Slashdot Mirror
What's Coming In Red Hat 7.0
An anonymous reader writes: "MaximumLinux.com has a story about Red Hat 7.0 which is coming out on Tuesday. Apparently it will ship with 2 installation CDs, XFree4 is set to default and the USB support is s'pose to kickass." I've finally seen USB work properly under Linux and its sweet. The sad part is that the only USB device I have is a mouse ... with a PS/2 adapter.
Over the last few weeks I've installed RH, Mandrake, and Debian over the Interet (not to mention OpenBSD). Download a floppy (or two or three depending on what you're installing), boot, select the appropriate Internet install, and away you go. For some distros the floppy you download may have to be a "network" floppy (which contains the appropriate drivers for network installation), but it's *always* documented where you download the floppies. RTFM much?
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
SSH couldn't be included before just a few days ago because of the RSA patent. FTP and Telnet servers haven't been installed on RH workstations for several releases -- and not installing the clients seems a bit harsh.
Files in the bin and etc dir should be read only and not visible to other then say the admin/wheel group.
There are a lot of files in
xfont server dose not to be installed by default.
The X font server is needed for TrueType fonts under XFree86 3.3.x -- still a necessity until 4.0 is finished. Plus, if it's like RH 6.2, it's not configured to listen on the network.
ipchains and tripwire,
Packet filtering and Tripwire would be good, although doing it in a way that wouldn't utterly confuse newbies might be a trick. And tripwire isn't really useful without a database on read-only media.
and an automatic update cheker should be installed by default.
Looks like selling that is part of their business plan. Of course, you can subscribe to their free mailing list, which notifies you of updates, or use one of the many available autoupdate systems.
xv and xanim are not installed and are needed by kde/gnome.
xv isn't free software, and it's not even the best of its kind. Not sure about xanim. What exactly do you mean "needed by kde/gnome"? And more importantly, how is excluding these things a security problem?
--
The config files are ugly. (My thinking is that the whole mess in /etc could be condensed into a dozen well planned files.)
I think Apple actually has a good approach to this in OSX. It is transitioning the config files into XML, with a specialized XML editor as the front end. And since it's XML (and not some file format made up at 3am), other replacement editors could easily do the same job.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
You're wrong - the story was not a press release, at least not one from Red Hat.
We aren't in the habit of announcing releases before they're done, and it's "Red Hat Linux 7"
as opposed to "Red Hat 7.0". We don't issue press-releases that get the product names wrong.
Here's the other parts they got wrong:
XFree86 4.0 is set to default
This depends entirely on the chipset. XFree86 4.0 is used by default on certain chipsets only.
There are a couple of chipsets where XFree86 4.0 is far less stable than 3.3.6. For those (and those generally not supported by 4.0 [4.0.1 actually]), we're defaulting to 3.3.6.
The article also doesn't mention the two additional versions (special editions of the Deluxe and Professional versions for Europe) which will be out soon(tm).
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Remember when Linux fitted on a single floppy?
Yeah, but in a little while you can hook up a CueCat! :-)
John
The Church of the SubGenius -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
John
I submitted a story two days ago about SuSE 7.0 shipping. I provided commentary on the two different versions coming out, what was in each, and the fact that SuSE has braille support and the article got rejected. But since Red Hat has USB support now, this story gets posted. WTF?? Linux is not Red Hat, psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Noticed a small inaccuracy in the story...
"USB support, or the lack there of, has proven to be one of the negative aspects surrounding Linux as a consumer OS. Development for USB support has gone into high gear lately, and Claiborne says Red Hat handles it nicely -- even surpassing the competition in some cases.
"I was a bit surprised when I tried my Kodak DC 280," Claiborne said. "In Windows I have to put the flash card into an adapter which connects via a serial port and then Windows sees it as another drive and I have to take them off one by one. In Linux, I hook my camera up to my USB slot, run Gphoto and there are all my files."
Not true... I have a KodakDC280 and it works fine in Windows via a direct USB connection. No need for a separate CompactFlash card reader. Kodak even finally released Win2K drivers a little while back. I hate to nitpick, but it's better than having inaccuracy in the story... :D
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
For the record, I'm still using the same Red Hat 6.0 install from a year ago. It's been pretty heavily modified by now, though. I think it's about time to upgrade.
I quickly parsed the story, mostly looking to see if RedHat said anything about the infamous default installs. Lo and behold, there are claims that the default installs will be "more secure for cable and ADSL users" - does this mean no more apache, login, shell, nfs, etc. by default?
On the one hand, "It's about time a major distributor got around to thinking about security."
On the other hand, it just goes to prove that enough people demanding something will make it happen - how often do people complain about the wide-open default installs from most major Linux distros nowadays?
