Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Is Not Linux (dot org)

Posted by jamie on from the say-one-thing-and-say-it-well dept.

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.

60 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good Idea: People were being confused! by IO+ERROR · · Score: 2
    Hey, I grew up on Slackware, too. Then I grew up. These days I use Red Hat pretty much exclusively (when I'm not using FreeBSD). At the same time it bothers me that vendors are supporting Red Hat to the exclusion of other Linux distributors. This is supposed to be a community and I'd like to think all Linux distributions are welcome in that community (well, except maybe for LinuxOne). I wouldn't give my business to a commercial vendor that didn't recognize and support the entire community whenever possible.

    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?
  2. Corollary: Red Hat is not (not Linux) by Booker · · Score: 2

    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?

    ---

  3. Re:Good Idea: People were being confused! by fatboy · · Score: 2

    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
  4. Restricted source distribution by The+Man · · Score: 4
    The problem they are trying to address could easily be solved by eliminating binary-only software distribution. Now before you get your undies in a bundle and call me an open source fanatic, I'm not necessarily suggesting that everything must be Open Sourced. Instead, a vendor wishing to distribute software on Unix (and/or Linux) simply does so by shipping source under a no-redistribute license. That way, the customer can build/rebuild/port the software to whatever platform(s) they wish without worrying about library and kernel upgrades. We have a major package licensed under these terms where I work and I'm thrilled that the vendor chose to go that route, because I'm the one who has to maintain it. If it were binary-only it would be a nightmare. Instead, a major OS upgrade just includes a rebuild for this package, and if someone wants to put it on a completely different system, it's no problem.

    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...

    1. Re:Restricted source distribution by The+Man · · Score: 2
      I see your point, but I've installed a lot of software, under virtually every model of distribution (it is my job, after all). I find that by far the most difficult and complicated packages to install have been binary-only proprietary distributions. Even a source package that doesn't compile out of the box is usually easier to get right. That doesn't mean, of course, that it's impossible to get binary-only distribution right - netscape is pretty decent for example - but it doesn't seem too common.

      Obviously anybody who's actually going to sell software and expect people to buy it is going to be providing documentation on how to properly install it. This is true regardless of what format the package is distributed in. Maybe the real problem here is that the installation documentation isn't very good. If the package doesn't build, that's one thing - I don't necessarily expect everyone to have the experience necessary to fix it; so call tech support. But normally, we have to assume that the vendor tested first on at least a few common systems, so if you don't think you can deal with fixing it up, you'll just have to use one of those platforms. It's still no worse than binary-only distribution.

  5. Re:mayby its time for: what-is-linux.com .... by hartsock · · Score: 2

    What is the Linux?

    Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Linux is... they must be shown.

    ...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.

    --// Hartsock //

    --
    Live to Code, Code to Live!
  6. horseshit by jetpack · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:horseshit by WeeMadArthur · · Score: 2

      I don't think you're being very fair. There are plenty of reasons why having linux compatability is good and none of them have anything to do with being too lazy to port software. You'll find that lots of linux programs are binary only. The linux compatability in the BSD's allow one to run those programs. Its not a matter of getting the source and porting because the source is closed.

      I agree that we should be advocating source compatability but to say that the binary compatibility in the BSD's is a cheap ride on the linux wave is silly.

      Please pull your head out of your ass. Thank you.

      Andrew

    2. Re:horseshit by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2
      They have the fucking source

      They have the source to applications to which source is available, and the free-software BSDs, at least, do "port the software to their own applications"; see the port and packages databases. I suspect that, at least in some cases, they submit the changes to the maintainer (although I know that they don't, in some cases; a port maintainer managed to break Ethereal in an attempt to close a security hole - we only found out about it when a user complained that Ethereal wasn't working on that platform, and I ended up closing the hole in question in a fashion that actually worked).

      The binary compatibility packages let those OSes run closed source applications; the "you" in "*you* fix the source to be compatible" doesn't refer to the maintainers of the platforms.

