Slashdot Mirror
Linux Vendors to Standardize on Single Distribution
Jon James writes "eWeek is reporting that a number of Linux vendors will announce on Thursday that they have agreed to standardize on a single Linux distribution to try and take on Red Hat's dominance in the industry. " The vendors in question are SuSe, Caldera, Conectiva, and Turbolinux. However, as the article also points out - Red Hat has a very well established lead in the corporate market - and Sun's decision to create Yet Another Linux Distribution (Sun Linux! Now With McNealy Vision!) will make the waters even more muddy.
Lucky for Red Hat there are no bigger OS companies around!
I've used SuSE for some time, and been happy.
However, many is the time that I wanted a newer version of software than was available from SuSE. An "uber" distribution, compatible with the assorted branded distros catches my interest because it may increase the likelihood of finding new software in rpm form that may actually work on my system.
Worth watching.
The number of distributions needed soe pruning anyway. In theory, you could have as many dists as there are Linux users, but in practice it seems the "supportable number" is far less.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Hmm, I wonder which distribution these four will standardize on.
/Me prays its Debian inspired. Perhaps this will put more momentum behind the campaign for destroying the useless (read: Surpassed long ago) RPM standard.
loply.com
If they can pool the strengths of each distribution into the new one, that will make it stronger.
I think some major consolidation is way overdue for Linux. Of course, new distributions will always appears to fill in the empty spaces.
It should read .."cash in on redhat's dominance"
These companies came in on the wave of redhat
So they wont use rpm then ?
However, when I think about it, perhaps that makes sense; I'm looking to run a desktop (mostly), whereas I'm presuming that when Linux is used in the corporate environment it is basically only on servers.
Is RedHat really such a good distro for corporate needs, or is it merely that it has a big name so everyone buys it? I always think of RedHat as the distro that's been around forever, even though no one seems to use it (here come the RedHat users to set me straight...) Guess I've been talking to the wrong people.
Corporations never did make good friends to talk to though.
This is great. What would be even greater would be if all the Linux vendors could standardize as far as possible on the core distribution. They should compete on the nature of their services.
> I'm all for competition, but it seems to me that we've already dealt with this particular issue.
This is a very North American way of looking at the Linux marked. Fortunately, the rest of the world have another view of the Linux marked.
They will announce ... on thursday. But to take the pleasure out of their announcement, Slashdot pre-announces it on wednesday. There goes their 5 minutes in the spotlight. How inconsiderate!
RedHat's success with businesses is not that their distribution is better than others; - although it's a fine distribution tailored for businesses - it's that they give manager's what they want - support contracts, courses and certificates for employees etc.
Businesses don't like to take risks, they want to see a shiny reliable company selling them a reliable product, instead of "some freeware distribution written by no good hippies in their spare time". RedHat gives them the comfort of that illusion.
When one OS or distribibution is enough, then you might opt for Windows. There is a need for standardisation, standardisation with Unix, for security, for standard Linux. Competition keeps everybody on their toes. With the combination of several distros a lot of duplicate effort will not be done any more. Less duplication of effort is good for all.
There are few details that I don't see being resolved yet..
All those companies mentioned don't give free ISO's just like RedHat (and Debian for that matter, as well as Mandrake) which kind of makes sense - a customer who downloads and uses the downloaded ISO's is one less customer who would like to pay for the distribution (not all of them - but most of them)..
I can understand RedHat point - they don't give a shit about people using Linux on the desktop - their eyes are focused only on the enterprise - thats why you won't see RedHat Advanced server available for free download, and you'll need to pay $800 for it (with the bare 30 days support - installation support) so how they're going to compete with RedHat??
This reminds me the LPI exams (which everyone but RedHat stands behind it) VS. RHCE training/exam - how many people here passed the LPI? how many passed the RHCE? somehow I got the feeling that RHCE is WAY more preffered then LPI..
Hetz (Heunique)
If somebody is wondering what LSB is, well no, its not the pre-precursor of LSD; it is the Linux Standard Base
cheers
rmstar
Linux Magazine has an article on why Debian would fill in a good role as 'arbitrator' amongst the distributions and why HP chose to use Debian as their standard distro.
A distro free from vendor squabbling and influence, that's exactly what the Linux 'standard' should be. Now all we need to do is get some LSB action going.
Why are they bothering to come up with a single uber-distro when Debian provides a solid foundation for this kind of work? If I were a Linux distributor, and was starting to realize that I can make money selling services and a name, why would I waste all this money making up yet another installer - hell, I'd hire 10 guys, slap a commercial release on top of Debian every 6 months, and let the community do the heavy lifting - all the while earning open source karma for supporting Debian.
I read about this last night, and had mixed feelings. It's certainly overdue in the market - there definitely needs to be simpler 'cross-distribution' compatibility for installing packages. Yes compiling from source is generally compatible, but not everyone wants to do that, nor should they have to. It's a waste of someone's time to do that in many cases.
I think it may be too little, too late, however. This should have been done over a year ago, and there still seems to be too little information on the specifics of the deal(s). Figure it'll take *months* before this has any impact on the installed base out there, it'll be a miracle if this actually 'saves' any of these distros from further marginalization.
Someone else mentioned Redhat feeds into an 'illusion' that businesses want - 'shiny support', etc. It's no illusion. It may cost money, but damn it - if someone in a business needs support for something (driver doesn't work, upgrade broke, whatever) having a *real person* to call who's been trained on that particular distro is invaluable. Yes, it may cost $200. Yes, you 1337 geeks out there could hang around in IRC for a few hours waiting to get an answer. *Businesses* can't afford to do that. Furthermore, they shouldn't have to put up with those channels of support (not reliable enough - quality of support is hit and miss, and they can't afford to wait for the 'hit' all the time). Whether or not they ever need it ('linux is so stable!') the fact that it's there is more than comfort enough to persuade people to go the Redhat route.
Furthermore, the Redhat certification and training and all the other secondary services simply help to bolster their lead in the mindshare of the business market. Maybe it's just that they had more cash to play with after their IPO - if so, they've put it to good use.
creation science book
This should make companies like IBM that officially support 3 or 4 different Linux versions happy. This should consolidate things and make life a little easier.
