Slashdot Mirror
United Linux is Here
pstreck writes "Red Hat watch out! Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE and Turbolinux have made good on their promise and United Linux is here! According to their website 'United Linux is a standards-based Linux operating system targeted at the business user. It is developed, marketed and sold by an experienced partnership of Linux companies.'"
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
That's the great thing about standards -- there's so many to choose from!
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You forgot to add one of these:
"The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from"
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Yay, another distribution to find problems with...
Personally, I don't think they can really compete with RH. I don't like RH much, but they've built themselves a good place with businesses. It's going to be really tough to shoot them down from there.
I think the best way to try and beat RH is to beat them in support. Building another 'standard' distribution won't help.
Jeremy Baumgartner
What standards ? Look at the website, they can't even decide on 1 language...
;-)
Yesterday on Slashdot
LINDON, Utah, PARAISO, Brazil, NUREMBERG, Germany, and BRISBANE, Calif. -May 30, 2002- Linux Industry leaders Caldera International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD), Conectiva S.A., SuSE Linux AG, and Turbolinux, Inc., today announced the organization of UnitedLinux, a new initiative that will streamline Linux development and certification around a global, uniform distribution of Linux designed for business. UnitedLinux addresses enterprise customers' need for a standard, business-focused Linux distribution that is certified to work across hardware and software platforms, accelerating the adoption of Linux in the enterprise. Under terms of the agreement, the four companies will collaborate on the development of one common core Linux operating environment, called UnitedLinux software. The four partners will each bundle value added products and services with the UnitedLinux operating system and the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the four partners under their own brands.
Nearly every vendor supplying a piece of the technology infrastructure used by businesses has expressed support for UnitedLinux, including systems and software vendors AMD, Borland, Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu Japan, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, NEC, and SAP. Independent hardware and software vendors spend considerable effort certifying their products and services on individual Linux distributions to ensure product compatibility for their customers. UnitedLinux will significantly diminish the number of distributions that vendors are asked to certify and will provide a true standards-based Linux operating environment.
Customers Benefit Through Unity
According to research firm IDC, a 2001 survey of 800 North American and Western European companies found that 40% of the respondents were either using or testing Linux in their organizations. UnitedLinux will help further speed enterprise adoption of Linux by providing businesses with a greater choice in the number of applications and hardware certified to work on the uniform version of Linux. Customers will also benefit from the global sales, localization, education, support and services that all four UnitedLinux vendors will collectively provide. The collaboration of the four leading Linux companies will result in an enterprise Linux offering, which is truly global by virtue of the companies' ability to provide local language support, training and professional services, in addition to the support of strategic partners. UnitedLinux will provide one unified Linux code base for IBM's complete eServer product line and AMD 32-bit and 64- bit platform and Intel's x86 32-bit and Itanium(tm) processor family platforms. UnitedLinux supports LSB, Li18nux, and GB18030 standards, as well as enabling installations in English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese languages.
In addition UnitedLinux unleashes a massive research and development organization for Linux in the enterprise. Effectively, the four companies involved in this process will shift dollars and resources once allocated to creating and maintaining custom Linux operating environments and divert them to new R&D on Linux enterprise software. UnitedLinux is dedicated to bolstering the enterprise readiness of the platform, but in the same collaborative spirit from which Linux was founded and continues to flourish.
Participation and Availability
While today's announcement outlines the founding members of UnitedLinux, the initiative is open for additional Linux companies to participate. The four partners currently plan to each offer their own server products based on UnitedLinux by the end of 2002. For additional information on UnitedLinux, contact Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE or Turbolinux or go to www.unitedlinux.com.
About UnitedLinux
UnitedLinux is a standards-based, worldwide Linux solution targeted at the business user and developed by Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux. Designed to be an enterprise-class, industry-standard Linux operating system, UnitedLinux provides a single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment, and allows Linux vendors, Independent Software Vendors, Independent Hardware Vendors, and Original Equipment Makers to support a single high value Linux offering. For more information, go to UnitedLinux.
Bummer.
So much for pre-announcing the product almost 1 year in advance :-(
I read "united" as "untitled" when I first saw that headline. :P
What I was wondering though is that happens to SuSE Linux and such... will there never be an SuSE Linux 9.0?
Linux will finally be able to give Sun and Microsoft a run for their money.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I've posted this before, and was modded down as a troll, but I'm glad someone else has noticed this too. Doesn't the fact that "there are already so many standards" imply that there is actually very little about Linux that is, in fact, standard?
Don't get me wrong, variety is good. I would be interested in seeing some good consumer flavors coming out of this kind of effort. Not only that, but this kind of organized, coordinated effort might even be enough to give Microsoft some fits in the desktop market.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Do they all start selling the same CDs, or is this just a lot of hoopla around them standardizing on LSB and (presumably) packages from which their distributions are built?
Forgive me if I'm leary, but alliances in the computer business never turn out to be more than spit in the wind...
this was just on slashdot Wednesday, they said they would announce it Thursday, today is Thursday, why is this news?
must be a slow news day...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Might be worth a try. I use Mandrake Linux at work now, and I can do pretty much anything with it that Windows users can. The only frustrating thing is the lack of good browser plugins (yes, there is Codeweavers but it tends to be rather slow and I want it native.)
Ciryon
i like all the differant distros i've got 13 so far if they standedise linux itwont be any fun mixing and matching distros
I think it is sad when I look at /. and see the same article twice........on the same page.
This will reduce the number of standards by four, and will (if done right) produce distributions that adhere to a single standard (LSB). This will have several benefits:
1) Greatly reduce dependency hell since all these distributions will be guaranteed to have a predefined set of libraries.
2) Greatly reduce the storage space consumed by hosting RPMs. Instead of needing storage space for four separate complete sets of RPMs, only one set of RPMs need to be hosted. These will be guaranteed to work on all four distributions.
3) Greatly reduce the effort needed to support multiple sets of RPMs. Now there will be four different companies that will be supporting the exact same binary code base. For those entities paying for support contracts, the support pool and support options will be quadrupled.
There are undoubtedly many more benefits to a standards compliant body of distributions.
VanguardLinux, SouthWestLinux, and QantasLinux!
What I couldn't gather from the FAQ was whether or not United Linux becomes the eventual sole distribution from all of these companies, or whether its just a combined Distro. from all of them. For example, will there still be new releases of Suse Professional, or is 8.0 the stopping point? What about Suse Personal version? Does the target of business delineate that home versions from these various corporations will still be released?
I pulled a jack move to cop this sig
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
Mandrake
-otherGuy-
Where -otherGuy- is the final form of these companies who insist on putting together a "United Linux".
Within 1.5 years, we will see only 3 "major" players in the Linux distro market, with Mandrake taking a distant 3rd.
A bunch of Linux companies making an uber-distro so they can compete with Red Hat should not be called United Linux. To me, it sounds a lot more like Divided Linux.
The reason why they would be creating a United Linux distribution would be to actually get rid of the many distributions and unite on one single distribution. I think this is an excellent idea to try to make the standards a bit fewer, and in the meantime create an allmighty one.
You slashdotters are all still really cynical to everything you ever hear about!
What your seeing here is not really so much a new standard as it is several distros finally agreeing to adhere to the LSB and divvy up the work of making that happen in all their separate distributions. This is a great thing for application developers and RedHat should seriously consider adhering to the LSB now too.
RH bashers abound, other distros are jealous. I thought that was the Good Thing about Linux. Grow Your Own distro, to hell with the other guys. But noooooo. RH has a Monopoly! RH is making money!
Will these standards be made open source? How can we hope to move ahead if "United Linux" (or Unux) will be dictated by the big vendors?
It will called Suse 9 "(powered by UnitedLinux)". See page 11 of this PDF.
I just don't get it[...]
ISV's can build and test binary packages for fewer targets. Just UnitedLinux and Red Hat instead of choosing among the dizzying array of distributions.
Say what you will about Red Hat but what is the deal with this internal conflict. If they truly want a standard, why did they shut out Red Hat? After all with one of the most recognized distributions for linux, Red Hat, why wouldn't they capitalize upon that influence and noteriety and use Red Hat's input. After all Alan Cox works for Red Hat you dont think his opinion and input counts?
I think that this would make the market overall MORE fragmented for the following reason:
The 'market' for linux from a strategic perspective only consists of a few big players: Red Hat and ... Mandrake, SuSE .. ? WAIT!! KEEP READING!! SAVE YOUR FLAMETORCH!! Yes, there are hundreds of distros out there - we all know that. But these are highly niche level products and don't represent a real threat to the big profit-seeking boys. These market fragments, so to speak, don't represent significant competition to Red Hat. Do you think a corporation is going to license 10,000 copies of Tinfoil Hat Linux for thier workstations.
If some companies came together to form another big-boy player of the game where real corporate money is at stake, then the amount of real 'for-money' competition has INCREASED! Those niche players can come together and create a real presence which is worthy of competition. This would not create any 'unification' in the linux market as a whole. It just forms another sizeable fragment.
Otherwise the big boys don't really have as much competition and most of the market fragments are so small that they do not matter.
And this, my friends is a good thing. Just like you said, fragmentation is a sign of a healthy market. The market fragments would be big, visible and jarring against one another.
OK, distro makers: Are you ready to RUMBLE?! Let the best innovations win!
Hmm, if I read the presentation correctly, it seems that each Linux partner will still be pricing their product separately, and each have their own support teams. This seems to me to be a drawback that will be a big challenge to overcome, especially in the support area.
Hopefully there is good communication channels between the partners, so they don't step on each other's toes!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Item 9 in the FAQ states:
"Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released."
What on earth does this mean? How are they restricting the commercial use? Will one 'commercial' copy be sufficient for multiple installs, or will UnitedLinux bring in a per-seat or per-station licence free for commercial use?
I am not reassured.
How many apps do you get in windows? Perhaps less than 50 including DOS utils and crap like Wordpad and Paint. In a normal Linux distro there are more than 2000 apps.
Ciryon
Now we know for a fact it is true!
Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, Turbolinux Partner To Create UnitedLinux, And Produce A Uniform Version Of Linux For Business
Majority of enterprise system and software vendors including AMD, Borland, Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu Japan, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, NEC, Progress Software, and SAP, support effort to create standard Linux platform
LINDON, Utah, PARAISO, Brazil, NUREMBERG, Germany, and BRISBANE, Calif. - May 30, 2002 - Linux Industry leaders Caldera International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD), Conectiva S.A., SuSE Linux AG, and Turbolinux, Inc., today announced the organization of UnitedLinux, a new initiative that will streamline Linux development and certification around a global, uniform distribution of Linux designed for business. UnitedLinux addresses enterprise customers' need for a standard, business-focused Linux distribution that is certified to work across hardware and software platforms, accelerating the adoption of Linux in the enterprise. Under terms of the agreement, the four companies will collaborate on the development of one common core Linux operating environment, called UnitedLinux software. The four partners will each bundle value added products and services with the UnitedLinux operating system and the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the four partners under their own brands. Nearly every vendor supplying a piece of the technology infrastructure used by businesses has expressed support for UnitedLinux, including systems and software vendors AMD, Borland Software Corporation (Nasdaq NM: BORL), Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu Japan, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, NEC, Progress Software and SAP. Independent hardware and software vendors spend considerable effort certifying their products and services on individual Linux distributions to ensure product compatibility for their customers. UnitedLinux will significantly diminish the number of distributions that vendors are asked to certify and will provide a true standards-based Linux operating environment
Customers Benefit Through Unity
According to research firm IDC, a 2001 survey of 800 North American and Western European companies found that 40% of the respondents were either using or testing Linux in their organizations. UnitedLinux will help further speed enterprise adoption of Linux by providing businesses with a greater choice in the number of applications and hardware certified to work on the uniform version of Linux. Customers will also benefit from the global sales, localization, education, support and services that all four UnitedLinux vendors will collectively provide. The collaboration of the four leading Linux companies will result in an enterprise Linux offering, which is truly global by virtue of the companies' ability to provide local language support, training and professional services, in addition to the support of strategic partners. UnitedLinux will provide one unified Linux code base for IBM's complete eServer product line and AMD 32-bit and 64-bit platform and Intel's x86 32-bit and Itanium processor family platforms. UnitedLinux supports LSB, Li18nux, and GB18030 standards, as well as enabling installations in English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese languages. In addition UnitedLinux unleashes a massive research and development organization for Linux in the enterprise. Effectively, the four companies involved in this process will shift dollars and resources once allocated to creating and maintaining custom Linux operating environments and divert them to new R IHVs porting UnitedLinux; ISVs porting UnitedLinux
Quarter 4: General Availability: Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, Turbolinux
Main components:
Kernel 2.4.18 or higher
glibc 2.2.5
gcc 3.1
XFree86 4.2
KDE 3.0
Acrobat Reader
Standards:
LSB compliant
LiN18ux compliant
GB18030 compliant
Installation languages:
English
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean
Portuguese
Spanish
Italian
German
French
Geez, pal. You don't like the "news for nerds"? Feel free to go some where else. No one around here will miss you.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
the more the murkier? Looks like sum (childish greed/fear based infighting) effort to alienate/confuse J. Public even further, if IT's possibull to doo that.
Taken from their FAQ:
Will UnitedLinux break existing compatibility with hardware and software?
Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux will collaborate on the development of the UnitedLinux distribution in order to provide migration pathes from their former releases to UnitedLinux. However, each UnitedLinux partner will still have its own Linux distribution that is "Powered by UnitedLinux." Existing long-term relationships with leading hardware and software companies - as well as the current UnitedLinux partners - guarantee the compatibility of UnitedLinux with relevant business solutions. HW and SW manufacturers have the opportunity to join the alpha and beta test circles, thus reassuring in an early stage that UnitedLinux supports their products.
This is the closest thing I could find on the site that states how they plan to provide a "united" linux and still have seperate distributions. My first question is though, "why don't I see anything mentioned about the Linux Standard Base?" If United Linux doesn't support the LSB, then the LSB may never take off. The Linux community may miss a real chance at providing a true standard. Also interesting is the part of the FAQ that invites Red Hat and Mandrake to be part of the United Linux party. I wonder how many other distros will join in on this?
Who said Freedom was Fair?
In my opinion, so long as Redhat stays focused and continues catering to big business, I don't see them losing ground to this team.
I may be one of the few on this side, but I won't be trading in my Redhat CDs for United Linux for quite a while. I've been using Redhat for a couple years now, and for the most part, I'm a happy customer. It would take either a HUGE advance on someone elses part, or a big nose dive on Redhat's part to get me to switch.
Sorry, my business has already standardized on Debian.
Rather than yet another!!
Although in name they will all still exist. The will all be 'Powered by UnitedLinux' and have a couple of things tacked on. At the core they will be the same distribution. See page 11 of this PDF.
They say they are going to be using kde 3 with acrobat reader. I love KGhostView and it has never failed me. KDE even has builtin pdf creation mechanism.
I think you underestimate the power of Open Source. Only with Open Source can we prevail and increase our productivity ten fold. There's nothing more reliable that an Open Source OS, software package, and the bonus of a tightly-knit support community which is very reliable. Where else can we find that?
If they made a light-weight version of XP I would consider it, especially if they made most of the API available in their documentation.
Great, now we have a new Linux distro coming out backed by a big fat stew of companies who couldn't compete with RedHat on their own, plus a bunch more who for whatever reason are latching on as "partners".
They even have a "product roadmap" with quarterly release cycles. The PHBs will love this.
I think I'll be sticking with RedHat. They've been around since before Linux was the cool thing to pitch to companies.
Now Linux will finally be able to defeat Microsoft, Intel and Sun, especially on the desktop. The only way to stop competitors is to present a United front. United Linux will allow that.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Why not get the /. community to create the 'standard' distribution?
T.
SoftLogic Solutions
http://www.softlogic.8m.com
it's all been done
Seriously, United Linux? Seems sort of lame to me. I'd go for something like Can of Whoop Ass Linux or A-Team Linux but I'm sorry there name just sucks.
~ now you know
Ok how 'bout another one of those conspiracy theories?
This is an attack on DEBIAN!!!
No ok bear with me a minute.... Lets see if a big company currently needed to have a product working on linux what would they do? They could either get it to be certified against RedHat since that is the most widely used and known linux distro. Or they could get it certified on most of the major platforms. This still poses the problem that when they there are a lot of distros that are not the major distros and so then it's confusing for the end users.
So they see Debian. An independently developed, high quality, standards based distro. Cool they say. Lets standardise on Debian. No single company controls it. And it's pretty high quality and standards compliant. Lets certify it against that and then the other distros, once they are standards compliant as well (ala LSB), we're all set. We had an announcement from HP recently with something similar in it's content. And no doubt had UL not reared it's head, we would have seen more.
So now the big Linux corps are in a quandry. Except RedHat of course. Since they are still the defacto Linux distro. They see this standardisation being done around a development that is outside of their control and will never be in their control. They've got to do something about it. HELLO UNITED LINUX.
Well in any case thats my $.02
BTW did anyone notice the FAQ that asks "Will I be able to download UL for free **for non-commercial use**". I thought a downloadable version of Linux would be available for any use whatsoever that the downloader desiers?
cheers
AC
Main components * Kernel 2.4.18 or higher * glibc 2.2.5 * gcc 3.1 * XFree86 4.2 * KDE 3.0 * Acrobat Reader From when has Acrobat Reader become this important? And to mention it in the same breath as the kernel and gcc is blasphemy ..ok i could accept emacs ;)
To a large number of people who aren't utter Linux fanatics and don't read /. or other Linux sites to actually understand why, Linux appears fragmented and inconsistent because of the sheer number of players. To remove 4 from the pool of 15 odd companies and come back with one united brand would help against Redhat and Microsoft.
Essentially saying "well you can go with Microsoft OR Redhat or United Linux". Rather than "you can go with Microsoft OR Redhat or Calerda or TurboLinux or Suse or ..."
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Now here is a good alternative for the expensive Red Hat Advanced $erver... Perhaps Debian will also get some more commercial support, since companies have less of the non-redhat distros to consider.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Standards That I accpet:
RMS will always attempt to rename any oS using GNU tools.
Linus will always be the head at Linux
RedHat Linux will always Rock!
Sun and IBM still will not get it!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Hey,
I just wanted to congratulate them and to write them some wishes. When clicking on 'contact' on the unitedlinux-website, there are four adresses.
The mail to unitedlinux@suse.com seems to have reached the support: I recieved a support-ticket number. Hmmm...
The mail to unitedlinux@caldera.com was replied automatically too, but without subject or sender. It said "I will be out of the office traveling between May 28 - June 9. I will be checking e-mail[...]"
The mail to unitedlinux@turbolinux.com did not reach anybody: "Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender"
Should I laugh or should I cry...?
Unless this new distribution offers something significantly better than what Red Hat already does--and it looks to me like it doesn't--then this means nothing. A large part of the business world is still uneasy about migrating to Linux; those who do decide to use it will undoubtedly pick a well-established name like Red Hat over a consortium of distributions with much weaker market presence.
People don't get it -- the above comment was an airline joke.
Which is REAL entertaining, because United was trying to merge with USAir -- or UnitedLinux with US Linux (RedHat).
OK, they are inviting RedHat and others (MDK) to join. Let's give them some time to agree.
Resistance is futile!
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
It seems to me that UnitedLinux will look a lot like SuSE 8.0 ( very fine distribution):
Kernel 2.4.18 or higher
glibc 2.2.5
gcc 3.1
XFree86 4.2
KDE 3.0
Acrobat Reader
I'm happy to see some companies actually promoting standards and interoperability. I think that this is very very good for the future of Linux.
Nobox: Only simple products.
It's easy to take something, go your own way with it, then when it's sufficiently advanced and distinguished, call it your own standard.
The thing is, you can call it standard all you want, doesn't make it any more a true standard.
You need to build mindshare with all of your users, clients, etc., get some partners to help you along and support Your Way(tm).
That part looks good for these United Linux folks.
I still prefer The Debian Way, though, and I doubt they will be able to change that.
However, it will be good to have an alternative to Red Hat in the minds of the Common Folk.
Slashdotters have zero business sense.
.zip file that they download will install properly, but each windows variant may look and feel radically different.
United Linux is a fantastic idea. Ostensibly, the "UnitedLinux" tag would mean little more than "this distribution adheres to the LSB", but practically, it means much more.
When you download a package for any permutation of UnitedLinux, it will work. Period. No tricks, no shenanigans.
This means that if I'm using SuSE Linux 9.0 or TurboLinux 10.1, I can install any package labeled "UnitedLinux Compliant" without fear or hassle.
I am free to choose which ever distro fits my fancy, based upon its _features_, not whether or not it will run certain packages OK. This is a huge benefit. It means that the UnitedLinux vendors will have to compete with one another to build a better mousetrap, or risk losing out to another vendor in the coalition.
(Don't like the way SuSE works on the desktop? Swap it out with Conectiva. The packages you need to run will still work.)
This would be like Microsoft releasing the source to windows, and allowing every OEM to rebuild it, suited to their own taste.
Users could still be sure that any random
Same idea. A good idea. Promotes healthy competition.
Acrobat Reader ?
Seems like an IA32 only standard then, I guess. Anyway, they wrote they'll provide the source, I am eager to se those for AR, then
maybe it compiles on my alpha.
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
What are you talking about?!
This will be the base and it will be LSB and Li18nux Compliant. Where do you get the "more standards" from? This will actually remove 3 and possibly more "standards"!
Instead of having to support Suse, TurboLinux, Caldera, Connectiva and possibly others, you'll now only have to support UnitedLinux. Basically, they have decided to work together in a number of areas to lower the development and distribution costs for both themselves and for others. When the next version of KDE arrives, they only need to make one set of binaries for people to download - not four or more!