      Yes, it's not that hard to do porting, but, for better or worse, not all vendors want to do that (including the QA, support, blah blah blah involved). That may well be the reason for all the "supports Red Hat Linux" stuff that provoked the creation of the site the story discusses.

      (Personally, I suspect that, unless shrink-wrapped binaries disappear - which might well be desirable, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen - the right answer is something such as the LSB, so that you don't need a compile farm, as the redhatisnotlinux.org folks suggested, to build binaries for N different distributions. If the non-Linux-based OSes can make their Linux environments conform to such a standard, the binaries should work there as well.)

    3. Re:horseshit by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2
      My point is that companies providing linux applications *clearly* have the source to their own programs, and we should be advocating that they port their software to as many platforms as possible. We should *not* be advocating that they port to some non-existant "linux compatibility binary standard".

      The fact that there currently isn't a Linux-compatibility binary standard neither indicates that there never will be one nor that there should never be one.

      I suspect those companies would prefer that "port[ing] their software to as many platforms as possible" not mean "porting it to Red Hat and porting it to SuSE and porting it to TurboLinux and porting it to Debian and porting it to Slackware and...", and, quite frankly, I don't particularly care to dispute their preference.

      The site the person to whom you replied referred was the 86open site; they abandoned that project when various x86 OSes started adding Linux binary compatibility packages, on the grounds that this was making the Linux/x86 ABI a de facto ABI, as per

      With these announcements, the need for a distinct common binary standard is gone. The operating system vendors, one way or another, have chosen a common binary format -- the Linux ELF format, which is now supported on the systems of all the developers which originally joined 86open.

      Unfortunately, there isn't necessary a Linux/x86 ABI; that's at least part of what the Linux Standard Base is attempting to fix.

      If the LSB comes out with a reasonable standard, then the suppliers of various Linux distributions, and of other OSes, have a choice - they can make their OSes, or the Linux compatibility environments thereof if they're not Linux distributions, conform to the LSB specifications, or not. If they do, it imposes restrictions on them, but may make it more likely that some random shrink-wrapped application will run on their platform; if they don't, it allows them more freedom, but may oblige them to live with some shrink-wrapped applications not working on their OS. (Yes, this does put the burden on the OS vendor, as per your

      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.

      which is fine with me; the advantage of something such as the LSB, if it comes to fruition, is that it could provide one "it" to "keep up with" that's at least written down and testable. It would presumably evolve over time.)

      Much better to impress upon vendors the importance of cross-platform source compatibility.

      And why exactly is it important to vendors? "It's the right thing to do" may, or may not, be sufficient; they may well choose to say "fine, we just don't care, there are enough {Red Hat, LSB-compliant, whatever} platforms that we're willing not to have our software run on the other platforms".

    4. Re:horseshit by jetpack · · Score: 2

      Since yours was the most sane reply to my post, I'll tack my reply to the end of yours.

      I think you are missing my point. The original article is about getting vendors to support linux distros other than redhat. Therefore, we are talking about companies porting their *own* software to different distros. This fool, "mr", is suggesting that it's ok to advocate distro compatability at source level, but for every other platform that wants linux binary compatibility, we should advocate that app vendors, not the OS vendors, should provide compatibility for linux binaries.

      My point is that companies providing linux applications *clearly* have the source to their own programs, and we should be advocating that they port their software to as many platforms as possible. We should *not* be advocating that they port to some non-existant "linux compatibility binary standard".

      Yes, I checked that site that mr quoted. There's almost nothing there. It hardly qualifies as defining a standard of any kind.

      Look, I have nothing against solaris, bsd, or sco (I dont deal with sco, but I do work with solaris and bsd), but whining that they should be binary compatible with linux is like whining that cp/m should be binary compatible with linux.

