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.

Comments

Restricted source distribution

[The Man]

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...

it's already /.-ed

[myc]

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.

But then what is Linux?

[bugg]

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.

Re:Good Idea: People were being confused!

[turg]

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"

========

And Linux is not Unix...

[SIGFPE]

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 :-)
--

mayby its time for: what-is-linux.com ....

[slamouritz]

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..

Re:11th post?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Linux is not just INTEL :)

[wdavies]

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?

[mr]

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.

Re:What are the specific incompatabilities?

[mcrandello]

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.

May get vendors shy of supporting Linux

[driehuis]

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.