I think this is great!
I find it interesting that people bitch and moan that Windows is a monopoly, but turn around and get uninterested because there's variants of Linux. This means two important things:
1) Linux is strong and has more support, especially since this will cause whole companies to rally their technology together.
2) This gives everyone more competition. If I remember correctly, SUSE or Mandrake was THE Linux distro to get. Red Hat came along and pushed the bar. Whether or not you like Red Hat or not, they have made a major impact in the Linux world.
Personally, if what they saw is true about making a business distro holds true, I want to see what they produce. Here is the simple truth, I was once a tech. I loved learning all the arcane commands and symbols, but I don't have time for that anymore. I need stuff that helps me work faster, better and *simpler*. That is what Windows *does* have in its favor currently. Most things are just a few dialog boxes away and I'm done. I'm waiting for that in Linux and I hope with a decree that they are going after business that they will realize that business isn't interested in the arcane. They want simple, fast solutions to common tasks.
My two cents,
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Of course, with a Q4 release, who is to know? As they say, the proof is in the pudding.
I will be more interested in this discussion when the 1.1 version of this new combined distro is released. I've not actually used any of these distros for any period of time. I purchased Caldera back in 1999, but found it to be weak, so I went back to RedHat.
It will be difficult for these guys to break into the business market unless what they have is really overwhelming--and their support has to really ROCK! I admin over 100 servers using Redhat 7.[12] now, and its very smooth. I don't look forward to having to rewrite my admin scripts for a new distro, get used to a new way of doing things, etc.
DFossmeister
---
Think your webhost is fast?! Check out mine.
No Not Again! Its whats for dinner.
Anyone notice that Gnome isn't listed on the Main Components, but KDE is?
* Kernel 2.4.18 or higher
* glibc 2.2.5
* gcc 3.1
* XFree86 4.2
* KDE 3.0
* Acrobat Reader
Who said Freedom was Fair?
First off, LSB is good enough for me.
They claim they are currently getting LSB compliance ratings... whatever that means. I've read the LSB, and I'm a big fan of the FHS ( which is 50% of LSB's importance ). I think any more umbrella standards groups, once they announce LSB compliance, is just lip service.
I was interested in seeing HP in the comments list, who just announced the soon demise of thier 10.[1-3]0 line. And if CA is such an enterprise linux supporter, why is this the first time I've heard of it. Love that whitepaper section, too.
Please, don't rant about too many standards, LSB is there to pick, consolidate, pick-apart, and manage complaints about a unifying set of standards.
Oh shit, just thought of something, what if this is an effort to roll in Digital Rights Management on top of the LSB. THAT, I think, would justify the marketing behind this, and all the big names.
Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
This just sounds like LSB with really good internationalization support. I might be glossing over some important things here, and if I am, please, someone tell me, but that sounds like that's all there is to it. Oh, yeah, and they enforce the use of KDE 3, which means I'm not interested, thanks. I guess I can see why they're picking just one desktop; it would seem to make sense, but I just can't stand KDE. ;) (could Kontrol-center get just a FEW MORE USELESS PREFS?!!?)
:) On the other side of things, there's United Linux, Mandrake, Lycoris. and Lindows... that pits some serious muscle against some serious muscle. While I'm rooting for GNOME, I'm excited no matter what the outcome, because it can only mean a better desktop for all users!
I'm really glad they're pushing for LSB compliance, but RH has promised they will be releasing a LSB 1.1 compliant distro this year. Since 7.3 isn't it, that means it'll have to be what will undoubtably be called RH 8.0 and will probably be released this Fall/early Winter, at least based on their past release patterns.
As an aside, the GNOME/KDE thing is about to get very interesting... GNOME 2 is like a couple weeks from release, and it's going to be the default desktop for Solaris, HP-UX, and (of course) Red Hat. All of these are major "enterprise" players. (I wouldn't be *too* surprised to see AIX follow suit.... any IBM people care to comment? Heh... CAN you?
The Free desktop that Just Works
Why is Acrobat Reader listed among the main components?!! First, AFAIK, Acrobat Reader is only "Free Beer"-software. Second, what makes it so importand that it has to be listed as a "main component"?! I don't get it...
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
"I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards."
It makes a lot more sense if you look at the world market, and not just American business. SuSE is very strong in Europe, TurboLinux in Asia, and Connectiva in Latin America. El Reg has a good perspective on this.
Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
The trouble with de facto standards is that no-one can be held accountable for not adhering to them. Debian uses a non-standard cramfs initial ramdisk by default, it doesn't include a gawk-awk softlink (or didn't, the last time I checked), yet Debian is one of the top three Linux distributions. I would never rate it that highly but I'm only a software developer. The users are the ones who decide which distribution wins and which one loses, and thus which de facto standards should stay and which should go.
The fact is, software developers can code to anyset of standards, so long as it sits still long enough. Moving targets are very hard to hit. If the distros sit still, the software devlopers will have an easier time but the act of sitting still might cost the distributions some users.
If the distributions would get together and write an API to let software developers figure out more easily where everything is, rather than expect the developers to customize their apps every time to make allowances for all those eccentricities, it would be enough, IMO. If Debian, Red Hat and SuSE would sit down at a table and hammer out the format of /etc/my-b0rken-distro.conf, I would have far less trouble on my hands on a daily basis.
It should be. There's no corporate profit involved in the decision making. Once profit becomes a factor, it becomes the only factor. Everything else be damned!
does anyone find it interesting that while kde is listed as a main component along with adobe acrobat (what?), there is no mention of gnome?
"I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards."
As the old saying goes, the nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
i really hope that they mean it when they say standards...
X, apache, and other critical and important apps install from source to a certian location in the filesystem...
my only suggestion.. LET THEM RESIDE THERE!
redhat pisses me off endlessly with the nonstandard way of doing everything...
This looks like a reduction of standards... something of a consolidation, even as it adds Yet Another Linux Distribution (YALD).
Notice the pattern of these four vendors. They nicely cover four continents, albeit Caldera covers N. America rather weakly, relative to the others in Asia (Turbo), Europe (SuSE), and S. America (Conectiva).
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Few question. How many of the current redhat/enterprise users are going to change the distro just because few competiting companies are now making up some standards ? Havent read anything about the case but.. what standards ? LSB ? Isnt redhat also supposed to follow that also ? blaah. This is just marketing hype...
yush
IMHO, it is mainly a move to save the costs of maintaining 4 different distributions. Let Connectiva do South America, SuSE Europe (they are big here!), Turbolinux Asia and Caldera North America.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
There's some points in there you may find interesting...
1. United Linux is based on LSB and LiN18ux standards. NOT on their own, like so many slashdotters seem to think. This is a very GOOD thing.
2. They will be offering business level certifications for "UnitedLinux" that will certify you on all of their distros for taking just the one set of certs.
3. They have the backing of a shitload of major players... IBM, INTEL, and AMD to name a few.
4. They are willing to accept any other company into this "United Linux" conglomerate who wants to join. Open doors are good.
5. This is not a single distro. Each vendor is selling their own versions of Linux as they see fit, but the rub is that all of these distros that are "Powered by UnitedLinux" will be compatible with eachother.
Basically, this is just an agreement by these companies to make their Linux distros interoperable. That's it. This is a big push towards standards, and it is EXACTLY what Linux has needed. I hope it takes off, and that they get RedHat on board as well.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
When looking here, did you notice that this will be a KDE distro and not a Gnome distro? Makes you think a little....I thought the everybody choose Gnome. Not me anyway, I run RedHat with KDE....
One good thing about this is that the Linux Standards base version 2.0 is now a lot easier. It only has to deal with Red Hat (and Mandrake which tries to be a more or less superset of Red Hat), United Linux, and Debian. This means that a lot more can be standardized.
Emphasis and addition mine.
I think you will find that outside of America the picture is quite different, with SuSE and Mandrake doing well in Europe and TurboLinux doing well in the far east.
Thank the gods and Patrick V. for Slackware.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
No true. I enjoy hearing the voice of reason from time to time.
If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
That article adds up all the bugs for all the distros
of linux and then compares them to the number of bugs
for W2K, with no mention of the SEVERITY of these
bugs.
How many bugs in the 'safe OS' were found in 2001
that had MSCEs running around like idiots
because of a serious and I mean serious infestation of
script kiddie worms and viruses? many many many
Now compare that to the number of times people using
linux or BSD had to shut down systems? very few
-like 0
Get a life astroturfer. Microsoft is a marketing
company that contracts out programmers for short time
gigs. See ya reboot-boy.
Also interstingly enough, SuSE 8.0 was fully LSB compliant, the first commercial distro to be so.
My guess is that the base OS will be SuSE. Who's management tools they decide to go with is still anyone's guess. Maybe it'll be a whole new set entirely.
is that there are so many to choose from" - an expression coined durng the "Unix International" - "Open Software Foundation" war.
Statistics are highly subjective, and both of what you say bears credence. The parent's points are completely valid though, and he is correct in that /. would never publish such a story, but they'd publish a similar one about Windows, wholeheartedly.
If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
It will be interesting to see if this Grand Unified Theory of Linux will follow the same pattern as the Grand Unified Theory of Unix.
In the early 90's (IIRC) all of the Unix vendors hopped on the Standard Unix bandwagon to take on the incumbent business OS's from (primarily) IBM and Digital Equipment. Remember IEEE 1003 and X/Open? Every vendor was claiming that Unix was Unix was Unix and a switch to Unix was a vote for interoperability and isn't that what made [insert your particular country] great? Ken Olsen, president of Digital Equipment, was derided for calling this claim "snake oil".
The strategy worked, and the various Unices gained market share. However, the game was mostly hype, for the simple reason that no vendor WANTS to be interchangable with another; it makes marketing hard. Every business survives by differentiating itself from the competition; in the Unix market, every vendor added proprietary bells and whistles to their "standard Unix" in order to stand out from the crowd. Once a customer acquired a tasted for a vendor's unique flavour, they were still as locked-in as if they had chosen VMS, or MVS.
With United Linux I see the same trend. IBM and HP will embrace United Linux, and promptly add proprietary features to lock in customers. It's the only way you can make a buck with Linux. They're doing it already with Red Hat, but it's harder, because RH already is a standard of sorts, and has a momentum of its own. United Linux is driven by a committee. Committees can be influenced just in the same way as a plain girl who wants to be popular can be pursuaded to do things she really shouldn't.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
IEEE/ANSI/ISO/POSIX... there is no other...
Any COMPANY claiming to own a standard had best yield before these dudes. You're not "standards compliant" unless you comply to them...
This four big players united will have stronger market position and will help to the widespread adoption of linux where more needed.
I think we can agree, that if linux is going to be a continuing presence in the business world, support is an important issue. If each of the four companies are responcible for different parts of this "uber" distrobution, who's going to be responcible for that support? If it breaks during installation, do we call Suse? Caldera? Turbo?
.2c worth!