      Better, yet, should we be of the opinion that windos should be binary compatible with linux? Nonesense. You know *that* will never happen either. Much better to impress upon vendors the importance of cross-platform source compatibility. Even if they dont release the source, at least their binaries will be useable on a variety of platforms. Yes, I realize that they will have to distribute multiple binaries (one for each platform), but tough luck. That's what closed source distribution is all about.

      As for the bit about compute farms, that's a bit of a red herring. Developement houses can easily cut deals to get cheap machines with most of the OS vendors. Sure, it doesnt help the dude banging away in his basement, but that's not really what we are talking about.

  7. Re:Linux is not just INTEL :) by The+Man · · Score: 3
    You think PPC is tough, try SPARC some time. SPARC is the #2 Linux platform, but nobody seems to give a damn about it. And I'm not just talking about the proprietary vendors either. If it's not Open Source, forget it. If it is Open Source, there's a good chance, but still no guarantee.

    Of course, if you read my other post, it's clear that this problem also has a simple solution.

  8. whatisthelinux.com by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
    Great. A whatisthematrix.com meets Linux spoof.

    I think Tux would make a better Morpheus then Neo.

    First, you must come to realize... there IS no OS...

  9. Good Idea: People were being confused! by imagineer_bob · · Score: 3
    I'm a SlackWare holdout, and I find my self more and more telling Linux newbies that there are other choice. RedHat is fine, I've got nothing against it, but I grew up on Slack.

    However, there's no reason to be fanatical about it. Perhaps these folks are going a bit overboard?

    --- Speaking only for myself,

    1. Re:Good Idea: People were being confused! by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      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?). Libs and Kernals can be upgraded... Granted all this stuff requires effort, but isn't that the point of Linux? You can customise it to your heart's content. It'd be nice if these companies released .debs or .pkgs, and it'd be nicer if they'd release source. But surely you can get these programs to work on any Linux distro.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:Good Idea: People were being confused! by turg · · Score: 4
      Have you looked at the site? It's not fanatical at all. It's about lobbying hardware/software suppliers to support more distributions than just Red Hat. They have lists of companies that support RH only, that are distribution-independent, and that support multiple distributions, et.c.

      At the top it says "Attention: This is not an Anti-Red Hat Linux site"

      ========

      --
      <sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
  10. it's already /.-ed by myc · · Score: 5

    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
    1. Re:it's already /.-ed by HP+LoveJet · · Score: 2

      Actually, philosophy, law, or math majors seem to care much more about this sort of thing than English majors do. :)

      The problem is that, even though "Red Hat" and "Linux" are not mutually equivalent, RH *is* a subset of L. The conventional meaning of the phrase "A is not B", where B is a set, is either "not (A in B)" (if A is atomic) or "not (A subset-of B)" (if A is itself a set)*. The more precise English statement "A does not equal B" or "A is not the same as B" translates readily to the unambiguous logical "not (A eqv B)". This is a subtle distinction frequently lost on Slashdotters who like to say things like "Foo != Bar" in their subject lines.

      *Yes, I know that several schools of axiomatic set theory hold that anything that's not too large is a set, and therefore deny that there should be a difference between those two statements. Whatever.

      --
      spawn_of_yog_sothoth
  11. Re:Just about Time by PiMan · · Score: 2

    Discarding the troll at the end of your statement, I'd like to point out there are hundreds of packages in Debian that are not part of the GNU project. Also, Debian has non-free software, specifically, a section of software called non-free that contains non-free software (wow, the logic blows my mind). Secondly, Slackware ships with Netscape, Qt 1.x, et al, making it non-free. RMS Linux is _the only fully free linux distribution there is, hands down_.

    --
    Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
  12. No Freedom Without Free Software by drivers · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:No Freedom Without Free Software by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Exhibit A: Every Linux distribution includes proprietary software by default. Every one. Including Debian. Last time I installed Debian it installed Netscape by default without even asking.