OTOH, is this going to be like the OPEC of Linux? They "standardize" on one distribution in public, claiming to fight the common enemy but in private they still stab each other in the back and snipe at each other?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
So, will the SEC have to step in an approve this?
Seriously, though. Would any of us be happy if Volvo, Volkswagon, Ford, Hyundai, and Chrysler decided to "standardize" their automobiles to compete with one big vendor? I for one would say no. It would make some innovative new idea, like say a zero emmissions fuel cell car, that much more unlike the standard. New ideas will seem more outrageous if there's such a baseline from which to deviate.
If they're going to standardardise on one distribution, why don't they standardise on Redhat? No, Seriously.
Something needs to be done, because the Linux community is allowing itself to get slipped into the Microsoft mindset. With the LSB in place, there should be none of this business of "targetting a distribution" or other Microsoft-like lock-in nonsense.
1: The LSB needs to be in place.
2: All major distributions need to adhere to it, and the minor ones should too, for that matter.
3: Education is key, that LSB-compliance is the real crux of the matter, not some specific distribution.
4: Packaged software should state its requirements relative to the LSB. LSB+foolib+barlib, etc. Some distributions may choose to distinguish themselves by including foolib and/or barlib out of the box. The ISV should also have copies/pointers for foolib and barlib on their web site.
5: Distributions are good. More are better, as long as LSB can solve the interoperability and installation problems.
I'm disappointed to see LSB mentioned only once as of my writing this post.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I have bad feelings when I read about the infighting between the various distributions. While it's certainly positive that SuSE, Caldera etc are standardizing their distribution, RedHat's recent competitive upgrades move and the bickering amongst the vendors reminds me only too well of the Unix infighting and splitting in the 70's and 80's. I worry that in the end the winner will once again be Microsoft.
Actually not, they are just adapting to a new form of existance. Targeting geeks it was simple, every geek has it's own needs and would like it's own distribution.
Targeting masses actualy defines being more organized and more uniform. This way linux development actualy speeds up, what's one of the main things of this merging.
Setting one standard and deploying jobs across few companys that had to do all the work untill now. Speed is increasing, uniforming gets better and most importantly. There is a higher organisation level
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Since when was the debian packaging system based on RPM? It may be similar to RPM, but it isn't RPM.
And as for De Facto standards, one only has to look at IBM and Microsoft and the state the computer industry is in today. Fair competition is the Best Way(TM) to keep the market in check. We wouldn't want Red Hat to become the M$ of the Linux and UNIX world, now,would we?
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Show me Caldera's certification program. Show me Mandrake's certification program. I won't even bother with the other two. Caldera's certification is primarily around certifying that your apps and hardware work with their software. The 'education' part is pitched as standard linux admin stuff, nothing specific to caldera. Hardly inspiring, but in 2002, would someone spend money on Caldera-specific training? Probably not.
creation science book
I don't see technical reasons behind this. In fact, most of the article goes on about market share, revenue, strategy etc., but it remains unclear to me how the vendors are going to tackle the technical issues and what pieces from which distributions will be retained to make this patched-up Linux distro.
standardize on a single Linux distribution to try and take on Red Hat's dominance
So instead of taking market share from Windows, the idea is to take it from Red Hat?
Doesn't this strike anyone else as just a wee bit stupid? After all, the strenght of linux is choice and now the goal is to limit that choice.
/me shakes head
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
No, Mandrake was originally based on the RedHat distribution. It's claim to fame was that they took the basic RedHat distro (386 optimized) and recompiled it to 586 optimization. It will only run on Pentiums and higher. The installer is definately different, but the base - where things are located, RPMs, the configure scripts - are all based on RedHat
----------
If your answer is Microsoft, you obviously didn't understand the question.
I heard about this a few weeks ago from a friend within one of these companies, who also asked me not to post it until it was announced (ahem!)
Apparently, the initiative has come from IBM here, they're going to call in Universal Business Linux (UBL - quite unfortunate) Word is that SuSE will produce the distro for the other three companies, although at the time, Connectiva weren't in on it.
Basically, what's in it for IBM is this: It reduces the number of distros they have to support to two: Red Hat and UBL
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
It can't be ease of use, that is not the point of UNIX-like operating systems. Some distros may get close to the ease of use of Windows, but is that really the primary goal of any distribution?
It can't be the prettiness of the desktop. Window managers are not tied to the distributions, although some prefer prefer certain desktop suites. However you look at it, there is a UNIX that takes the desktop beauty pageant hands down: Mac OS X.
Maybe you judge "best" by how much control you have over the operating system... does that require working with source in all cases, or is fine-grained package management good enough? They all give you incredibly control over the operating system, differences in the layout of /etc aside.
I could keep on going, but I'm sure you get the point. How much "better" a distribution is has to be looked at very subjectively and therefore the judgement lacks meaning. As long as a distro works, installs, is reliable, and essentially does what it claims to do, you have to give it the stamp of approval as a good distribution. Past that, everything is a matter of opinion.
Perhaps, for business, Red Hat simple is the best. Personally, that is the conclusion I've come to. I love Mandrake, prefer it, more or less, to Red Hat, however I've chosen Red Hat for the servers I build (and I build servers both for personal projects and for use by the large telecommunications company I work for) and for workstations. My workstation at the office is Red Hat, while at home I use Mandrake.
Each has their benefits. I've played with Debian, Storm Linux, Progeny (i.e., Debian+), Gentoo, and so on. Every distribution has something of value, some only as learning tools.
If we want to get very Darwin about the whole thing, then Red Hat is obviously the fittest distro. Its not the first, but it is the largest, most widely used, and has all but wiped out older "species" like Slackware, IMO.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
You know, I could care less if there are 5 or 5000 Linux distributions out there. But I'm really getting tired of the lack of binary compatability between distributions. And when I say that, I mean lack of binary compatability all the way from libc up to the desktop environment. I can compile simple command line apps and have it run on most distributions, but the second I start using extra libraries (like GTK+) I start running into compatability problems between distros.
/usr/lib and you'll be okay" either!