Second point I'd like ot make is marketing? How are they going to market this "uber" distrobution? What's going to make me buy Caldera's version over Suse's version? Are they selling the same product or is there going to be differences in the distrobution. Somehow this just doesn't make sense to me. As a side thought, isn't this going to muddy the waters as far as branding goes? Let's face it, Redhat has done an awesome job in brand name recognition (be that good or bad).
Anyhow I certainly wish them luck for the future, but I seriously have my doubt's about this whole idea.
My
What does it stand for?
Gnu is Not Unitedlinux
Name: Lame
Committee method of design: Lame
Idea that if it isn't prepackaged and retard-proof, it has no place in the business world: Lame.
Caldera is involved: Lame.
I guess many of you are not aware (please correct me if I am wrong) that even if two RPM based distros follow the LSB 100%, their binary RPMS may not be compatible. The reason is that different distros use different names for packages, or group software in different packages. So, when you install a package for distro X, you need to solve the dependencies according to the packaging scheme for distro X.
... and they will have an easier life keeping users happy :-)
Having four distros choosing a standard for packaging (among other things) is great. Now, I hope they realize the enemy is not RedHat, but M$. This is going to be good for GNU, Linux and FS (if it works). I hope Mandrake and Red Hat also join in, so that they can all focus on selling support, documentation, services and boxed versions of their OS, but the end user will have an easier life keeping up to date
It appears as if they are just creating a marketable name for the LSB, a name the average Joe will understand means greater software compatibility. Now they can slap a "UnitedLinux compliant" sticker on their boxes and people will buy it. They are not trying to compete with Red Hat, in fact they want Red Hat to join them. United linux is several distros agreeing to follow the LSB. So that new software and Packages made will be compatible with each of their distros, wich in turn will draw more people to their distro. Its kind of like how software companines put "WINDOWS XP CERTIFIED" on their boxes, just so people who Have XP will know that that software will work on their computer.
windows XP is shunned by all major corperations as a PIECE OF CRAP. only the stupid or idiotic have migrated to XP for their businesses.
please, XP sucks, Ms knows it and business in general know it... that's why NT5.0 AKA 2000 is the last microsoft OS step that will be taken by corperations world wide...
we are looking at the dawn of the death of MS... and it's wonderful....
If these 4 companies play their cards right they'll pretty much own the market outside of the States, and since the States is smaller than the Europe/Far East/South America, United Linux has the potential to be far bigger than RedHat... then maybe we'll see a turf war develop over North America. As an aside, I think its good for OSS that it has a strong development presence outside the States, makes it harder for it to be affected by the likes of Disney/Microsoft/DMCA etc. Finally, anyone else notice the lack of Gnome in the key components list... I wish Sun would drop Gnome, I want an environment, not some half assed kludge.
Tim Brown
So does this mean that I can download Company 'X' linux and if I had a problem Company 'Y' would be just as competent at solving it as Company 'X'?
That is what I want to see...
kyjello is too damn smooth to make a signature.
The largest portion of Red Hat's market is in the United States. Conectiva does not appear to be interested in the US at all. <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/23<nobr>/<wbr></wbr></nobr> 1427229&mode=thread&tid=143">SuSe</a >'s US based support staff seems to have fallen. The same appears to be true for <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/09<nobr>/<wbr></wbr></nobr> 1815221&mode=thread&tid=165">TurboLinux </a>. That leaves Caldera Systems as the only US based company which is promoting this. A company that can not decide if it is Linux or SCO distributor. A company with a CEO that can't decide if he is for or <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/10<nobr>/<wbr></wbr></nobr> 0247203&mode=thread&tid=88">against< / > the GPL (a license that covers a large percentage of their GNU/Linux based product). Despite claims that United Linux will keep backward compatiablity, Caldera has failed to maintain backward compatiblity with it's own products! In short, the only US based company which is included in supporting this is a joke of a company which has put more effort into promoting how their products will get you kissed by your boss/dog than into the products themselves. As a result, I do not think that Red hat has anything to worry about. In the end, all that really should matter is if United Linux and Red Hat are both compliant with the <a href="http://www.linuxbase.org/">LSB</a>.
..."UnitedGNU/Linux"?
Liberty uber alles.
I think this is a great move on the part of the distributors , and not haveing red had initaly is an excelent manover. There are two salient points that make this significant over Red Hat. /Christler/chevy/Ford . They are all the same company with different divisions.
1) A company is not tied to one vend. for distributions. Since theoreticly any one of the UnitedLinux companies can operate on each opthers platform , copes of Suse Can be bought in S america , Tubolinux in Japan ect. and have one support group and software package.
The opther big part (I think anyway) is DEVELOPERS only need to write once and that's it. The Buissness complaint is support and apps , the same support group for all , same apps for all make it an attractive offer.
Last , remember a similer bussness model works for GMAC
I know nothing...It is Ok because I am from Barcelona!
3. They have the backing of a shitload of major players... IBM, INTEL, and AMD to name a few
Quoth unitedlinux.com: "Majority of enterprise system and software vendors including AMD, [...] , Progress Software, and SAP, support effort to create standard Linux platform".
I wouldn't call this "backing". Backing implies a commitment of money or resources which is not mentioned AFAIK.
Let's hope they do a better job of being open than Caldera or SuSE did.
I recently jumped into Linux and a friend handed me Red Hat 7.0. From geeks inside this world already Red Hat is the "red-headed step child" pardon the pun of Linux. People hate M$, however i can't figure out why they hate Red Hat so much. They seem to get the rap of MS of Linux, want to rule the world. Isn't it ok to make money? Unless you live like a troll, don't you work for a living and make money to live in a house or apartment.
Red Hat installs fine for me and gets me up and going to do what i want, WWW server, DNS server, File server etc... I don't have to mess around with compiles and crap like that. Yeah I probably am just newbish(I come from Novell and MS worlds, have to pay those darn bills and keep the wifey happy) Linux is way more stable than the MS crap I had to deal with. Just don't understand the hatred, explain besides the install methods of different Dists, window managers, options for freebies or alternatives. Happy with RPM so far!
Notice on their FAQ there's a question that says: "Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?" And of course the answer is yes.
What bugs me here is their implicit use of the phrase "for non-commercial uses". As far as I know, "how Linux is freely available today" is free as in Free. You can use the distros for any purpose you see fit, including making millions, for free. You only pay if you want fancy CDs, manuals, support contracts, tech support, etc.
Is this just a bad choice of wording, or does this mean they'll try to impose some licensing or distribution scheme aimed at making "free" only apply to non-commercial use?
11*43+456^2
They're calling their Linux the "standard" Linux. This goes too far!
1. The real competitor is Microsoft, not any of
the other linux distributions, not even Apple or
Sun. Apple, Sun, SGI and all linux distributions
are allies.
2. Linux Standard Base is a good idea, and ALL linux distros, especially Redhat, should rally
behind it. I should be able to do a 'rpm --rebuild somepackage_from_someotherdistro.rpm' and install the resulting rpm file on my LSB compliant distro.
3. Brands are important, but making your distro incompatible with the others is not a good way do differentiate. There are many other ways, currently unexplored, that distros can stand out to their linux competitors.
-------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
but the good thing: 4 rpm based distros less ...
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Does anyone else have a problem with the title "United Linux is Here" when there is no plans to release a beta version until Q3 2002 and v1.0 is planned for Q4 2002? If all it takes for something to be "here" is the plans for it's future existence, why not also report that "Linux kernel v2.6 is Here." Doesn't the existance of the v2.5 development tree qualify towards v2.6 being "here" by ComdrTaco's accepted defination of "here?"
If you read the release they invite Red Hat and Mandrake to join them.
These were probebly the companys that decided to pool there resources and if it works Red Hat Joins Later.
I know nothing...It is Ok because I am from Barcelona!
When an ISV has to port a software package to Linux, it has to port it so it'll run on multiple different platforms. As much as most of the folks here want to say "just port to Red Hat, that's what everyone uses", the fact is porting to Red Hat locks out a large chunk of the potential market for software. Porting to all distros doesn't make sense either, though.
Try as you may to state otherwise, the fact remains that glibc is glibc, libm is libm, the kernel is the kernel, etc. Red Hat, Caldera, et al differentiate themselves using little chunks of code like package managers and installers, but when the system is installed it's all just Linux. The idea that an ISV has to port something to lots of different flavors of the same OS is silly. It's not like the old days of UNIX where the different flavors actually WERE different. Linux systems should be able to run Linux apps without going through ridiculous gyrations with filesystem heirarchies, RPM versions, etc.
Currently, ISVs can't rely on the base system of all Linux distros being consistent. An effort like United Linux offers a predictable, consistent base on which ISVs can port their software.
UL won't take over the entire Linux market, but it should. There's absolutely no reason companies like Red Hat, Sun, and HP can't use UL as the base for its distro (remember, Red Hat doesn't shine because it uses a special Red Hat glibc; it's the installer, the package management, and the branding that Red Hat is known for, not the base system). With the rising cost of creating, maintaining, and supporting these Linux distros that so many of you love to get for free, eventually companies like Red Hat, Sun, and HP will need to consider cutting what is literally a pointless duplicated effort.
All ISVs and OEMs care about from a technical standpoint is the base system and its ability to run apps or run on an OEM's hardware. That's it. The marketing folks love brand names, but what's under the hood is spooky magic to them so they don't care. If all Linux distros (at least RPM based distros) adopted UL as its base, Linux may actually have a chance to take over the IT world.
In my view, the folks who DON'T adopt UL are the ones that will be fragmenting Linux. No single point of failure, support organizations worldwide... UL just makes sense.
cat > /etc/motd
F1rst P0st!
^D
So you're saying that Debian doesn't follow "standards" (presumably meaning "whatever RedHat decided to do this week"), and that you don't like moving targets?
;-)
Debian can hardly be described as a moving target , given it's 18-month release cycle.
If you want to measure consitency of behaviour over time, I think you'll find that Debian would win hands down.
If you want to measure some sort of "least surprise quotient" when a random *nix user comes across a distro for the first time, I think Debian would win again.
As for the awk link, mawk has been providing such a link since Mar 1997, and gawk since before Dec 1995, so I don't know when you last looked, but perhaps you should look again.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
I've just read the United Linux FAQ.
It's obviously written by a marketing person who hasn't read the Cluetrain Manifesto. The answers all read like ``United Linux is wonderful, the sun shines out of it's arse''.
There is no discussion of questions that no doubt will be frequently answered, such as:
I agree with you completely but I have a few things to add:
I have had fewer problems with RedHat and hardware configuration than most other distributions (try using YAST 1 or 2 to configure two different ethernet cards from different manufacturers in SuSE 7.0 and 7.1).
That being said, I think that the joint expertise of these four distributors will be immensely important. Initially, it may not be that important in the US, but TurboLinux is big on the Pacific Rim, SuSE is strong in Europe, and Conectiva is strong in South America. This initiative may enable these companies to cut R and D costs somewhat and still offer a much stronger product, which can compete with Red Hat.