      Exhibit B: I am free, Free and FREE. I have your capitalized Freedom. The fact that I have Acrobat, FrameMaker, and other binary only, closed source and encumbered software installed on my Linux box in no way diminishes my freedom. There are no shackles on me. I do not have to bow and scrape to massah Adobe. I have complete and 100% free will in using that software. I have complete and 100% free will and ability to discontinue using it and to uninstall it. I am in control of my destiny.

      What a twisted and confused mind you must have to equate emancipation with open source licenses.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  13. But then what is Linux? by bugg · · Score: 4
    Every possible OS with the Linux kernel?

    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
    1. Re:But then what is Linux? by vectro · · Score: 2

      Well, technically, Linux is the kernel. RMS thinks you should call linux-based systems GNU/Linux, like Debian GNU/Linux does.

    2. Re:But then what is Linux? by jiggel · · Score: 2

      Well, I grew up with the general idea that Linux was only the (name of the) kernel. Bundle it with ls, perl and stuff like that and you get a "Linux distribution".

      (Anyone for windowsisnotkernel32.exe.org? :))

  14. Why Red Hat is beneficial to the "Linux community" by Egorn · · Score: 3

    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!"
  15. Survey says, Red Hat == Linux by sansbury · · Score: 2
    According to their own survey, ~30% of people prefer Red Hat, while another ~20% prefer Mandrake, which is based on Red Hat. Next closest is Debian with ~17%.

    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.

  16. Many comments miss the point by Djaak · · Score: 2

    ...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 :))

  17. Behold the meritocracy at work by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 3

    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.

  18. What we really need.. by Cuthalion · · Score: 2

    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!
  19. Do you bitch if you were hung with a new rope? by mr · · Score: 2

    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!
  20. Re:Just about Time by danpat · · Score: 2

    You are incorrect about your statement about Debian. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) which are often referred to when evaluating whether a piece of software comes under a "free" licence or not governs what software is allowed into the Debain GNU/Linux distribution. The _only_ stuff that Debian officially recognises is software in the "main" tree, all of which conforms to the DFSG. All other software that is bundled and put in "contrib" and "non-free" is _not_ part of the Debian distribution. When it comes around time for a release, we do _not_ build official ISO's for non-free and contrib, because they are _not_ part of the Debian GNU/Linux (or GNU/Hurd if you're that way inclined) distribution. Please go and read the Debian Social Contract, which binds all developers at http://www.debian.org/social_contract. If you want a 100% free system with Debian, it's easy. Don't use anything from non-free or contrib. Debian/main is exactly as free as RMS Linux.

  21. Re:What are the specific incompatabilities? by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    "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."

    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 ;-) Once it's a tgz, you can use installpkg on it.
    ---

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  22. Re:This gives me an idea! by howardjp · · Score: 3

    Damn, looks like I gave too much credit to GNU users. Okay, let's try this: Only fungi and communists need GNU utilities.

  23. The problem is politics within LINUX..so move! by mr · · Score: 2

    >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!
  24. Re:Different fields have different TM namespaces. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

    And let's not forget the fungicide named UNIX (alas, www.novartis.com isn't responding, so I can't check to see whether the Novartis page cited in that item is still there).

  25. Amen, brother! by Trick · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Amen, brother! by / · · Score: 2

      Hell, even Star Office, made buy the guys who sell Sparcs, and who have a Linux version, doesn't do Sparc.

      You mean "bought out by the guys who sell Sparcs". They didn't write it themselves and they haven't gotten around to porting it.

      --
      "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  26. And Linux is not Unix... by SIGFPE · · Score: 4

    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
  27. Sorry, but you are wrong........... by gee308 · · Score: 2

    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

  28. mayby its time for: what-is-linux.com .... by slamouritz · · Score: 4

    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.."
  29. Re:Red Hat is No Problem by be-fan · · Score: 2

    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.
    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 /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.
    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...
  30. Re:This gives me an idea, too! by howardjp · · Score: 2

    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.

  31. Good Site, Link it in to your site, if legal :-) by GC · · Score: 2

    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.

  32. Re:11th post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5

    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.