Distro A has the library, but it's a different filename since it's a newer version than the one in Distro B. Bah! The best tech that MS stole was COM objects. Just cram all the necessary versions into a single file, and let the runtime linker figure it out on the fly.
Well, I'm not trying to say that we need that sort of extra functionality/overhead, but I do want to say that Linux will take off like a shot at soon as developers have a steady target to aim for. The sooner all the major distros decide on a list of libraries that make up a standard linux distribution, the sooner I'll be able to start telling my friends and family that they should switch.
RPM, apt, deb, and even slack's TGZ all have the same problem. The application/library is compiled and packaged for a single version of a single distribution. Sometimes you can take them to another version or distro and it will work, but most often not. With a little fussing, you can usually put together some symlinks on a few libs that will at least get the app to run, but certain features won't work correctly, or the app will crash because a certain interface isn't exposed by this version of a lib. Even if it did run 100% correctly after you made the necessary symlinks, that still isn't good enough, since you had to manually manipulate the system in order to get the app to run. I don't tell my family to run regedit when they can't get an item out of the "Uninstall Application" menu (I fix it for them next time I'm over there), so I'm not going to tell them to "Just make a few symlinks in
Man this continual problem pisses me off...
It's so basic that I was sure that it would have been worked out by now. I've looked and looked and found nothing. The Linux Standard Base doesn't even come close to defining everything that is necessary for binary compatability between distros, and google hasn't given me any other good leads.
If I'm missing the big red neon sign that points to the solution, then please do share it with me. But if I simply haven't found it because it doesn't exist, then we should defenitely evaluate the value that this would add to Linux, and seriously consider its immediate implementation.
Linux isn't ABOUT anyting, accept running your computer in concert with its peripherals.
Linus has said several times that he isn't some idealist promoting some grand utopia. It was a stupid learning project. His use of BitKeeper should have slapped some sense into you.
Red Hat has ONLY been about money from day one. They have been capitalising on the free marketing that is the rabid evangalism that so many beatnick youth lend to it. SuSE is no different. Caldera bought DR-Dos just to make money on a law suit, so what does that tell you about them.
Linux companies don't exist to magically whip up VC to pay the volunteers, and then go bankrupt. They exist to make a profit. And if you are going to make a profit, you need to constantly work on increasing that profit, or you slowly die.
Not to mention that this VC doesn't come from some grand benefactor but from a lot of savvy business people that have no clue what Linux is, just what a profit is. As soon as you accept their money, you have already sold your ideals down the toilet.
Linux isn't about anything.
Linux companies are about maximising profits while minimizing production (using other peoples IP) costs.
Mandrake is in fact based on RedHat. You should not be so quick to call someone a liar just because you did not know this information.
Mandrake and RedHat may have different installation methods but Mandrake was originally based on RedHat but optimised for Pentium processors. I would guess that the original founders of Mandrake took a RedHat distro and changed/improved upon a significant number of things and called it "Mandrake".
I hope I've gotten the dates right; my memory is a little muddy from so long ago, but they should be more or less right. Of course, during the last years, both dpkg and rpm has borrowed ideas from each other even if they've developed independently.
Being able to actually sell or convince people to use software so Linux doesn't die is good.
Let me just say there are many times I wished for the opportunity to meet SCO Unix alone at night in a dark alley.
No wonder there's a huge fragmentation in the Linux world - it's all a problem of excessive number of libraries.
Just look at this, they've done a foolib and a barlib - c'mon guys, everybody knows that foo.c and bar.c are just example names, why create a lib for each of them?
Next thing you know and they'le come up with a helloworldlib or maybe put a web site on example.org
Anyone who has messed with Caldera, SuSE and Turbolinux knows that they do NOT produce a 100% redistributable version of their commercial offerings. In addition to now allow redistribution of their CDs, most either omit major packages, or limit usage to "personal." As of 8.0, SuSE has gotten even more restrictive no longer offering free downloads of many components. This alone has turned off this user from considering their software.
Conectiva, on the otherhand, has gained a lot of notariety in their efforts. The two biggest being the use of Apt for RPM, and one of their lead developers managing a Linux kernel branch alongside Alan Cox and only one other. I have not used their distro, and DistroWatch.COM does not differentiate between "free download" and "100% redistributable" so I cannot tell if they maintain the same GPL-anal approach as RedHat. For now, I'll assume so (please let me know if otherwise?).
So, for this strategy to work, assuming the rumor is true, I make the following 2 recommendations to the resulting conglomerate:
These vendors don't have to stop value-adding to their distros. In fact, this approach could still allow them to do so. But they really need to build some mindshare with those of us who like RedHat and Debian because of their 100% GPL-focus. Release a 100% Redistributable CD set which they all agree on. This has kept me from using Caldera, SuSE and Turbolinux over the years.
Then each can include their own CD #1 binary, "alternate," non-redistributable boot CD in their commercial, boxed sets so the value-added stuff can be installed (in addition to other, non-redistributable CDs). The idea is that the install packages should be the same for both the freely redistributable and commercial non-redistributable versions, even if the default/base freely redistributable ones are replaced by those in the commercial, non-redistributable CD(s). Simple, no?
This will get the masses to join them. If the new conglomerate can build a new, 3rd party software repository for Apt like Debian has for Deb, this would get me to use this new distro. And they would quickly find that a number of 3rd party free software / open source projects would make sure their packages are built for and distributed in this new RPM-Apt repository. God knows I'd be sold in a heartbeat, assuming the distro quality is as good as RedHat. With SuSE in the mix, I don't see this being an issue, since I have used their kernels before (and trust them as much as RedHat).
Right now I mix a custom distro (usually installed via NFS so I don't have to build CDs that are outdated quickly) use RedHat with Ximian and FreshRPMS added. Ximian is Ximian, and I don't forsee not using their Gnome set (this new "standard" distro will make it easy for them to support). FreshRPMS is RedHat-focused and uses RPM-Apt, but it is far from "comprehensive" with only about 50 packages or so. This is a far cry from Debian's 10,000+ Going to RPMfind or the older contribs is just not viable, and I don't bother much anymore. But I don't have nearly the package selection as Debian with RedHat and this frustrates me since I will not use Debian for other reasons (I'm not going to expand on them here, just note I said *I* will not use Debian -- not that Debian is "bad," not at all).