Re: USB support. I was kinda forced to try out USB support under Linux when my new Epson couldn't print using my parallel-port scanner's pass-through - the scanner's fault, I think. All it took was a quick kernel recompile, a quick skim of a howto, and that was it. Works like a dream.
As long as a rash of exploits don't appear in the two weeks after 7.0's release, it sounds like this version will be worth upgrading to. Of course, if you already have Mandrake 7.0 installed, then why bother - same stuff, looks like.
My main reason for even considering an upgrade is the fact that Red Hat, and other distributors, seem to be moving toward using a new glibc in compiling their brand-spanking-new packages. Go ahead, try a rawhide package. There's a good chance it won't install, giving you a dependency error requesting...glibc2.2? News to me, but if I want to keep up, I'll have to upgrade. For free, of course:)
----------
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
What is the point in that? Security through obscurity? Anyone could just buy a RedHat CD and look at these files anyway.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Don't underestimate the importance of easy upgrading to 2.4. This will be one of the killer features in 7.0. (as an aside, I installed a 2.4pre kernel in my mother's machine and it works great )
According to AMD, during the next year the ISA bus will no longer be available on most motherboards. That means that a lot of new systems are going to be sold with NO ISA slots, NO PS/2 ports, NO serial ports and NO parallel ports. Removing the old ISA controllers will mean more available area on the motherboard for high speed controllers or smaller, faster, and less expensive motherboards, depending on your market.
Internal expansion will be available with PCI, i810 bus from Intel, or LDT from AMD (LDT bus can be 2,4,8,16, or 32 bits wide and features 1.6GB bandwidth). External devices will use either IEEE 1394 or USB. I'm guessing that support for these buses will be (or has been) back ported to the 2.2 Linux kernel, but will be better supported in the 2.4 kernel.
RedHat has taken a bit of a (deserved) beating over the holes in it's default install. I hope this is a sign that they are listening to the criticism.
Well, we'll al find out soon enough.
I browse with my threshold at 2 so I can't read my own comments :-)
My 386 finally finished installing redhat 5.2 last week.
you open source goons need to quit releasing stuff so early and often.
Pretty sure you need more than just support for USB 2 in order for it to work. You also need to have the hardware built into your computer. Pretty sure no motherboard is making mobos with a USB 2 port at the current time.
Check out USB.org
Although they do not make a direct statement saying it is different, they have alot of good info about the specs and classification.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
1) There are very few creature comforts in Linux. Sure stuff like ActiveDesktop or Win98 Explorer (with the integrated preview) are not absolutely necessary, but they're nice to have.
/etc could be condensed into a dozen well planned files.)
Yes, which is why people are working on things like Nautilus. These features are gradually appearing.
2) Linux has no asthetics. Asthetics goes beyond pretty GUIs into the system itself. There is only so much KDE and GNOME do for you. Once you get into the system itself, its ugly. Initscripts are ugly (except in Slackware). Adding hardware is ugly. The config files are ugly. (My thinking is that the whole mess in
Yes, the initscripts and so on could probably be made simpler. It would be against the UNIX philosophy of individual programs working together, though, so I don't see it as likely to happen. Rather then dealing with this at the underlying level, it makes far more sense for your distribution to abstract these away from you. Graphical programs that allow you to manipulate init scripts in a more sensible way exist. More structured configuration programs for manipulating configuration files are becoming more common. It won't be long before you really don't have to worry about that sort of thing.
3) Linux has a learning curve shaped like an L.
You're not comparing like with like. As you say later on, Linux isn't an OS. Don't compare Linux with other operating systems - compare distributions. I use Debian here, so I'll compare that with the points you raise.
ALSA: Debian includes a program that asks you what sort of sound card you have. ALSA includes ISAPNP support, so it's pretty good at finding things. No editing of configuration files, no magic numbers.
Telnet: apt-get install telnetd, or pick it from the software installation program of your choice.
NAT: No idea, I'm afraid - I've never needed to do it.
Incidentally, using a telnet server is a fantastically stupid thing to do, especially on a cable modem. You do realise that telnet doesn't encrypt passwords, right? Somebody sitting on the same cable modem segment as you can sniff those passwords as you type them. Use ssh.
4) Linux isn't an OS.
As I said above, I agree. However, you then go on to say:
Linux should be judged by the same ruler as a commercial OS.
Why should it be compared to a commercial OS if it's not an OS? What is far more sensible is to compare distributions with commercial OSs. Debian (Incidentally, I'm not trying to demonstrate any superiority in Debian here - it's just that I maintain a large number of Debian systems, so I have significantly more experience of it than any other Linux distribution) has features that answer several of your points. Software installation is as simple as choosing the program you want from a list and waiting for it to either be read off CD or downloaded along with any other software it depends on. You rarely need to mess about with configuration files yourself. Building from source is something that people keep claiming is a necessary part of running a Linux system, but I can count the number of programs I use that I've had to compile by hand on my fingers. Provided your distribution is reasonably comprehensive, it's just plain not needed.