This is the thing I like about the Linux communtity-- when the competition gets tough, the community comes together. A community can always beat a 300 lb gorilla, and it will, be it Microsoft, Red Hat, or whoever.
But I also agree with you-- Red Hat has been immensely poisitive in the industry, but they are smart and will survive, even if it means marketing and assisting United Linux.
Will United Linux be the Linux defragmentation tool?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Anybody remember the OSF (Open Software Foundation/Oppose Sun Forever), the anti-Sun proprietary unix alliance? Interesting parallels...
It was pretty much marginal, except for killing openlook and NeWS in favor of Motif and X (is that a good thing?).
It might have been posted, but what's with other major Linux players? Most notably Slackware and Debian?
Those companies working together is interesting indeed, but it is missing some more key players in the game, I think.
not true i sent an email to each and got an automated response followed suprisingly fast with a human response. i think you just made that up
I'm constantly surprised by how few people who have heard of AIX have heard of the Linux compatibility that IBM has been stressing on ever since AIX 4.3.3 . Their repackaging of the Linux applications is referred to as the AIX Toolbox for (sic) Linux. Indeed, AIX v5 is called AIX5L, and the 'L' in it is to emphasize Linux compatibility. 'rpm' runs natively on AIX5L. So in that sense, IBM has already determined that AIX is going the Redhat way.
Of course, this is a packaging choice - rather than a full fledged subscription to whatever standards that Redhat follows. But it does make it more difficult for IBM to consider any standards that conflict with Redhats standards.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
I didn't choose linux so I could have more choices. Standardize!
...If you have code that meets the standards for this distribution, do you get to have a "UL Listed" label on your software?
You guys are all missing the point. I don't think you realize what is going on here. I have reason to believe that the CEOs of each of these companies are actually all THE SAME MAN!!! Take a look, do some surfing and see if you can find pictures of each of them and then compare - you'll be amazed! Rumor has it that this guy is actually working for Steve Jobs - apparently the only reason Macs have more than one button is because Gates forced Jobs to add a mouse button so that the power pc would be able to run windows nt. Well, Jobs has this vision for a one-mouse-button society and so, with the virtual death of the macintosh, he planted a mole in the linux community. The plan is to get everyone using UnitedLinux. what people don't know is that there is a timer set to go off on Stever Jobs' birthday in 2006 - that date that his dream of a one button mouse using world will be realized. Mod this up so that all slashdotters will be informed and spread the word about this malicious plot!
At the top of the United Linux homepage is the following (adbreviated) -
"As a company that has demonstrated unmatched commitment to Linux as an
enterprise computing platform, CA is extremely supportive of the UnitedLinux initiative."
CA being Computer Associates
CA is the computer software industy's often unnoticed #2 player fiscal 03/02/02 year's revenue was down 29% to 2.9 billion and Microsoft finished at 21 billion.
What it means though is that there will be another strong player in the PC OS market, this one with a global reach that RedHat will envy, and Microsoft will fear. Watch for United Linux to possibly fall into Caldera's (Unix tm, and SCO tm) corperate coat over time.
yes bash for a shell and *.so in the right place can make or break it but the real nice thing is GCC
they have put up the fact they will use 3.1 guess whats in redhat 8.0 (-;
and what will be out quicker redhat 8.0 with all the same features and compilent with LSB or United Linux ?
now if people would sort out the BSD's and Debian to use gcc 3.1 then we would be rocking.....
regards
john 'I dont care about gcc for the PDP' jones
Untied Linux
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
UnitedLinux seems to finger the enterprise for its customers but fails to clarify which markets.
Is this effort targeted at the server market or the desktop market?
Since, they seem to finger Redhat I would assume the server markets?
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
I assume you're looking at the main components on the release plans page. I don't know that UnitedLinux enforces the use of KDE, so much as ensures its availability. Nonetheless, I think it's premature to standardize on a desktop environment for Linux. While the GPL release of Qt was terrific, GTK+ is released under the more business-friendly LGPL. Developers of non-GPL Qt products (e.g., Opera and Kylix) have to pay a hefty fee to TrollTech.
More to the point, why in the world is Acrobat Reader listed as a major component of UnitedLinux? It's a proprietary product of a DMCA-wielding company. Perhaps more egregiously, it's ugly. The recently released 5.05 for Linux (with no search support, mind you) has no place on a KDE desktop.
This will not work. When two people sell exactly the same product (think lettuce) it becomes a commodity and the margins fall to nearly zero. So manufacturers have a mandate to add distingushing features so that they sell a non-commodity.
It was tried many times with posix, open88 and other group of standards put together by two-bit players...
How long until the strong headed geeks that make up these companies disagree and go their separate ways. I think this will be more along the lines of dropping four Siamese Fighting Fish into the same bowl.
In order for them to have any hope they desperately need a tie breaker. "The vote is 2 for and 2 against" just does not work.
Get a free ipod.
In many cases I've seen (in Perth, Western Australia), businesses have chosen RedHat initially, but made the switch (usually to Debian) when they realize it hasn't been _quite_ as stable as claimed. This may be changing with RH7.3 (I've had no contact with it, but have long and bitter experience with 6.x and 7.0-7.1).
I know very little about the Thirty Years' War, but I do know that the Catholics (= Microsoft) were united under one standard, while the Protestants (Calvinists, Lutherans, Puritans, Anglicans, etc. = *nix) had a variety of "standards" and spent about as much time fighting among themselves as opposing their real ideological foe. And it was usually over some doctrinal point that from the outside appears or unknowable or both.
If one thinks of turning Linux from a niche product to a widely accepted system, one must not forget the code developers. If it's hard to find good, trained, sysadmins for Linux, when it comes to developers the situation is even worse. For a Linux company, the way to go is to convert Microsoft developers to Linux, and that is much easier to do with KDE than with Gnome.
What turned me definitely to KDE was the API. I was used to MFC, so the C++ toolkits in Qt and KDE seemed natural to me, being at the same time simpler and more powerful than MFC.
On the other hand, Gtk reminded me a lot of the Motif hell one had to go through when coding GUIs for VAXen and Unices. I don't know how it has evolved lately, but the last time I tried to create something using Gtk there wasn't even an easy way to write inclined lines of text. My first try at a GUI program in Linux was plotting a xy graph, and in Gtk I couldn't find any obvious way to write the vertical axis label. Also there wasn't any good IDE for Gnome, while Kdevelop compares favorably with Visual C++.
Anyway, for my taste, KDE is better than Gnome as a final user as well. For instance, every time I have to open a file in Gimp I realize how much better the KDE file open dialog is.
look at the homepage. There are positive comments from practically every MS competitor/group that has a legitimate gripe with MS.
They all appear to see this as "The Way" to finally 1) shirk off the *need* for MS with their business customers because, hey, we have a "Standardized" Linux here... (insert finger tapping PHB's looking impressed) 2) do this Linux thing easier!.. multitudes of distros, RPMs, GUIs, yada, yada, yada.... smeg that. 1 standard distro with infinite possiblities! (if you don't LIKE KDE, you can ditch it... try "ditching" major portions of Windows)
this is a positive move for everyone.
Simplicity that costs a ton of money and gives you no options and sends back your information to MS without your knowledge is a bad thing.. its Windows.
Simplicity is a good thing, not a bad thing.. its Mac OS.
Simplicity with modifyability is not a good thing, its a kick-ass thing... its a standardized Linux that can be changed to suit your needs OR can be left alone to be simple.
How is this not a good thing? I don't get it.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
There are de-facto standards which are imposed more or less by a single company (such as RedHat), and there are standards which are developed by independent organizations (such as the Free Standards Group). I think an open (in every sense) operating system such as Linux deserves a standard that has grown dynamically out of the collaboration of a multitude of people, from companies as well as from independent organizations. If a company like RedHat is powerful enough to impose de-facto standards on the Linux community, this might hurt the evolution of Linux in the long run.
While basically all major Linux distributions contribute to the Linux Standard Base, not all of them follow the specifications equally well. The general opinion seems to be that RedHat in particular does not implement the LSB very strictly. One goal of the United Linux project, as far as I understand, is to create a distribution that follows the LSB very closely, and has enough market share to compete with RedHat. So instead of imposing yet another standard, one should see the project as an attempt to strengthen an already existing standard.
If you look at the main components, it could very well describe Red Hat 8.0, except for Acrobat Reader. Red Hat 7.3 already ships with KDE 3.0. Red Hat 8.0 is supposed to be LSB compliant.
It depends on the conditions of joining. To advertise "Powered by UnitedLinux," does your installer have to force the installation of KDE? This could be a deal breaker. Do you really have to ship Acrobat Reader? This would definitely be a deal breaker.
I have been trialing GCC 3.1 and the C++ compilation is a major improvement over past version of GCC. Being C based the GNOME 1.4 and GNOME 2 libraries and most applications compiles and runs without too much hassle. However KDE 3.0.1 is somewhat more problematic, even when neither debugging support nor strict syntax checking is enabled..
This is not the fault of either the KDE or GCC developers. KDE was coded to support the "older" C++ style of pre GCC 2.9x and Microsoft's compilers and the GCC Team is following the new C99 & ISO 14882 C++ standards.
After kludgeing around the defects in the older GCC C++ template and library implementations, GCC 3.1 C++ is real joy to use. It makes it possible to program C++ in a completely new styles, that IMO can be far more productive.
It is difficult layering one type of programing style over another, the older C++ style libraries certainly make Windows programing a pain.
Would it not be better to wait for the KDE team to port KDE to a pure GCC 3.1/ISO 14882 style?
At the very least the debugging support is required for GCC's Profile Driven Optimizations which can greatly improve application performance.
GNOME 2.0 is due for release soon enough, at the very least the GNOME libraries and core should also be included at a United Linux "main component".
Actually according to the white paper, there will be RedHat compatible libs/symlinks ,so in theory 1 RPM will work on 5 distros. I'm not sure I like this however, as it'd effectively make RedHat the "standard" to which RPMs would be targeted, as then you know it'll work natively on redhat, and with the compatability mode on UL systems.
I think this may be the most significant event in the linux world to date. Each of these companies have a great product, especially SuSE, and together they will only strengthen each other, linux, and industry acceptance. Plus I think with the open support by major industry players including NEC, Intel, and IBM United Linux, IMHO, will become the defacto standard. Further IMHO any of the other major distros who choose not to join in are only signing an inevitable death warrant. This is not to say that choice in distros is bad, however IT managers and CIOs really like to be able to get support and count on their software solution providers.United Linux appears poised to make that final corporate push into all aspects, servers and desktops alike. This is what I see as the main advantage of this (non)merger, a consolidation and improvement of support and professional services while building a product that follows the accepted and published standards. Remember that standards only work if they are followed, the LSB only exsists to make Linux more viable and manageable. I would much rather become LSB certified rather than distro certified, distros regardless of size come and go, while, I hope, Linux is forever. GO UNITED LINUX!!!