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
No doubt these guys have technical expertise comparable to Red Hat's. Product, even combined one, is also similar, based on the same components. And that's it. Not enough for a big game - can't be won on technical merrits alone.
Red Hat is different. They (well, Bob Young may be more accurate) figured this long time ago and have been building the brand name, portfolio of products and services and awesome team of people. Red Hat now has all that. Their product kicks ass from Wall St. all the way down to my laptop, they've got name recognized all over the world, second ranked Linux authority and many more of the finest developers work for them, Red Hat's support is top of the shelf, their training program is ranked 1st in the world, their cash account is very healthy and they are still one of the greatest OSS contributors.
Oh yes, almost forgot - they're some 7 years ahead.
Hats down to them.
I'm really glad to hear that the smaller vendors are pushing towards standardization, something that benefits not only consumers like me, but software vendors that would be frustrated by the fragmentation in the Linux marketplace.
Anyone worried about loss of diversity should not be so worried. These vendors still make money by distinguishing themselves from their competitors. So despite the standardization efforts, you'll inevitably see quirks and spins on the various flavors, eg., we bundle StarOffice 6.0 for free, we have db2, etc.
I've really like SuSE for its massive size. It comes with more stuff than RedHat out of the box. I've seen novice sysadmins install versions of RedHat for coworkers that lack some key tools like gcc or TeX (probably just picked some default "consumer" option).
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The other aspect of Red Hat (and, perhaps, all significant distributions) is the work that goes into developing a stable combination of packages. kernel-2.4.18-4.src.rpm is a long way from the generic 2.4.18 kernel: it has over 100 patches, including a 20 MB whopper from Alan Cox. GCC 2.96 is the most visible fork, but hardly the only one.
It's all free software, the majority of which makes it back to the original project, but Red Hat is the first to take advantage of its own hard work. That's an advantage.
(...) both SuSE and TurboLinux keep some of their own software (such as SuSE's YaST installer) non-free. (...)
Conectiva appears to be the odd one out; they're a fully free distribution as far as I know.
Man, if they drop Conectiva's Synaptic in favor of a proprietary installer I (and many many more) will be MAJORLY pissed. Synaptic is free, and it rocks.
This is indeed a moment that will change the Linux industry, because, in the not too distant future, there will be only 3 major linux companies:
Red Hat
Debian
-otherGuy-
Where -otherGuy- is the final form of these companies who insist on putting together a single distribution base.
Within 1.5 years, we will see only 3 "major" players in the Linux distro market, with Debian taking a distant 3rd in revenue.
no playing whereis that config file
about all this icky patent stuff here which I'm assuming was the impetus for this announcements timing despite the fact that these four have been scheming for a while.
your = it belongs to you. you're = a contraction of you and are. Got it now?
The main reason behind the Holy Distro War is that the children of Linus disagree on the manner in which he is to be worshipped.
There are the Debianites, who believe that all their script-tures should be free and that no script-ture shall be trusted till it's mettle has been proven. Many of these also worship the idol RMS and intend to forsake the word of Linus when RMS has completed his book of HURD.
There are the Sourceites, who believe that the script-tures must be compiled by each worshipper individually and that no precompiled script-ture shall be trusted. Many Sourceites care naught for the stability of their systems nor do they utilize it for more than benchmarking, after which they brag to others of how their system r0kz.
There are the Newbies, those who are recent converts to the word of Linus and have varying levels of faith. Many have run from the false promises of the Anti-Linux Bill G seeking salvation in the promise of stability and freedom from avarice. Many of Linus' followers take pity on the Newbies and work dilligently to provide them a comfortable place at the altar of Linus.
The motives of the Helpers of the Newbie are many. Most do it as faithful keepers of the Word of Linus, spreading his word far and wide. Many charge a small pittence for their work although they endure much distaste from others for it for legion are those who feel that they deserve the fruits of others labor for free.
Each believes his path to salvation is the right one and woe to the unlucky churl who defames it.
RedHat is not the leader because the distribution is any better than the umpteen million other distributions. It is the leader because of name recognition and good leadership and money management. They were able to "brave the lean years" and somehow put a product ON THE SHELVES of Best Buy, CompUSA, etc....Without millions of dollars of VC or .COM wet dreams, etc...etc. Most people recognize stability in existence and lifespan much more than the average /. user would.
Sure if Suse, TL, Caldera, et all....Get together and combine strengths -- they may get a superior product out there -- but will still lag behind RedHat in the aboved mentioned categories.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Shoot! I happen to like the RedHat distro., mostly because that's what I'm familiar with, and recommend it to everyone else who asks me, but I sure wouldn't want to see them muscle out all the other distributions. Remember -- it's the competition that keeps these companies honest, and forces them to keep the customer at the top of the priorities stack!
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Here's a slightly different perspective: I am still relatively new to Linux (>2 years), and I'm just a rank beginner when it comes to programming. I sit in front of a Windows box all day at work because I have to, and I have a Windows box at home, too, mostly for (in)convenience.
Why do I use Red Hat? Why do I use Linux at all? Well, frankly, the more I use Windows, the more I like Linux. It's stable, powerful, non-stupid, (don't even get me started about Stupid Automagical Windoze Tricks) and it does exactly what I need in a way that works well for me. Also, I think the interfaces are fascinating, so I'm writing a paper about them (for the arts/social sciences community) now.
On the other hand, I neither have the skills nor the inclination (yet) to spend hours tweaking and reprogramming config files so that I can get something up and running. I like that it works. I like that I can do what I want with it, and I don't have to tinker with it incessantly.
Sorry if that sounds kind of anti-hackerish (it's not meant so), but I'm still trying to master the basics, and I wouldn't try to drive a Formula 1 racer while on my learner's permit, either.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
I use Red Hat Linux for my servers. I'd not dream of anything else at the moment. Why?
1) Excellent support - whatever software I want to install, I can be quite sure that there's a RH version - often in RPM form. This reduces the cost of maintanence dramatically.