Most of your claims about the deficiencies of Linux are because you're not using everything that's available to you. The fact that you feel you have to do stuff the difficult way is obviously a very good argument for better documentation being required (and I'll agree that that is one thing that Linux is seriously deficient in having spent several hours yesterday struggling with initrd stuff that now bears little resemblance to the kernel documentation for it). I'm not going to claim that Linux is as ready for the average desktop user as Windows is, but it's not as far away as you're implying.
Alright, you've said your peace, and I think you're a fool, so I will now say mine.
:)
/etc could be ondensed into a dozen well planned files.)
/etc is essentially very similar to the Windows registry and .ini files, how many end users will ever touch their registry, or even realize a file called win.ini exists on their system?
/etc can be condensed into a dozen files and retain all their information and ease of access (An all-encompasing GUI is not easier to access than opening a text file.) then you either aren't familiar with the Unix way of thinking, or you aren't interested in retaining the configurability and flexibility that Unix offers. Of course, if Linux is to be this grand desktop OS that people want to be, I fear it may lose that anyway. And that would indeed be nothing less than a tragic loss. (Which is why I don't think Linux in its current state should be a desktop OS. At least, not the way you seem to think a desktop OS works)
Office Suites: If WordPerfect Office 2000 is better in Windows than in Linux, why use Linux?
Because there's more to life than shrink-wrapped hundred dollar office suites. AbiWord, Gnumeric, KOffice, are all coming. Additionally, StarOffice is being drastically reworked into something that doesn't suck.
Games: Even QuakeIII get's boring eventually.
Meet the tip of the iceberg. What, did you expect Linux games to multiply overnight? These things take time. Frankly, I'm surprised Linux gaming has advanced as far as it has. My predictions that I made in 1998 didn't expect games to be commonly available for another year, but I can buy everything listed at lokigames.com at my local big computer store (Fry's)
2) Linux has no asthetics. Asthetics goes beyond pretty GUIs into the system itself. There is only so much KDE and GNOME do for you. Once you get into the system itself, its ugly. Initscripts are ugly (except in Slackware). Adding hardware is ugly. The config files are ugly. (My thinking is that the whole mess in
Once you get into the system itself, you're doing more than 80% of the Windows userbase will ever do. Let's draw some parallels. If
If you believe
3)
I'm going to be as brief as possible. First, have you ever even read about how Debian works as opposed to RedHat? There are distros besides RedHat, you know. Second, comparing BeOS to Linux doesn't work. BeOS is the project of a single development group lead by a single program management group. How can you seriously expect Linux to have the same goals? Now, if you want to compare a distro to BeOS, that's fine. Third, personal telnet server? Are you completely disconnected from reality? SSH, my friend. Telnet has no place in the hands of end users that don't know anything about security, nor should they be expected to. Fourth, your suggestion that Linux and Windows should be held to the same standard is a repeat of your faulty reasoning behind comparing it to BeOS. See above.
4) Linux isn't an OS.
Interesting, you've been judging and condemning it like one. And throughout this paragraph you expect it to be one. "Consistancy is a good thing for an OS" is irrelevant if Linux isn't an OS. "managerial problems an OS has" is meaningless, since Linux isn't an OS.
Now, to point out why none of this matters. Linux isn't a product. It's a kernel. Linux distributions are products, and I'm sick of people comparing this mythical thing that is Linux to operating systems. If you want to bitch about RedHat, call it RedHat Linux. Don't give the other distros crap for the product of one company. Further. Don't expect the contents of any distro to be perfect, flowing, and totally consistent until a company shows up that writes every single application in-house. Then, and only then, does it fit into your world of what an OS is. Then, and only then, may you compare it to Windows and BeOS.
I've been on Slashdot for quite some time now. I've posted, moderated, and meta-moderated more than my share.
IMHO, moderating down "First Posts" is really a waste of points. It is also not in keeping with the spirit of moderation (concentrate on marking up good posts rather than slamming bad ones).
The truth is that 99.99% of all FPs are made anonymously. This means they start at 0. The moderation system is designed so that people can bump their thresholds up to 1 and filter out all the FPs and AC goatse.cx links. Now, as a moderator, you should be browsing at -1, so you are exposed to this vileness. At the same time, you should remember that most serious slashdotters aren't seeing it.
Slapping a -1 on a First Post uses a moderation point that could have been used bumping a worthy AC post up to +1. Then, those of us who usually browse at +1 could see it.
I've been on Slashdot long enough to expect the "First Post" at 0. I set my threshold accordingly. By moderating the FP down to -1, you don't really spare me anything. At the same time, there's probably a post at 0 somewhere in this thread that is worth my attention. It's a pity I'll never see it.
CmdrTaco has worked hard designing this system. It really works if we just let it.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.