  33. Linux is not just INTEL :) by wdavies · · Score: 5

    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...

  34. And *WHY* should *I* care? by mr · · Score: 4

    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!
  35. This gives me an idea! by Denor · · Score: 3
    That's a great idea, too many people are confusing Red Hat with the totality of linux. Along those lines, I think other sites like this should be opened up. Just a few could be:
    • AOL is not the internet
    • Your Computer programmer friends are not tech support
      And, of course:
    • Gnu's Not Unix


    --
    -Denor
  36. linux is not Red Hat by wharfrat · · Score: 2

    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

  37. Re:People unclear on the concept, heh heh by mr · · Score: 3

    What is 'unclear' about it?

    Linux is about:
    Being like unix
    Being OpenSource
    Having a set of userspace utilites
    running 'linux binaries'

    BSD is about:
    Being linek unix
    Being OpenSource
    Having a set of userspace utilites
    running 'linux binaries'

    Given the result of http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html
    the person unclear on the concept is you and the people who RUN this 'redhatisnotlinux.com' site.

    Like it or not, BSD and Linux have MORE in common than not.

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  38. Re:How about ... by khiron · · Score: 3
    >LinuxIsNotLinux.org

    How about LINL.ORG, then you'd have a recusive, self contradictory acronym.

  39. Re:What are the specific incompatabilities? by mcrandello · · Score: 4

    RPM is basically a format for compressing the directory structure of the binaries you're trying to install, along with information about the requirements and versioning, which in theory makes sure that before you install a piece of S/W that you have all the prerequisite stuff in there. Most of the criticism of RPM seems to be that the package managers aren't always that nice (they'll lie about what they think you have/don't have on your system) and that the database where they store all this info crashes often.

    It is supposed to be possible to install an RPM manager into a non Red-Hat system, however many people who use other distro's actually do so because they feel that among other things, the package formats for their distro are better (debian has a package manager who's users seem to love it, Slackware has one also but most of the other slackers I've seen prefer to untar, make, make install. to install their S/W).

    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. I've always wound up just manually placing the binaries and symlinking until things seem to work when on my slackware. I think there may be more involved to converting RPMS to completely system/distro independant packages however.

    Also there is the source distrobution issue. 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.

  40. May get vendors shy of supporting Linux by driehuis · · Score: 4
    I have some problems with the underlying assumption that the vendors mentioned do not care about Linux.

    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.

  41. Look at the petition supporters! by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

    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

  42. This won't solve anything by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3

    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.

  43. hmm... by zCyl · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't something more positively oriented like "linuxvariety.org" be more along the lines of what people are looking for?

  44. Is This More Important Than the Future of Patents? by YPrudhomme · · Score: 3

    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.

  45. Re:Red Hat is No Problem by be-fan · · Score: 3

    Actually that's bad. If RedHat owns 99.9% of the market, that means everyone will ship products that conform to their standard. If you want to use another distro, you have to put up with a lot of pain. (That's why I use RedHat now, because I don't have the time to bitch with the system everytime I want to install software.) There is not real freedom in allowing RedHat to put stuff that belongs in /opt in /usr -actually, if Linux had a decent registry like Windows, (except text based and easily editable), silly dependencies like this wouldn't be necessary- they're just different. Making a "LSB seal of approval" would be a good idea, because if software followed it, then people wouldn't have to mess with software to get it to work. Finally, exactly what freedom is one losing to get a definate standard? You have to use different config files and directory structure, sure, but if you want that level of freedom, that's a little silly.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  46. Not really fanatical by Uruk · · Score: 2

    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
  47. Re:Just about Time by nullset · · Score: 2

    You don't have a clue do you?

    Debian is (supposedly) the only 'free' distro, in that all the software on debian is GNU.

    Slackware ships with all packages, source included, except for netscape :)

    and, GPL does NOT mean free.

  48. The generic is probably POSIX system by yerricde · · Score: 2

    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?