2) The RED HAT NETWORK is fantastic! I simply type "up2date -u" and 10 minutes later, I have all the relevant security patches installed! Just $5 per month, and their download servers are FAST. (I routinely see 15-20 Mbit connections - 10x-15x FASTER than an unfettered T1!)
3) Reliability. My Red Hat systems are stable. They work today, tomorrow and next year.
4) Stability of the distro. Red Hat has been around. They are profitable, or at least not burning capital very fast. I can feel good knowing that I'm investing my considerable time, money, and energy into a platform that will be there in the future, too.
With the above, I can fulfill my support contracts easily and cheaply, and focus on the delvery of service rather than simple maintanence.
Is Red Hat perfect? No. But it satisifies the above, and they are what I need to found my business upon.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Let us not hate Red Hat just for finally being able to do what we have all wanted to do for years: turn OSS into a viable marketable tool.
I fully expect Sun to fold in their own proprietary extensions and tools. I don't think they will use the same "Embrace and Extend" tactic as MS, where the end result is a corruption of the original, open API. Rather, they will be adding additional management and usability layers. They may even add in proprietary kernel modules (LGPL) for things like advanced file systems, though that could quickly get them into rather troubled waters...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
We all know that competition is good. It encourages innovation, progress and new directions. One of the reasons why there has been so little real innovation in the closed-source world has been the lack of competition to Microsoft's products (other than Windows Servers - which are seriously challenged by Linux).
;-)
Over the years, Suse, Caldera et al have offered little serious competition to RedHat when it comes to *marketing* themselves (technically, RedHat is no way superior to any of these distributions).
A "UnitedLinux" would actually be a good idea. It will encourage (spelled f-o-r-c-e) RedHat to improve their product (I am an RHL user, but I'll be the first to admit that RHL is about as exciting as a glass of water these days).
At the same time this will give the players of UL a chance at a bigger market, which in the end is good for Linux and OpenSource.
However, just like Linux chewed up the Unix market before it started spreading its wings, it is very likely that the initial gains UL would achieve would be at the cost of RedHat's share. There will probably be a bit of seesawing before things stabilize.
And *that's* where the fun really begins.
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
The only difference is that I can look up the APIs that StarOffice is using whenever I want to. If I write a polite letter to MS asking to receive a copy of the Paperclip Character API, I'd receive a polite response of total silence. If I want to see the Linux animated paperclip api, I simply look at /usr/src/linux/include/p-clip.h
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
I dont see what you mean? Its got many people doing "real work" with it. Keeping up the ebuilds, working on portage and so on. It also has many users. I have switched all of my production and development servers to it. I know many others who have as well.
I imagine gentoo as the second coming of linux. It is so far and above the rest of the distros in the way it feels to use. I just love it.
Actually the LSB says you have to support installing RPM packages, but not that you have to use rpm to do that. From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.1.0/
"Applications should be provided in the RPM packaging format as defined in the appendix of Maximum RPM"
and
"The LSB does not specify the interface to the tools used to manipulate LSB-conformant packages. Each conforming distribution will provide documentation for installing LSB packages."
Debian supports installing rpm's through the alien program which converts rpm's into deb's (or tgz's for other distro's). I've done this myself several times. It also supports creating LSB-compatible rpm's through the lsb-rpm package. Hence, in this regard, debian is LSB compliant. As far as I know (and I admit it's not my domain of expertise) debian has no problems reaching full LSB compliance, and debian 3.0 will be LSB-compliant. At least that's what they're aiming for.
Good points. But unfortunately debian 3.0 won't be LSB compliant, IIRC. I think the main problem lies in runlevels, and init.d script installation.
The only thing you are not allowed to do (and the only thing different in the YaST license compared to the GPL) is that you are not allowed to charge money for redistribution.
I must contradict you on this point. RPM most certainly predates DPKG. More importantly RPM was deployed in a distro before DPKG. You may not remember the intolerably long delay till the release of Debian 1.0 but it haunts me to this day.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
I hole heartedly aggree with you. I have been advocating the need for a Redhat sponsered version of Debian packages and/or *BSD ports.
Further, your point about a GPL'ed base distro is right on. If SuSE, Caldera, Turbo Linux, and Connectiva are after RedHat's buisness they might want to notice that RedHat is makeing money because it has a GPL base distro out there, NOT inspite of that fact.
RedHat user since 3.03.
By the way. I noticed your low slashdot user id. I thing it would be great if I could filter messages, not only based on score but also user id.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
Within 1.5 years, we will see only 3 "major" players in the Linux distro market, with Debian taking a distant 3rd in revenue.
:)
Revenue has hardly any influence on Debian development, and has such it can't be used to prove which distribution would be more popular in your hypothesis. I will package things and help development without revenue in mind, at least for my self. That's one of the biggest strenghts of Debian (well, it can also be the root of some 'features' in development timing): it isn't really dependent on bussiness pressure or traditional revenue models.
As such you can pretty much assume Debian will always be there, and that's, well, conforting
regards,
fsmunoz
I first tried Redhat around 3.0.3 I think it was. What a piece of junk. I stuck with Slackware.
Later I got a cheap Sun Sparc 5 computer and after I got tired of messing with Solaris (lack of source, blah, blah, blah), I wanted to see what Linux would do. Redhat had a Sparc distribution at the time, version 5.1. With that I found that Redhat had improved. So I even tried Redhat on my next x86 box.
As time went one and I upgraded from 5.1 to 5.2 and then to 6.0, I started slipping deeper and deeper into dependency hell. The reason was I upgraded many things by compiling source, and the RPM database just got all out of whack. I was at the point of always doing forced installs of things I did install by RPM, so I was really getting no advantage from the package manager at all. But that wasn't what drove me away.
The system initialization scripts were a nightmare. There were bugs such as the fact that telnet/ssh sessions would not be properly closed when rebooted. The shutdown order seemed right, but maybe it was wrong. I tried re-arranging things but that either didn't help or made things worse. I was at the point of hacking the scripts with little success and a lot of frustration (too many source'd files, too many functions ... you are in a maze of twisty passages, all different). I finally decided I had enough and I'd rewrite the init scripts from scratch.