Each of these companies has done a lot of interesting stuff. I want to know which parts of each distro is going to go into United Linux. My biggest gripes with RedHat is lack of XFS support and painful upgrade routes. I think United Linux will have a chance in hell if...
1. They adopt apt-rpm as a layer in their installation and upgrade process.
2. They include advanced features like XFS and ACLs from the base installer.
3. They keep YAST.
4. They support up and coming platforms, like ia64.
5. They make it easy for third parties to add proprietary features to their distro.
Finally.
Standards. The magical word that will greatly help Linux in making the steep step from the nerd's toy box to John Doe's desktop.
Here's hoping United Linux is a trend setter.
Reading between the lines of the poster and from the various comments i see alot of people favoring RedHat. Nothing wrong with this except it's also evident that they are as fervently pro RH as they are pro linux. Instead of Linux versus Windows (which isn't correct as well IMHO) it's Red Hat against all the others..
For alot of people in the US RedHat may be synonimous with Linux, it isn't the other way around for the rest of us. RH has a strong base in the US but take a look to the rest of the world will you? There is Red Flag linux in China, Mandrake and SuSE are pretty popular in Europe where RedHat isn't an obvious choice.
In fact, globally looking this could be what Linux was holding back. Like several others have pointed out, it's a pain to write for Linux because you have to take into account all the various distro's with there slightly different way of placing conf files etc. United Linux could be changing all this. An ISV can now just write the program once and that's it. No more extra development time to see if the app will run on both RH or Suse. No more pain in the ass to see which lib version is used by Mandrake istead of the one used by Caldera. The list could be as long as you want.
The fact that RH isn't in the list of participating distro's doesn't mean they couldn't be a part of this, they can join whenever they want and without any problem. This is not meant to compete with RH. This is meant to UNITE all distro's to comply to a standard base to give linux a big boost into corporate minds. Why is Linux still marginally used in office's? Not because it's lack of power and stability. It's the apps department. Why aren't ISV's working on linux versions? Because they don't know which distribution to target. RH, SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake and Debian are all too diferent from each other to just port an app once and then be done with it. You have to write different versions. This costs developerstime and thus money which they rather spend at doing something that will give them a steady revenue without too much hassle..
Please do not start bashing other distro's because they do something different then the one you favor. You should instead be focussing on learning why they do this and if what they do will help Linux or not. See more then just your personal feelings or needs. try to see the big picture because before you know it Linux wil be dismissed as another platform that's not viable to be used in corporate environments. And if you don't want it there perhaps try to look for a new os to toy with then..
Read the whitepaper - GNOME 2 support is in there, and in the PDF is says actually only KDE Base is mandantory. Some of the details seem a little inconsistent right now, I think they're still figuring out exactly what it'll be.
In the late 80's OSF (open standards foundation) and UI (unix international) squared off...
We'll see more like this to come. Volume will determine the standard...
If UL won't replace the existing distros, then we're adding just one more layer of confusion to the already messy picture, which always tends to push people to go with "what everyone else is running", which in this case is RH.
SuSE, Caldera, and TurboLinux also use RPM. Connectiva uses APT over RPM. I don't see anything in the UnitedLinux pages that specifies a package format, but I'd be surprised if it's not RPM.
Obviously you're not exposed to the real world since a lot of companies are finishing migrating to Win 2000 Pro or Win XP Pro.
Which major corporations are using a non-MS desktop for day to day operations?
Open Source cannot cope with the power of XP.
In terms of standards... what they are creating is a marketing strategy. A better solution may not evolve from this organization.
Here's a link. Go read it. United Linux isn't an uber-distro. It's basically an effort to make the the distros compatible with each other so that ISVs (software developers) and IHVs (hardware developers) have an easier time making their products work with Linux.
Too bad you were too busy jumping to conclusions to actual do some "research".
UnitedLinux is a crock. You have all of these fucekd companies that may have good products, but can sell them to anyone. So they form this alliance, give it a ghey name, to save their asses.
This is bullshit and if any companies have a Linux Distributor, then they are gonna use IBM or RedHat.
Fuck running linux on the enterprise, it's all about running linux on everything else (dreamcast, ps2, ipaq, tivo, etc etc).
The whole linux trend went out with the dotbombs. Get over it.
Actually, distributions also differentiate themselves by adding patches to things like glibc, GCC, and the kernel.
As I mentioned in "Red Hat's little forks," there are over 100 patches in kernel-2.4.18-4.src.rpm, including a 20 MB whopper from Alan Cox. As I recall, SuSE incorporated ReiserFS, JFS, and LVM before they were in the Linus kernel.
Wearing your optimistic programmer hat, it should still just work. Wearing the pessimistic hat of a user or a tester, it has to be retested. It will be interesting to see the extent to which a "Powered by UnitedLinux" distribution is allowed to add patches.
with everyone agreeing to a package format like this, wouldn't it be pretty easy to go out and buy suse, then run a simple command which would download everything and turn your setup into turbolinux or something like that? i see this as a good thing for the end user, but not very good for the individual companies involved.
of "Structured Computer Organization" fame...
Me email iz skyewalkerluke at microsoft's free email service.
Because it is the superior desktop :)
From the whitepaper...
Text editors
- vim
Oops, looks like the emacs debate is finally over.
But why no XFS filesystem listed?
- a kernel recompile
- a buncha utilites (at least two different packages)
- a specialized login script somewhere
- changes to the GUI login
This shouldn't be hard, but (long story short) it's never worked for me.I could really use a more automated, standardized setup for this that would be suited for an office-wide implementation. Especially desired would be a way to send Linux-useable login scripts from Novell NDS Administrator. I wish Novell would lift a helpful finger too. It may be pragmatic to support hardly anything outside Windows, but I would imagine their experiences with Microsoft would drive them to support other desktop options.
This feature would earn UnitedLinux my heart. Currently I'm Red Hat at the office, Mandrake & SlackWare (tho I'm not smart enough for SlackWare) at home.
How about you also tell people how to reach that .ntwrk domain? Your sig is pretty useless by itself.
Of course a stripped-down internet appliance is easier to make under Linux. Linux can be stripped to its bare core and manipulated in every which way possible. Hell, they have distros that can be installed, and ran, on a single 3.5" floppy. So yes, on that front, you are absolutely 100% in the know.
The problem comes when you need more than a stripped down internet appliance. When you need a desktop, a true environment that allows you to run office apps, play games, launch and easily install applications, and also be a server if need be.
Linux can do all those things, but to do them, you normally have two or three different GUIs and/or interfaces that do the same thing. Where was the sound volume located? Where can I set my screen saver settings? Why is it so hard to choose a new resolution? I'm not talking about the intermediate Linux user here, I'm talking about Grandma Thelma who just bought her machine at Wal-Mart and wants to install Pro Knitting Tournament, the latest in Grandma fun.
Lets keep on this little rant and just assume that there is a Pro Knitting Tournament game for Linux that Grandma Thelma wants to install. After she glances at the directions and does what she is told, an error comes up saying Grandma needs a new version of perl. The troubleshooting section says only to go to CPAN and find it. On her way there, assuming that she somehow magically made her internet connection work, she gets lost, finds a link, downloads something but isn't sure what, where it is, how big it was, or what she's supposed to do now. Now she's totally frustrated, her joints ache, and her teeth hurt. She turns the machine off never to bother again, the darned old thing too frustrating to mess with. Another Linux user lost thanks to the thousands of window managers, package managers, source distrobutions, and bash script installs.
This is the first step in fixing this problem. Maybe it won't happen this year, or even the next, but soon graphics will get prettier, GUIs will be more efficient and easier to find (ie, you won't have three different "System/Settings" menus in your "Start Button" (or whatever you want to call it), and packages will be easily installed with great documentation and links will be created on the users desktop as well as their application menu (ie, Start Button).
But that is the future, and this is the start. The journey of a thousand miles has begun.
Countries outside of The United States of America discovered. Reports suggest that the inhabitants of these non-USA countries actually have different market places and needs than the USA. Other reports show that these "countries" make up approximately %94 of the global population.
Americans shocked that what is popular in the USA might not be as popular elsewhere. More investigation required.
The world is not the USA get over it.
That's not true at all. The standard most businesses are still choosing and developing for is not Redhat ... it's Windows. Yes, I know you were really speaking in terms of the Linux context. But it's still the same problem. Consider an extreme scenario where Linux manages to oust Windows to say, less than 10% of the market. What will we have then? Linux? No. It will be Red Hat. And if it isn't sanctioned by Red Hat, it won't go anywhere. And in time, someone at Red Hat will become greedy. It may not be the people who are there today, but if that scenario ever happens, you can be sure some very greedy people will be working to take control of Red Hat.
The real problem is not which distribution of Linux is more powerful. No, the real problem is that a distribution of Linux is more powerful. And business in its infinite stupidity is demanding just that. Software developers want just ONE distribution because they are too lame to develop something like portable code that can be compiled on more than one platform.
The whole principle is about choice. While I don't expect the developers of an e-commerce web database system to port it to an embedded Linux setup, I do think it is reasonable to expect them to port it to at least a few different systems so I can have a choice. The problem today is too much software is Windows-only. And given the greater difference between Windows and Unix, I can see how it is hard to cross-port. But when people start talking the very same talk, about having ONE distribution of not just Unix, but of Linux, then that tells me the real problem is not the true difficulty of porting software, or the difference between Windows and Unix ... but of the lameness of commercial applications developers.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
In Windows it often takes more than one dialog box just to find what you want to do, or if you know where it is already because you have done it a lot, its still more than one to get there. I work faster, better, and simpler, by just executing the command I need to have done without having to spend the time opening up lame dialog boxes. And if I need to do the same thing in a hundred different contexts, instead of having to open one hundred, or twoo hundred, or three hundred dialog boxes, I can drive my one command in all those hundred contexts by wrapping it in a while command in the shell ... still interactively. I find that speeding up business really works better by automating with smarter computing, not by flashier prettier computing.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I have been watching the KDE development mailing lists for the last year and a half and I can tell you that the activity within the KDE development process is so active that it is certain that proper support for G++ 3.1 and the C++ standard library will be quickly implemented. At least, that is, if Waldo Bastian would have anything to say about it.
Which is why the UnitedLinux initiative is so important
When that next release of KDE comes out — with SVG icons, tabbed browsing and other such goodies — a single binary package would be able to satisfy all “Powered by UnitedLinux” distros. A standard that could support software that would be as easy to install as clicking an “install-me” icon, regardless of your distro, would be a Good Thing™.
The thing that bothers me, tho’, is how the UL standard will keep up with bazaar style, bleading edge software that is so signature of Linux and Open Source.
I had the strangest premontion yesterday that something like this was going to happen.
What's in a Sig?
I'm not too sure of the politics surrounding this movement, but I'm curious as to everyone's opinions on the following (From the U.L. FAQ):
"We want as many Linux distributors to join this effort as possible. That means not just Red Hat but also Mandrake, Red Flag and all the others around the globe. Each and every one of them is invited to join this initiative and Red Hat has been called by this group and invited personally already. It is our hope that the initial work done by Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE and Turbolinux leads to the creation a much larger group."
