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.

Comments

Red Hat's dominance in the industry

[delphi125]

Lucky for Red Hat there are no bigger OS companies around!

Re:Red Hat's dominance in the industry

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Why would RedHat be considered evil? Aren't they doing what we want them to (i.e. release a free (as in beer and speech) operating system based on the tools we love)?

How can that be considered evil? Because they take a loss on every ISO download? SuSE would probably have more market share if they gave away their YaST2 enabled distribution, but it's not in their business plan. In the copycat IT industry it's refreshing to see someone take a different approach.

Personally I think there are better distributions than RedHat (Mandrake and SuSE come to mind), but RedHat has more exposure, marketability, and history. They were in the game first, and they're on the tip of every newbie tongue. And apparently they're doing something right on the business side, or they wouldn't be viable.

If other distributions are to survive they are going to have to provide something new and different, create strategic partnerships, and establish credibility. In other words, compete. There's little intellectual property disputes, and everyone has the same resources to pull from. This is the free market, and it's far from evil.

Re:Red Hat's dominance in the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. There seems to be some creepy groupthink going on around here.

capitalism = evil
profitablity = evil
success = evil
North American = evil

therefore...
Red Hat = evil

The fact of the matter is that Red Hat said, early on in this game, that Free software can be the basis for a legitimate business model. With the exception of some technical issues (LSB, gcc, blah, blah, blah), they've put their money where their mouths are. And, they haven't wavered from the "Free" part, either. In addition, they haven't shut the door on free ISOs like SuSE has ("live evalution" CD, anyone?), they don't panhandle like Mandrake (incidentally, I use Mandrake on a couple of boxes but I find their "business model" quite disconcerting -- I'd never recommend them for use in a business environment), and Red Hat isn't proprietary like Caldera, Turbo, or even (please correct me if I'm wrong) SuSE. All they've asked (although it was handled a bit heavy handed, if you ask me) is that businesses redistributing Red Hat disks make it clear that downloaded ISOs are not Red Hat supported. That doesn't seem too much to ask.

Finally, ask yourself this question: If it were SuSE or Mandrake that was the dominant distro, what would be your reaction? If you'd feel the same as you do about Red Hat's dominance, then we're fighting a losing battle. It's unreasonable, counterproductive, and just plain idiotic to punish / censure /sanction those who've succeeded in distributing, promoting, and profiting from Linux.

Re:Red Hat's dominance in the industry

[MrResistor]

they take a loss on every ISO download? SuSE would probably have more market share if they gave away their YaST2 enabled distribution, but it's not in their business plan.

That's why SuSE Pro is $80 and Red Hat Pro is $200. To be fair, though, SuSE does give their distro away for free, just not as ISOs. Anyone can install it over FTP, and they provide instructions for doing so on their website. IIRC, it was also an option on the boot disk install menu (my Mother-in-Law's computer mourns the demise of the boot disk in 8.0), at least from 6.3 to 7.2.

I haven't tried it, so I don't know how easy/difficult it really is, but it's an available option, and certainly a viable one for anyone who has the bandwidth to download ISOs, especially since (at least in theory) you'd only be downloading the packages you were actually installing. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from simply burning their FTP directories to CD. Hell, they even let you mount their FTP directory as an NFS partition if that floats your boat...

More RPMs for more things more timely?

[dinotrac]

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.

Re:More RPMs for more things more timely?

[CynicTheHedgehog]

Unfortunately, once you start looking at installing stuff that *didn't* come with the distro, it gets ver ugly very fast. Apparently, they've got a non-standard layout that many ./configure scripts choke on.

SuSE follows the Linux Standard Base (LSB) specification, which is an impartial specification that outlines where certain binaries and libraries should be put. 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.

Granted, automake and autoconf really shouldn't be subject to this. The only other explanation is that the libraries aren't misplaced, they are missing (not installed). Personally I've never had a problem compiling stuff on SuSE. mplayer, xine, gnupg, and gaim all compiled without much ado.

Re:More RPMs for more things more timely?

[MrResistor]

Apparently, they've got a non-standard layout that many ./configure scripts choke on.

Actually, it is Red Hat that has a non-standard layout, and I've read a number of complaints about their choices (or, rather, apparent lack thereof), particularly with regards to directory structure.

SuSE, being the wierd Germans that they are, actually follow the two relevant standards very closely. The main one is the LSB (Linux Standards Base), which is supposed to fix the problems you describe. The other one I can't remember the name of right now, but it has to do with directory structure.

The problem you are having, as I understand it, is that you are trying to install rpms targeted at the hideous RH directory structure, as opposed to one that makes sense (and there are a few, remember that Linux builds on Unix traditions).

Sorry if that sounds like a flame to you Red Hat fans out there, but really, for what they charged for a boxed version, you'd think they could put some thought into organizing their files better than just mashing them all into one directory.

That's Slashdot...

[HiQ]

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!

It's not the quality of the ditribution

[NicolaiBSD]

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.

hmm

[HeUnique]

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..

Re:hmm

[Ed Avis]

It's curious that this announcement comes from the three most closed and proprietary (relatively speaking) Linux vendors. Caldera has always been a semi-proprietary distribution, with per-seat licensing and other unpleasantness, and both SuSE and TurboLinux keep some of their own software (such as SuSE's YaST installer) non-free. Say what you like about Red Hat, at least they release all of their code as free software (AFAIK). Yes of course the companies need to make money blah blah blah, I just think it is odd that it should be these three all coming together.

