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.
What standards ? Look at the website, they can't even decide on 1 language...
;-)
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
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.
From the FAQ:
"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."
If I read this correctly, it means that the future versions of SuSe, Connectiva, etc will be forks of the main United Linux distro.
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
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!
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.
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.
If you actually took the time to check the website before asking the question, that is actually explained there:
Next Steps
* Each UnitedLinux partner continues to sell Linux under its familiar Linux brand and product, "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* Caldera OpenLinux "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* Conectiva Linux "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* SuSE Linux Enterprise Server "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* Turbolinux "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* One core development team benefiting several partners * Other Linux companies invited to join
Furthermore:
Competition
How will Linux companies in UnitedLinux still compete?
Pricing: Each company will set its own product pricing
Channels: Retail stores, reseller channels, direct, etc.
Support: Each company runs its own support team
Education: Independent training and certification
Professional Services: Custom implementations
Applications: Management, administration, messaging, etc.
OEM: Industry partners still choose products to bundle
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Interesting to see KDE mentioned, but not Gnome. Not meaning to start a flamewar here. Well, okay, I am.. . >:-)
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.
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.
Is it june in your part of the world already?
it's in my head
I sorry to say but... I see the parent comment as another instance of someone not doing their research. This is not exactly another distro.
This is more a combining of already existing distros under one umbrella and the implementation of and adherance to the LSB Standard.
In short... This is a GOOD THING(tm).
Competing with RedHat can actually be easy once it becomes known that the new consortium/distro follows a set standard - LSB. The standard means that software written to the LSB should ALWAYS run with no problems on a compliant distro.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
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.
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
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.
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:
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...
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.
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".
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.
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..
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.
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.
Heh... this'll teach me to listen to story submitters...
:/ whoops.
I'm skimming the whitepaper now, and actually page 12 lists both "KDE 3 minimal system" and "GNOME 2 minimal system" as "Essential Functionality", which reads to me as "Required to be UL certified"
This also means my parent post is a troll, as it's uninformed.
The Free desktop that Just Works
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!!
I'm sorry. I thought this was slashdot...