I've seen a lot of people commenting that RedHat should "look out"... Is the above invitation merely to appear diplomatic, or is it sincere? It seems that RedHat, being somewhat of an industry standard in itself, would have much to offer to such a project: experience, market-share, credibility, etc...
Why would you be placing the trust of your business into the software of a company that doesn't have the competency to make it work on more than a couple Linux distributions?
If OEMs built different versions of Windows from the source, you can bet that application software developers would find a reason to not support them all. They would end up supporting just one or two flavors of Windows. Hell, they even did that anyway with versions that ran on 98 but not on NT, or visa versa.
I think we need to take a closer look at why some programmers are making lame programs than only work in certain distributions. My bet is they jump to conclusions about how things work instead of trying to understand how things really do work across the scope of several distributions and system types. I've seen some very lame programs that run on Red Hat and not on Mandrake, even when the programmer tries. And I've also seen some programs that were written entirely on Windows and recompiled just fine on Unix and ran not only correctly, but actually faster, too.
If there's a standard we really need today, it's a standard that says no lame programs, and no lame programmers. If your code doesn't work on at least a few systems, you did it wrong.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I think that linux has begun to go in the wrong direction... when linux distros start trying to put each other out (i.e. red hat) that defeats the purpose of open source. they should all be getting together and helping each other develop, rather than just the 4 vs. the rest (mainly RH).
Why the hell do they need certification if this is going to be based on standards? Why the hell do they need certification if their systems are supposed to work well? Sounds more like a scam to extract more ca$h out of people, since most businesses don't pay extra for certification of any kind (except CCIE).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
When you are loosing market share you try and save the ship before it sinks. The writing is on the wall. Most of the companies are not in the top 5 save SUSE who has been unable to really gain the market share in the US as it has in Europe. Mandrake, RedHat and the Debian community continue on your present course, you are doing great!
'sold by an experienced partnership of Linux companies.'
Shouldn't it be more like: 'sold by a partnership of experienced Linux companies?' What experience do these companies have working in a partnership?
-- My HARDWARE, My CHOICE.
One core development team? Now I see the scam here. The whole idea is to allow these companies to fire more developers and increase the profits for the greedy.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Shannon's Observation: Nothing is so frustrating as a bad situation that is beginning to improve.
That seems to me to sum up the article (various linux distributions agree to follow the LSB recommendations), and many of the responses here (This like, sux, dood!)
They don't suddenly decide that their brand names don't matter, they just say, "Hey, look at the new Frogon Burble Drive", and the other guy says "No, the Grubar Burble Drive is better." How could they still act as separate, competing companies if they all just called what they sold a "Burble Drive"?
Likewise, "Hey, look at the new Frogon Linux", and the other guy says "No, the Grubar Linux is better." How could they still act as separate, competing companies if they all just called what they sold a "Linux" system?
No, they call it Red Hat Linux, Slackware Linux, Mandrake Linux, and now SuSE United Linux. They simply tack their name onto the front of Torvalds's trademark.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Some of us may remember the fuss when Corel put their beta out in binary-only form. Am I the only one to notice that UnitedLinux's faq says they will only release source with version 1.0, almost 6 months after the first alpha releases?
after the users have aquired the software (if it's gpl'ed), they are free (as in speech) to do whatever they want with it. if they want to put it on their webserver and give it away for free then it's their perogative.
-- john
Look at all those companies! Linux designed by committee... no further things need to be said.
Acrobat reader is considered essential by just about every business that maintains an office. Maybe not to you (geek), but business people (end users) demand the ability to read acrobat files. Don't bother listing the alternative pdf readers, I know they are there. Does emacs read pdf files flawlessly? I've never tried it out. Why would that be more acceptable?
It's all Hood
I'm glad to see that crucial pillar of an operating system, Acrobat Reader getting a mention right next to the kernel, gcc, XFree86, etc.
Main components:
* Kernel 2.4.18 or higher
* glibc 2.2.5
* gcc 3.1
* XFree86 4.2
* KDE 3.0
* Acrobat Reader
Lol...
Get your own free personal location tracker
The only reason those losers are ganging up against Red Hat is because they can't compete otherwise. They're still not going to be able to make a profit because they still have to divide up the so called united linux market share among themselves. This is just an act of desparation now that linux is dying off.
That's what 'de facto' means, or didn't you get the memo? ;-) De facto standards come from the most popular Linux distributions.
"If you want to measure consitency of behaviour over time, I think you'll find that Debian would win hands down."
Consistently difficult to install. Consistently Balkanized. Great. No wonder Debian is so popular. It is the Archie Bunker of Linux distributions: you can always rely on it to behave predictably.
"As for the awk link, mawk has been providing such a link since Mar 1997, and gawk since before Dec 1995, so I don't know when you last looked, but perhaps you should look again."
Perhaps you should see the dozens of e-mails I received from Debian users reporting the "'which gawk' returned an error" message from my software. Perhaps you should tell those users that gawk was indeed there when each one specifically told me it wasn't. It wasn't there when I installed Debian in late 2001.
I notice you didn't bother tackling me on cramfs.
From their FAQ:
Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released.
I think there is danger in this message, something that came from the dark side of the force:
Download free versions: means that will be some non-free version
For non-comercial: means that comercial user will have to pay (looks like M$ stuff)
Similar to how linux is available: means that will not be like linux, but similar, no GPL? not free software? is like M$ closed stuff?
So, people, as this messages continue on their WEB SITE, as they are not GPL and because they want to earn money over their copy's, let's stick with red hat, mandrake and debian!
let them burn!!
But... I took a look at the only technical document available at www.unitedlinux.com, and it reads like a compendium of the latest buzzwords and acronyms. They've tried to list every possible feature you'd ever possibly want in an OS on that document... which concerns me a bit, because I know some of those features aren't mature yet under any other Linux distribution!
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
and you act surprised at this?!
Everyone seems to be conceeding that this is too little, too late since RedHat has such a dominating market share. However, when the maker of the only Linux distro certified for use with Oracle 9i (SuSe) joins forces with the company that holds the Unix trademark and has been bringing over components and users from SCO (Caldera), perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. Now, if only that rumor I've been spreading about IBM buying Caldera were to come true...
"There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line." - Dr. Science
"As the #1 vendor of Linux solutions and the leading proponent of standards-based computing, HP believes UnitedLinux represents an important milestone that will accelerate the use of Linux by enterprises around the world. Businesses of all sizes that are deploying Linux now have the additional benefit of this unified platform."
Martin Fink, General Manager, HP Linux Systems Division
What solutions? They don't even supply Linux binary drivers for their many printers. Will someone list at least one 'solution' they provide?
The Linux Standard Base might have been something they should have agreed on. Or perhaps they will anyways. Anyone knows more?
peace, love, respect
I'm not much of a software engineer, and I'm sure there are thousands of more talented programmers here on slashdot. But I don't think any will contradict what I have to say. You point out the problem well - as long as any one company dominates the market, the consumer is at risk. But your solution is completely impractical.
Porting programs between similar architectures is at best time consuming and tedious and at worst a colossal commitment of time and effort. If you want to move a program from Debian to Redhat, you've got to make sure that the program can run using the kernel, compiler, libraries, modules, graphics libraries, and helper programs in that distribution. If you have to change any one of those factors to get it to work - which often happens - it's a colossal headache, because you have to go back and check the dependencies for every other program that relies upon the helper. Then you have to check every program that relies upon the ones you changed. Then the ones they changed. Etc...
Don't forget, building a correct program is no simple task. I've had the best programmers at my job - some pretty bright people - spend days tracking down tiny errors. It happens to everyone, and it happens in porting as often as it does in the software creation. Also, it's not trivial to set up test environments for every single distribution. If you have several projects at work, and each one must support three architectures, and their tests cannot significantly overlap... that's quite a few machines to maintain.
Until money falls from the sky, programmers that spend countless hours getting something to work are not going to have the time or inclination to double their workload - and that's an optimistic minimum estimate of what true portability requires.
Let the UnitedLinux format become a universally compliant standard, so that any abusive distributions can be easily supplanted.
Redhat is making some real strides in business deployments and along come other companies with some weird socialist vision of evening out the market? I think they need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and see what is going on. Redhat isn't that strong a company, and now this collusive attempt to wreck what little market power Linux has I hope will fail. For my part I will be telling others to disregard these fools. Redhat is the way to go. I prefer Redhat for its ease of installment and configuration, and the numerous features which come bundled with their distro, not to mention their first rate support offerings on purchase, their database, their server, their community spirit, etc. These companies have a loooong way to go to catch up with Redhat( http://www.redhat.com ), yet I think it is a waste of resources to combine to take away Redhat's strength on the questionable premise that what little market share they have is too much. I guess that is their nerdy right, but I bet Microsoft is laughing their asses off, and may even help.
Dawn of the Dead
It's not the power of XP that is putting it in the majority of businesses. It can't be, because there is less power in XP. The answer is, it's the hype. That's right, Hype. It's HYPE that drives most of the businesses decisions, and the corporate executives don't even know that the marketing people (in other companies) are the ones who are really driving their decisions through brainwashing hype. Microsoft happens to be the most successful at this.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If I remember correctly, SUSE or Mandrake was THE Linux distro to get. Red Hat came along and pushed the bar. Whether or not you like Red Hat or not, they have made a major impact in the Linux world
Uh, actually RedHat was the distro of choice for many people for a very long time. SUSE, Mandrake, et al came afterwards but RedHat has held its own, very respectfully might I add....
I do not believe that a new distrobution is the way to go in creating new standards, but rather having an organisation who should sit down and define where you want those libraries and binaries installed, not how.
Because what I find frustrating is when trying to download some sort of commercial binary/driver that is only supported for the RedHat distro's way of doing things (where init.d-scripts are put and such).
I've tried various distros (Slack, RH, MDK, SuSe, Debian) and I'm currently stuck with debian because of its package-manager. A package-manager which has to follow certain policies which they have constructed on beforehand.
So my needs are well presented in how Debian does things, but I wish that I didn't have to do things the hard way whenever I find a redhat-package I need to implement onto my system.
=-kiOwA-> EOF
Perhaps you should see the dozens of e-mails I received from Debian users reporting the "'which gawk' returned an error" message from my software. Perhaps you should tell those users that gawk was indeed there when each one specifically told me it wasn't.
Now I understand... You expect to find gawk pointing to another awk when gawk isn't installed? Yikes!
Why didn't your software look for awk instead. Isn't that more reasonable? If you need gawk features, tell your Debian users to install the gawk package. Don't blame Debian for your bad assumptions.
Hopefully they will get the endorsement, and adhere to the standards rules, of a standards organization such as IEEE, IETF etc. Until then, they are just another linux distro, helping to further confuse linux newbies.
l8
AC
From the FAQ:
Q) Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
A) Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released.
There will be prior betas released without free code available. This reminds me of recent cases where it was claimed that "pre-releases under the GPL don't require source code."