Now that I was going to make such a huge change, I also decided I needed go ahead and solve all my problems, first. I still had machines that were on Slackware that had (luckily) never been switched to Redhat. So I went back to Slackware at version 4.0, and soon 7.0 came out.
I did rewrite the init scripts, and replaced all the Slackware scripts with my own and it runs just fine. My init scripts do have separate scripts for each service to be started or stopped, but everything is in a single subdirectory. There are no symlinks. Run levels are coded in a different way. It's not SYSV, and it's not BSD. But it works, and it's not in source/function hell, and has been solidly reliable for a few years now.
But the real value of all these choices in operating systems and distributions in the free software community is ... the choice. The world is most certainly full of different people, and there are different things available for them, including different distributions of Linux, and different flavors of BSD. Not as much choice comes out of the Redmond Washington USA area.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The obvious solution is standardization in combination with version management that's how regular distributions pull it off.
... 3.0.1 came out more than a month after 3.0, so while I want the latest bug fixes and enhancements, I'm running an overnight compile of KDE at most once every 5 or 6 weeks. This is hardly a great burden, and the trouble saved by having packages compiled against the proper librarys, and the resultant stability, more than makes up for whatever time is spent starting the compile before going to bed (or leaving work for the day).
... I have Gentoo installed on an old Intel MMX 233, which did take 3 days (!!) to install, but as I've said before, I probably spent a total of an hour sitting in front of that box, and the rest of the time ignoring it while it churned away), in which case binary distros, with all their many faults, may be exactly what you want. Even with a slow processor, though, I suspect you would find the incremental time savings of having a more responsive and quick system well worth the initial investment of time ... my slower boxes benefit even more in some cases from the kinds of optimizations Gentoo and Source Mage provide than some of the quicker boxes.
Yes, of course, but there is a heavy price to be paid for that "standardization", namely the inability to have current software on your system, and the subsequent slowdown in providing timely feedback and bug reports to authors.
Debian, as an example (and as my favorite binary only distribution), had one of its developers respond to a question by a curious user as to when XFree 4.2 would be included in debian with the curt answer: "Leave me alone. It will be months." Source Mage ("Sorcery" at the time) had X 4.2 available within a day, Gentoo very shortly thereafter. Those of us who needed the bug fixes and additional hardware support didn't have to wait "months" for its inclusion into a binary distro, or alternatively have to compile it ourselves (by hand) and then watch as various distribution-provided binaries start to break because of X 4.2's differences from X 4.1.
On the contrary, we had clean, solid, good support from day one, which meant we got the bug fixes in a much more timely manner, and were able to deploy configurations not even possible with other distriutions. And we didn't have to sacrifice stability in order to do it.
As for Mozilla, it may have nightly cvs builds, but Gentoo and Source Mage both reference release builds (e.g Mozilla RC2, RC3, etc.), not nightly builds as a rule. So while those wishing to have the very latest may find themselves compiling mozilla once every two or three weeks, it certainly isn't a nightly affair. Ditto for KDE
It also makes keeping up with security fixes much, much easier than with Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, and Debian (stable excepted, but debian stable makes the Jurassic appear contemporary).
You may be personally allergic to compiling large packages (or have a processor that is painfully slow to do so
In any event, for those of us working with this stuff every day, who have reasonably modern CPUs and who are required to troubleshoot live systems whenever anything goes wrong, having quick and painless access to the current bug fixes and features is an invaluable asset. In short, for many people (I would venture to say most), once they've tried a source-based distro, binary distros feel klunky by comparison and a person will never want to go back. The benefits are simply too great, naysayers notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It's nice to see Linux evolving into a healthy competitive ecosystem. An ecosystem of true competition vying for customers by offering better products at better prices.
Contrast with Microsoft's vision of an ecosystem where they are the big predator and everyone kow-tows to them and their whims. Nothing really happens in this ecosystem without Microsoft doing it first.
So far from being a disturbing development in Linux's history, I consider this a good sign that, contrary to Bill's opinion, the Marketplace works!
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Gentoo has been great on my home systems... I feel as though I've seen a nice speed difference after installing it... Got the desktop up in a flash... Apache... Postfix... Samba... etc... Run the command, it installs them then tweak the config files... All pretty easy to me... I do agree however that there has been problems with packages being released for installation that have broken things... The libpng issue a few weeks back caused me to have to recompile alot of my packages... But it is all a learning experience... I see Gentoo being one of the big boys for a long time to come...
/etc/init.d/ and rc-update add Program/Service default to put it into the startup scripts. Let's me remain ignorant AND lazy, wahoo!
Points I like about it:
Portage - run a command and it will download, compile, and install the program/updates you specify...
rc Scripts - I was lazy and never did sit down to work out how rc.d / rc.1 / rc.2 / rc.3 / etc worked... With Gentoo you just goto
Installation - all command line based you do everything by hand... I like it... The install doc is easy enough to follow... The base iso is 16mb after that you can sit and see what packages are being installed, you don't have a huge bundle or programs you don't need... After installation I can sit and add what I want...
WebSite/Docs - I've been back to their website many times looking at their docs for how to get things up and going... Really not bad at all... Got my desktop system up and going no problem. It is great to finally have the NVidia drivers installed and working proper (Tux Racer wahoo)... Plus configuring Postfix, Apache, Webmail, Security, etc... Nifty stuff... I'm sure the info will grow as things move along...
That's about all I can think of for now... I have three of my boxes converted already, gonna keep rolling with it...
Woody2143
(website is down to due horrible lack of content)
Blah.
I think you are missing the point. Sun creates servers and has a very large R&D budget for improving the performance and quality of such servers, unlike Dell and HP who, arguably, are merely Intel resellers.
From a layman's perspective, Sun sees a demand for Linux. With Sun making cool servers and looking to enter the low-cost server market, Linux is complementary. If you want to run Windows, do you consider a Mac? IMO, Sun is branching out to a new set customers and satifying their needs. I don't really see Sun's Linux as competition with Solaris. Certainly Sun's current customers are happy and not the ones buying a non-Sun server and adding Linux. Free Linux + kewl compatible Sun hardware + targeting the Intel + Linux market = $ for Sun + more Linux developers and users in the world.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Let me speculate a little here...