Conectiva appears to be the odd one out; they're a fully free distribution as far as I know.

It's possible that this deal will mean the end of SuSE's and Caldera's and TurboLinux's proprietary installers, since none of the four companies will want the others to get control over the distribution.

LSB

[rmstar]

If somebody is wondering what LSB is, well no, its not the pre-precursor of LSD; it is the Linux Standard Base

cheers

rmstar

Debian perfect as a standard.

[reaper20]

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.

Needed, but Redhat still meets more business needs

[mgkimsal2]

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.

LSB is the real key issue

[dpilot]

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.

Re:To be honest...

[say]

" 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."

Well, most die-hard linux hackers do not say they use RedHat (Notable exception: Linus Torvalds). Most have used RedHat, though. Why don't they admit it? Because there is not very much to hack on RedHat. Red Hat's strength is that the stuff they throw in actually works. More or less out of the box.

However, I don't use RedHat today. I used RedHat up to 6.2. Then I started looking at other distributions. At that time, I did not know much about how GNU/Linux _really_ works. I never made my own startup scripts. I did'nt compile programs. Heck, I didn't know where my libraries were or how I inserted a kernel module from the command line!

I started testing different distros. Mandrake. TurboLinux. SuSE. Many others. I tried at least seven or eight distros before I met Slackware. At first, the entire Slackware system seemed awkward. But after a while, I experienced a lot and learnt even more.

Now, I'm most productive on Slackware. Because I know the system so well that doing stuff from scratch is _easier_ and _faster_ than using tools like rpm and linuxconf. (overall, of course, some things are still faster with linuxconf).

RedHat is a distro for those that want a GNU/Linux that works - not for those that want to get a GNU/Linux to work. It is a good distro, but not what I want from a GNU/Linux system.

As a last addition: It is not a funny OS either. Mandrake is. Cute little penguins and round, purple install buttons. Colors and fun. RedHat is grey and red. Only a few, boring games. A corporate-type webpage. RedHat has lost the childishness of linux jokes and internal humour. It has grown up.

Grown-ups are easy to communicate with - but children are much more fun and can be adjusted and tweaked more easily.

Re:xxx reports, linux is dead.

[justsomebody]

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

Re:Package Management?

[ZaMoose]

You do realize that there is APT for RPM, don't you? Connectiva ported it, so maybe there's a chance that this MegaDistro will be apt-rpm based.

It works like a charm, esp. if you use the FreshRPMS repositories.

Re:To be honest...

[jilles]

The one reason I have not yet downloaded this is recompilation. I mean, compiling is pretty much a deterministic activity. Given similar compiler settings you'd expect the result to be the same each time. Apart from being deterministic it is also time consuming. Just compiling a pretty bare bones installation with gnome, kde, open office, mozilla would likely take me weeks by which time most of the packages would need recompilation because of updates!!! I'm all in favour of optionally compiling a few key things but I'm even more in favour of using pre-packaged binaries. Most of us probably would go for the 686 type code, so create binaries for all popular variants of X86 and distribute those (and maybe also other processors).

An alternative, admittedly far fetched, idea would (imagination going beserk here) be p2p compilation. Compilation can be distributed over computers and there likely is a small subset of all possible compiler settings that is most frequently used. Simply cache the results for such compilations and given a match in source code version processor architecture and compiler settings, reuse the result (and offer the replicated binary for download). If there is no match, compile yourself and offer the result. This should quickly eliminate redundant compilations and offer most of the advantages of compiling everything yourself.

Re:To be honest...

[FreeUser]

The one reason I have not yet downloaded this is recompilation. I mean, compiling is pretty much a deterministic activity. Given similar compiler settings you'd expect the result to be the same each time.

What isn't deterministic is what packages (and what versions of those packages, and what compile-time options for those packages you've selected) you've chosen to install. If you're using somelib.so.1.0.1 and someone else is using somelib.so.1.0.2, there is a small (but real) chance that a minor incompatability will result in a binary compiled against one displaying some occasional flackeyness when run against the other. This isn't terribly common (and it represents a mistake on the library maintainer's part when it does happen ... incomopatabilities should mean major revision number changes, not minor), but it does happen. When borrowing packages and binaries from other distros this becomes more acute.

Compiling on your own machine eliminates this.

There is also the problem of binaries compiled with different versions of the GCC compiler behaving is subtly different ways ... again, this is very acute when moving from GCC 2.9.x to 3.x, and again, compiling everything yourself fixes that problem.

If you have a decent processor, compiling isn't really that burdensome (the initial installation excepted of course). Most people start their daily or weekly upgrades in the evening before going to bed, making the burden effectively zero. In any event, the advantages are well worth the trouble, and the speed improvements are dramatic.

Your P2P idea is interesting (sort of a shared cpu cycle approach a la Seti@home). Again, the problem with having others compile for you (rather than sharing cpu cycles you use yourself) is that they will likely have slightly different libraries than you do, for some things at least, possibly compiled with different optimizations, so you cannot be 100% certain that what you are getting is exactly what you want. With Gentoo and Source Mage's approach you can be 100% certain that you are getting precisely what you want, and that it is compiled against precisely what is on your system.

Two things that would make this RedHat user switch

[BitMan]

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:

1. Make a 100% Redistributable CD set, then value-add

   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?

2. Leverage Conectiva's Apt focus, build a Debian-like "universal" repository

   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).

The More I Use Windows, the More I like Red Hat

[Interrobang]

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.

Red Hat Network, stupid!

[mcrbids]

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.