That's what 'de facto' means, or didn't you get the memo? ;-) De facto standards come from the most popular Linux distributions.
/usr/bin/gawk that points at /usr/bin/awk, which may in fact be a link to /usr/bin/mawk, then you're wrong.
/usr/bin/gawk because you are relying on features unique to gawk, then you would be disappointed to find that you were actually running mawk, true?
/usr/bin/awk.
:-)
[aside: Debian is one of the most popular distros --- does that mean that Debian is the de facto standard?]
So, let's take something that you presumably would have considered to be a de facto standard at the time. Linuxconf was the standard configuration tool on RedHat for a while. So, do RedHat get to change that "standard" just because they originated it, or were they non-standard then, or are they non-standard now?
I'm not criticising RedHat specifically, since the other commercial distros do similar things, but
if they change their defaults over time, then is the de facto standard limited to the logo on the startup screen?
Debian on the other hand does not have the organisational structure to allow it to chop & change rapidly, so any change ends up having to take account of all the people that will choose not to follow the change, resulting in a more robust distribution.
Chaos brings forth order.
Consistently difficult to install. Consistently Balkanized. Great. No wonder Debian is so popular. It is the Archie Bunker of Linux distributions: you can always rely on it to behave predictably.
Well, thanks for that ringing endorsement. I didn't ask you to use it did I?
Perhaps you should see the dozens of e-mails I received from Debian users reporting the "'which gawk' returned an error" message from my software. Perhaps you should tell those users that gawk was indeed there when each one specifically told me it wasn't. It wasn't there when I installed Debian in late 2001
Ah, sorry, you're complaining that gawk wasn't present when awk was? I read you to mean the reverse.
If you want gawk on Debian you can run:
apt-get install gawk
but you have the freedom not to, and there are other alternative implementations (i.e. mawk) so there's no need to do so.
If you are saying that someone should provide a link
If you are invoking
If on the other hand you are not using gawk specific features, you should be calling
Either way the problem you describe is not a fault in Debian, it is either a bug in your code, because you were saying gawk when you meant awk, or it's a failure in your package dependencies (if you packaged it) or in you readme, which should have indicated that your program depended on gawk.
I notice you didn't bother tackling me on cramfs.
You were saying that Debian was non-standard --- I don't think that what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard, so I didn't bother considering it. I don't like initrd/cramfs anyway --- it's just another thing to go wrong at boot time, so I don't use it on any of my machines. We use it on the install floppies/CDs to make things fit, but I don't see that that's something to get overly stressed about, and why anyone should care, I don't know.
If you're so excited about this de facto standard of yours, what do you think of using file system labels in fstab, instead of devices? The majority of RedHat systems that are running don't use that scheme, so are RedHat breaking the standard by introducing change, or are all historical RedHat installs now non-standard? How about Grub vs. Lilo? Do you want me to go on?
P.S. Read your Gun control post. --- glad we can agree on something, anyway
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Frankly, I dont even start to understand this...
The first argument of MS-lovers is that Linux is free, so it has no value (this relation, in itself, is braindamaged).
But what can I say about a person that campaigns for a corporation for free? If youre being paid, ok, its immoral, but has an economic logic.
But working for free to promote non-free things? What gives? Its like some black people starting a NGO inviting other blacks to return to slavery.
Is it this? Do you want me to throw this "crappy" software (as you would call Linux) and return to MS blessed fields to happily live the way they want me?
Youre being naive or a fanatic to propose such foolishness. If youre gonna fool me, please hire someone who can pull the trick, at least.
Should I start smoking cigarretes, too?
"That's United ---->GNU------/LINUX to you!!
Their FAQ says It will be a high quality low cost linux....... and not free. Also they didn't use GNU/Linux terminology :-) I am sure they are earning the sheer contempt of Rich...
On the other hand I am happy to see this as a standards based initiative, which appeals to the corporate sector better.
Why wouldn't Redhat join United Linux. I know, everyone wants control over their own distro, but it sounds like the other United distros are all keeping a fair amount of control.
That's the great thing about Linux standards. There are so many to choose from.
=brian
FAQ #6: What about other Linux providers?
We want as many Linux distributors to join this effort as possible. [...] Red Hat has been called by this group and invited personally already.
hmpf. Redhat watch out indeed. You've been invited to a good idea. I see this as a chance to unify QA testing when multiple distros converge on a release target. Aren't we all sick of always updating our buggy glibc's?
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
Yes, linux has more security vulnerabilities. You're right!
BUT...
When a vulnerability is discovered in linux, it gets fixed - fast. In the Microsoft world, they ask you not to publicize it, complain when you do, say they're not ready yet. A month later they release a patch that fixes some of the problems and creates others. No one can do anything about it.
Microsoft hides vulnerabilities, linux fixes them.
I am I suppose to be scaried? happy? In doubt I think, Linux 's future can only suceed if there is a commerial product (which Redhat , Mandrake seems to be doing well at) and a development kernel(debian) why do we need these other distros. Random Love seems to be a trouble maker than a help...
This to me, sounds like a good thing. Not all Distros will be the same. SUSE will still be different from turbolinux etc.
What it does mean is that each distro will have things in common. Things that companies can count on like standard libraries, a standard print system etc. It does not stop distros from putting in extra libraries and print systems just guarantees that they will also have the standard ones and, I assume, a easy way for people to know when they install the distro that they have picked the standard features.
One of the things that can really frustrate a developer is to spend a lot of time developing a software product only to find that he has to keep half a dozen versions in order to facilitate the majority of Linux users. It can be a real maintenance nightmare.
I hope that companies like Redhat and Mandrake join in supporting the standard.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
did it occur to you that perhaps he may have been joking?
..alongside KDE in the whitepaper (PDF). It's under Section 2.6 under "Essential Functionality".
I'm glad RedHat doesn't join this gang, they know and listen to the community (Can't say the same about Caldera :) Although I do agree in following standards, I don't agree that new ones are needed just to attract cash. Shoo, Shoo, we don't want you, we don't need you.
If you want a unified system, use Debian. Pure freedom. Free as in freedom of speach. So there :)
This sig is intentionally left blank
If most distributions do things a certain way then it becomes the standard way, whether Red Hat (or Debian) likes it or not. That's what de facto means. If Debian becomes significant enough, other distributions will have to drop gawk from the default install and feature a Reagan-era OS installer.
'You were saying that Debian was non-standard --- I don't think that what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard'
Put them all together, draw a circle around the common elements, and you have a de facto standard. I agree: I don't think what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard. That's why I (like most people) wrote my software with a goal of making it work on the majority of distributions, which should include Debian but didn't for some time because Debian differed from SuSE, Red Hat, Caldera, Turbolinux and Slackware in a great enough number of ways for it to be a major pain in the ass. To make my software Debian-friendly required more effort than making it run on all the other distros put together. That was a direct result of the little eccentricities which masqueraded as innovations in Debian.
'If you're so excited about this de facto standard of yours, what do you think of using file system labels in fstab, instead of devices?'
At least they were adding functionality. Taking away gawk from a GNU/Linux distribution is just silly. What does the G of gawk stand for?
'The majority of Red Hat systems that are running don't use that scheme, so are RedHat breaking the standard by introducing change, or are all historical RedHat installs now non-standard? How about Grub vs. Lilo? Do you want me to go on?'
Hey, this is Slashdot. Why not. :-) Seriously, though, you're right about the LABEL= thing. I don't like it at all. It was a major pain to code for and allow for. So was GRUB. However, Red Hat are large enough to influence or even determine the de facto standard on their own. If the Debian team want to innovate, they could try doing it in ways which don't break code which runs just fine on the other major distributions.
Group-think is not a good way to gain mainstream acceptance. Debian can secede from the Union for all I care, just so long as they understand that they are feeding their pride at the expense of cross-compatibility.
....is that there are so many to choose from. ;-)
sigs are a waste of space
I don't see this making all that much of a dent in RedHat's business presense. RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux OS.
Ok, I read enough "too little, too late" comments and about how established the name of RedHat is and how "United Linux" doesn't have a chance.
I know that e.g. SuSE is the name for Linux in Germany. Most people who haven't used Linux so far connect the name "Linux" with SuSE and not RedHat.
RedHat might be the name for Linux for most Americans and maybe the British. But in the rest of the world the other distributions have a big market share. Take "TurboLinux", they are dominating in the Asian market (especially Japan) as far as I know. Take Connectix who are well known in the Southamerican market.
This is worrisome for RedHat. And I am a stock holder so I am alert. The American market might be RedHat only with little Caldera, but the rest of the world is not so dominated. So RH should think about positioning itself better worldwide. Joining "United Linux" would probably beat the others while still maintaining a brand name.
Considering how Taco categorized the announcement as being "...from the who-really-cares department", no, I don't think he's joking. It seems he doesn't see a need for UL.
If he does see a need, his categorization of this announcement as well as his jab at the end will be that much more confusing.
Just calm down: non-free versions will contain for-money applications (StarOffice etc.). That's all.
Sigged!
OK, I can see that the gawk thing pissed you off, but it's actually pretty simple to either make your package depend on gawk (if you package it) or put a note in the README saying "This package depends on gawk" if that's the case.
You were saying that Debian should have provided a symlink from awk to gawk though, which is just plain wrong I'm afraid. If the user chose not to install gawk, then you don't get gawk. End of story.
Were you really using gawk specific features? or would awk have done the job for you? If the latter, you should have been invoking it as awk.
Having said all that, I'd imagine that it's pretty easy to miss that subtlety, in which case it would be pretty bloody frustrating, so I do understand where you're coming from. Just a shame nobody bothered to point this out to you earlier really.
Cheers, Phil.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
I didn't have time to read ALL the comments, but in all the ones I did read, most people are saying that this is going to be a competing company to Red Hat.
I don't think that this is the case.
They have invited ALL Linux companies to join and form an alliance, basically.
This is a smart idea, IMHO.
They have personally contacted Red Hat about the idea, and they invite Mandrake and others as well into the group.
What I think they are doing is making it so that any company who is in their group can release their own distro, with United Linux as the base, so that everything is compatible between distros, but at the same time allowing the companies to have their own corporate identity.
Brilliant idea, and I think that United Linux will not really become a distro, but a base for which to build a distro from.
But I could be totally wrong on this... It has happened before.
The four worst Linux distributions team up ...
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
Why was this marked as a troll? It is only what it says at the UnitedLinux website.
Some of us have commented on some of the statements on their website (such as here: http://www.unitedlinux.com/en/faqs/index.html ) which seem to indicate that OpenLinux may not be free. Well there is something to keep in mind - Linus owns the Linux trademark. If anyone tries to exercise any unreasonable control over Linux through an unfree distribution, Linus can throw the book at them and force them to stop calling their distribution Linux.
Besides, if an unfree UnitedLinux got any serious marketshare, the grassroots would fight them even harder than Microsoft.
Just don't call it The United Way.
give me a