to ask the owners of this "Red Hat Is Not Linux" site why they feel the need to do this? I mean, does that mean that Mandrake is not linux? Does that mean that
I agree that the "commercialization" of linux may one day be harmful to it as far as it's being a powerful and fully open OS. But that does not mean that simply because a company which produces a distro or some such to make money is no longer linux.
So what? So there are some companies which have chosen to only _support_ one distro of linux. How can we expect a "linux friendly" company to support all flavors of linux when it is open source and there can be so many subtle yet important differences between each distro? What do you suggest, standardization,?
Agreed, Red Hat should not be taken as "the" linux distrobution. But just because they have gone public or "sold out" or some such that they should not be considered linux. RH was the very first disro I ever tried, mainly because IMHO they were the first to try and draw in newbies and not treat them like morons. Not that I am not a moron, but I like to think that I can count all my toes without the need of a calculator.
But what do I know? I'm going back to knitting a sweater from my belly button lint...
Ceci n'est pas une sig.