These 3 companies have large market share in different regions of the world:
SuSE == Europe (Sans France => Mandrake)
TurboLinux == Asia (Well, more SE)
Conectiva == South America
I don't know where Caldera fits into the equation... maybe their IP is worth something or they have lots of support/consultancy staff with Linux expertise...
IBM have enough presence in North America, and also Australia (which probably services New Zealand as well...)
So... lets say IBM is behind this "merging" of distros... which in reality is a conglomorate of Linux services/consultancy companies which spans the majority of the world (Sans Africa/Middle East -- there's probably enough IBM staff there to cover the demand, although maybe SuSE services this region as well...)
Genius? I think so.
I would not be surprised if these companies were receiving funding from IBM... or if they were bought out by IBM in the future...
Time to invest in IBM, I think.
Okey, time to burn some karma.
We don't need any standarization of GNU/Linux ? Why ? Because the only GNU/Linux distribution is Debian.
RH, Caldera, SuSE, MDK, Conectiva etc are not GNU/Linux distributions. They are just plain Linux distributions.
morcego
You are not being a Debian zealot. You are being an apt zealot. And you are quite right.
Thats exactly why they have gone to such pains to port (successfuly, I might add) apt for rpm.
morcego
I'd love a Linux distro laid out like Solaris, with all the same things working as expected, and all the other things NOT working (also as expected!).
Imagine a Linux distro with a functioning, but lamely configured SysV init, complete with run level changes that do NOTHING. Imagine a Linux distro with a SysV package system that makes it super easy to locate what file belongs to what package - so long as you are willing to write that tool (3 lines in awk, I swear!). Imagine a Linux distro with a syslogd configured out of the box to log all critical messages to the console, instead of some out-of-the-way log file. Imagine a Linux distro which included a completely broken BSD compatibility API, and plenty of warnings not to use it throughout 10 years' worth of OS documentation. Imagine a Linux distro every bit as half-assed as the one YOU would put together yourself, but with a Big Important Company's logo stuck to the box.
Sign me up!
Edith Keeler Must Die
Who know? Perhaps this is the sign we've been looking for indicating a turnaround at Sun. I know some people who run Linux on UltraSPARC hardware, and it's a slick combo (especially running on an Ultra II dual processor if you can get your hands on one), and it's one of the few true 64bit architectures out there, but it is a constant uphill battle trying to get apps or updates to tools, unless you want to rebuild EVERYTHING from source RPMS.
I'll be watching this one closely!
Your Servant, B. Baggins
There seems to be a lot of meta-creepy groupthink going on around here - seems some people think that "Slashdot" is some unified, collective entity and not an aggregation of individuals, many of whom do *not* have the view that "____ is evil" where ____ is any entity or concept.
Well, it isn't.
Also, many individuals who might call Microsoft "evil" do not base this evaluation on Microsoft's profitability, or its large market share, or the fact that it is based in North America, or because they believe that capitalism is evil. Rather, some people believe that Microsoft's predatory behavior within the capitalist system adversely impacts things that said individuals might value - e.g., the benefits of improved products at lower prices that have traditionally result from competitive markets.
I personally believe that where a market is not competitive, and as a result, the products are not getting cheaper (consider the static absolute cost of Windows) or are increasing in price (consider the cost of Windows relative to the cost of a computer today, vs. even 2 years ago), then either the structure or operation of the market is flawed (e.g. lax or non-existent antitrust enforcement), not that the monopolist is "evil."
Of course, this belief is predicated on the concept of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - i.e. markets should be structured and regulated such that participating entities (producers and consumers) operating in a totally avaricious way will advance a given end. The question is, ultimately, "is the given end good or bad," not "is Microsoft good or evil." (The question of who gets to chose the given end is a good one - I believe some recent attempts to regulate the system of legalized bribery known as our current campaign finance system are germane to this issue.)
If our society believes that an appropriate social policy goal is that Bill Gates should get richer, then we have a system today that works well. If others believe, as I do, that the benefits of competition (e.g. lower costs and improved products) should accrue to consumers (not necessarily end users, though end users would ultimately benefit), then the market for desktop operating systems is not optimally structured or regulated.
This has nothing to do with whether Microsoft is good or evil, or the question as to whether Red Hat would behave as Microsoft does, were it in a similar position (IMO - Red Hat management would be rational to do so).
I must just be too US-centric. Nothing at conectiva.com in English about certification.
Conectiva develops a series of products and additional services directed to the attendance of the market demand that seeks to adopt Open Source Tools; including books, manuals, additional software like Linux Tools and embedded systems, OEM programs, applications port, training kits and the "Revista do Linux" (Linux magazine). In addition, the company provides consulting services, training and technical support in all Latin America through its own service centers and certified partners.
That's all I find - a mention. No links to 'how to get certified' or anything like that. It's a pretty bland site - at least the English version.
SUSE - again, if they've got it, they hide it well.
creation science book
If the ./configure scripts don't work, it's because they were created with some kind of dependency on a nonstandard (non LSB) platform such as RedHat.
/usr/lib where they should be in /usr/share. Suse specifically breaks the LSB definition of /opt. Both have newer versions of RPM than the standard.
/usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc in Red Hat, /sbin/init.d -> /etc/init.d in SuSE. Someone will finally write an RPM 4 reference the LSB can use, the LSB's will be updated, and distro's will have new, major releaseswhere they can afford to move things round.
That is completely and utterly false. Red Hat is a contributor for the LSB standard, having joined late in the process precisely because smaller distributions would be worried about their dominance. A guide to the FHS is part of the Red Hat Linux reference guide, and Red Hat is the author of many of many of the LSB standards. Jump of the FHS list sometime and see how many Red Hat employees they are, and how responsive they are to queries regarding certain packages.
Both SuSE and Red Hat do non LSB things. There is no 100% compliant LSB distro. Both have a tendency to put nonlibrary, non-binary files in
But both distros are improving, and these should be ironed out over time, same as many older issues were -
These things take time. In the meantime, quit it with the FUD.
