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.
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...
Of course, if you read my other post, it's clear that this problem also has a simple solution.
However, there's no reason to be fanatical about it. Perhaps these folks are going a bit overboard?
--- Speaking only for myself,
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
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
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!"
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.
Damn, looks like I gave too much credit to GNU users. Okay, let's try this: Only fungi and communists need GNU utilities.
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
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.."
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.
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...
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!
And, of course:
-Denor
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!
How about LINL.ORG, then you'd have a recusive, self contradictory acronym.
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.
.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...