They should just ditch their own distros and support the Debian project instead. Why keep re-inventing the wheel? If they want something more user friendly, they should develop an alternative Debian installer but stick with the team, not fork. That's why all the Debian-derivative dot-bombs failed. Making money with Open Source is not about packaging software that's already been well packaged by somebody else (Debian project, not RedHat). It's about providing support, consulting, and custom development services. They way you differentiate from your competitors is by price, quality service, and comprehensive solutions -- NOT your own quirky distro!
Thats the question. You have a computer. What do you want it to do?
It sounds like you don't have any sophisticated needs. Some of us have sophisticated needs for computing. Things that 99% of the rest of us never have to bother with. These people are really what computers are for. Then there's the rest of us who enjoy messing with the software. I suppose some of see GNU/Linux as hope that at last the computer can do things the way I want it to do it.
Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting at:
"On the other hand, I neither have the skills nor the inclination (yet) to spend hours tweaking and reprogramming config files so that I can get something up and running. I like that it works. I like that I can do what I want with it, and I don't have to tinker with it incessantly."
I don't know what you are talking about. You sound like you have a perception problem. You may have read someone else's trials with getting their system up and running after they changed something that might have made you afraid of the effort.
But in contrast to postmodernism, perception isn't the same as reality. Config files are usually no big deal, unless your needs are exotic. Other than a few exceptions, config files involve no programming.
So...this is the task that confronts people like us. Decide what we want the computer to do for you; install a flexible and powerful system on your computer like GNU/Linux; and set your course.
There's nothing hackerish about it.
Was "originally" based on Red Hat but is not anymore, at all... Please don't spread false informations...
Personally, this week I have been (silly me) trying to solve a little niggling problem (old gnorpm can't download new version files) and ended up having my SuSE system rendered untrustworthy, lost mail, and now have had to switch to Win98! Here's what I've seen - it is NOT SUPPORT. It is the problem of keeping up with new software in a RedHat (already?) world. How often do you see binaries that are not in RPM format? How often have you seen some hairy dependencies and backed off, decided to compile it yourself?
/etc/passwd from some other source like a db I guess). Change "compat" to "files" and back in action. This took time out that I should have been spending on a project that pays the bills.
..
- RedHat is more viral than SuSE, and SuSE
binaries of apps are "RedHat Package Manager" binaries, and redhat.com seems indispensable it seems to keeping up with libs needed to install them.
- I installed SuSE from CD on a laptop a couple years ago, and have found it very difficult to add new RPM-based software sometimes, especially if you miss a few iterations. This is like rpm's "this application can only install software with version number = 3" or need for yast2 for new installation. How stupid to make the one important app (yast2) you need to get SuSE software so difficult to get!
- using rpm can destroy your non-RH system insidiously.
For example after installing something with RH suddenly I lose my usernames - system tells me there is no user called "root" and all file listings use user id numbers instead of names. After hunting in google and some detective work, I discover that nss-switch has been surreptitiously updated so that the default now breaks functionality (it wants to read
- rpm dependencies don't check for manually compiled code. fix that.
Silly me, thought that between compiling GNU software, looking at the iBiblio archives, and using rpmfind/gnorpm webfind I'd be safe. The end result is an RPM CD (no don't have/can't get yast2) telling me I have to install 400 MB of crap, half of which I already have, to just update rpm and gnorpm. Finally I compiled rpm manually and got gnorpm-static, but it still ain't enough. First time sh configure told me "Checking to see if gcc works... NO" NO!!!!! So how about somebody building and managing a real online source/binary archive that helps you get away from RH and update non-RH systems with security, peace-of-mind, and no destruction of current functionality. God-forsaken rpm hell, never should have let RedHat start rebuilding my entire machine without saying exactly what was going on.
- Very recently I have seen ultimate horror of having to stop using email on linux.
I finally buckled under installing major amounts of RPMs with gnorpm so that I could do some basic things. Now gcc is broken (worked fine when compiled manually.. damn) and suddenly fetchmail is happily deleting mail off the server while refusing to save it in var/spool ! Christ! Now I am using Outlook Express on my used Win98 laptop and about to erase SuSE once and for all, and put RH in, as soon as I can back the whole bastardized thing up to a new 100GB disk, when I buy that. Not like I'm not swimming in RedHat cds. Now I am looking forward to upgrading KDE and Gnome (never enough libs and compiled parts it seems..) and being able to actually type Japanese and maybe even print on the printer 10 feet away. The reason I ended up inputting Japanese and printing on Windows is that the PJE package never built correctly on SuSE no matter how much it got fiddled with, and anyway all the other important things end up being proprietary in both distros. Fear, Doubt, and
- RedHat has beaten TurboLinux in Japan as far as I can see. I waited 2 years for SuSE's promises to enter the market here, even talking to people I heard were going to be involved. Poof! I hate RH and like very much the SuSE distro I installed at the time. And yet, I will inevitably have to get local language support (Japanese fonts, front end processors, input dictionaries, printer drivers, etc.) from distros which have those components in Japan even if some of those are commercial parts. A recent mook (magazine book, which is how software gets around in Japan - embedded cds) had 6 or 8 linux distros and a ton of CDs in it. No SuSE. Well-known names, like Laser5, but all different. Maybe nice right after install, but are you sure you are going to be able to keep up with the world? That's how RH sells to my mind. Not the support model, it's the software update system. I now recommend RedHat to customers while hating it and most people do the same. Talk about sowing seeds of failure.
That is true. I just installed 8.0, and YaST1 is quite dead. YaST2 text mode is quite painful, though, or at least it was in the 7.x releases. Navigation is horrible, being based mainly on the Tab key, with no way to go in reverse order that I've found. You can use the arrow keys anywhere that is a scroll window, but you have to tab out of that window to do anything with your selection (description/help, select/next, run, etc.). Then of course, if after looking at the description you decide that isn't what you're looking for, you have to tab through all the tab stops (as many as 12 in some windows) to get back to the selection window. It really sucks. YaST2 is just short of being unusable without a mouse. YaST1 was a much less capable tool, certainly, but at least it's text interface was designed for easy navigation with a keyboard. For basic admin stuff, like adding users over ssh say, YaST1 was much better than YaST2.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.