Why Mandrake is Too Cool for UnitedLinux

An anonymous reader says "Mandrake's lastest community (spam) newsletter contains their explanation as to why they won't join in on UnitedLinux. Besides the obvious geek-fun of rolling their own distro, they claim that the underlying idea of UnitedLinux is based on a flawed comparison to the Unix world of the 80's. " I think the whole UnitedLinux thing is lame- the distros that want to be compatible already are. UL is just the 2nd tier distros trying to get attention and ink away from the "evil forces" in North Carolina. I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar ;)

Comments

What?

[Aknaton]

>obvious geek-fun of rolling their own distro

Aren't they just a Redhat distro with some a few mods? If Mandrake is more than that, please explain.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandrake is clearly not Redhat with some mods any more. Maybe back a couple years but it's definitely it's own unique distribution. They use RPM and Khudzu and that's about it. They hand select, configure and build all the RPMs and packages, they have their own installer, they have their own support tools.

It's redhatesque but it's unique. It happens to be a damn fine distribution also.

Re:What?

[gotak]

Mandrake hasn't been a repackage of redhat for sometime now.

It's still suppose to be redhat compatible. But I can tell you that it's not as stable as redhat. Mozilla crashes on mandrake all the time while redhat for me hasn't had a single mozilla crash yet. Sigh....

Re:What?

[Aknaton]

Thanks!

Re:What?

[Phosphor3k]

And yet it is just the opposite for me. Oh wait, we are just single users. Maybe it is our hardware config. I hear that that sometimes causes issues.

But no, what applies to you applies to everybody, isnt that right?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kudzu, you twit.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandrake uses i585, redhat is i386.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, they are different.

My experiences with Mandrake where poor at best.

It was explained to me that their version of CPIO was allowed to output the filelist, with the -v option, to stdout. Never mind everyone else sending the output to stderr.

When reporting catastrophic filesystem failures, I was informed it was a known bug. That?s it, no options, no fix, just wait and see. Meanwhile clients where losing data, and crashing systems.

Easy enough to remedy the situation, migrate all clients from Mandrake to Redhat, problem solved.

IMHO, installing Mandrake, no matter how easy it is to install, is a mistake,

Your mileage may vary.

Re:What?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Meanwhile clients where losing data, and crashing systems.

I honestly have NO idea what you are talking about. I have a 7 something MDK box that has been the main file server on my network having an uptime of damn near a year now. My MDK 8.2 (started life as 8.0) has been rock solid for over a year (reboots for hardware swaps, and even a total case swap (I bought one of them Lian-Li PC-60's... w00t!)).

Anyway. I have been playing with a few other distros too. I'm typing on a SuSE box, my Gentoo box is compiling KDE3.0.2 right now, and the RedHat machine to my right is sitting with a kernel panic.

Hmmm...

Re:What?

[packeteer]

not only does mandrake have what you listed but it has a HUGE number of "little things" added on... minor improvement to make things easy... the 'drake tools are AWSOME and i NEVER have to load up config.conf or whatever the hell... all configs that you need as long as your not getting DEEP into the system can be done in the gui... personally myself i DO load up text files and tweak them but my mom and brother are NEVER going to care about that... all they care about is being able to get their email and if something is wrong even THEY can fix it...

Re:What?

[sg_oneill]

Although I've been using debian in the workplace for a while , my experience of Mandrake has been stunning. It's a reeealy good looking distro , and my own mother can use the damn thing on her machine. I honestly believe that if mandrake ever lost the stupid rpm nonsense and moved across to .deb (apt-get debian stuff) heaven then in my opinion the distro wars would be over. Until then it's debian for mission critical things and mandrake for fun stuff for me.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a fucking idiot.

There are no "distro wars", just like there are no "browser wars".

Sure, people would like you to buy into such garbage because they want to dominate a market. However, the facts are: Competition is good. Alternatives are good. Common supported standards among the alternatives, are good.

You should use the right tools for the right job. Every distribution has its strengths and weaknesses.

You don't honestly want to hinder the natural evolution of things by letting one distribution dominate the market, do you?

This may be good....

[Lord_Slepnir]

I for one think this is a good idea. I'd rather have 5-6 distros competiting (while still being somewhat compatable) than to have one solid standard. We all know what happenes when competition ceases. Not that the idea of United Linux is a bad idea, I just think that there need to be choices besides it.

Re:This may be good....

[legojenn]

Re:This may be good.... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 2002.07.03 11:36 (#3814588)

Fuck linux, MS Windows XP kills all versions of linux. XP is faster, more stable, has more software, looks better and is backed by a real corporation and not some unwashed hippies and commies.

Linux is dying, if you can even call it that because it never really lived.

Though this is an obvious troll and really no response is necessary. This time, I will respond. The unwashed hippie label is getting really tiresome. This is the third or fourth article I've read this slur in the comments. Wouldn't true hippies side toward ludiditness (what a great word)?

Think of something new, please. Think of something funny, please.

The commie label is not so horrible (though it's meant to be); give what you can, take what you need.

Re:This may be good....

[pr0t3uS]

"...real corporation and not some unwashed hippies and commies."

Dear Sir!

I, as an unwashed communist hippie, am really happy for the fact that i do not fit into distinguished comunity of which You and Your beloved corporation are part.

Re:This may be good....

[Anonymous Coward]

> I for one think this is a good idea. I'd rather have 5-6 distros competiting (while still being somewhat compatable) than to have one solid standard. We all know what happenes when competition ceases [microsoft.com]. Not that the idea of United Linux is a bad idea, I just think that there need to be choices besides it.

What? Where does having one set of standards for filesystem layout, a minimal set of files, etc (LSB, FSH) mean that competition or choices stop? I think you've confused a standard with its implementation - not the same thing.

And, the idea of the UL distros is to have them all based on the UL standard, but still have four separate products from each member company. They still compete, and the competition is that much more meaningful because if you go with (say) Caldera Linux, and find it wanting in support or other areas, you can install Connectiva and be able to use the same startup config files, RPMs, etc from the Caldera install. Makes this group of distros come close to the "plug compatible" idea. No lockins possible if they all follow the standards.

Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it spam if it contained information useful enough to be posted on slashdot?

Re:Spam

[ceejayoz]

Because spam means unsolicited commercial e-mail, no matter how useful it is?

That being said, Mandrake doesn't seem to spam - I had to explicitly sign up for the newsletter...

Re:Spam

[nmx]

I find it unlikely that such a newsletter would be unsolicited. I find it more likely that the person receiving it had signed up for the newsletter because he is a Mandrake user.

Re:Spam

[deno]

Well.. Guess some people can't imagine the idea of 200.000 people opting in for a newsletter. So, "it must be spam" .-)

And I thought geeks have good power of imagination... ;-)

One OS

[Rupert]

under Linus, indivisible.

Re:One OS

[march]

Becareful when you mix Church and State!! There was a recent ruling about this!! :-)

Re:One OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court of Redmond banned the Pledge of Allegiance and Singing the National Anthem in public schools. The court executives declared that religion does not belong in Microsoft sponsored schools.

Re:One OS

[cperciva]

Surely you mean "One Kernel, under Linus, indivisible." (Except that it isn't really, but we shouldn't let minor facts get in the way.) After all, the OS is more than just a kernel, and the kernel pretty much all Linus is involved with.

Re:One OS

[Aknaton]

Damn Linus believers, always trying to force their OS on us. I say that there is no Linus, that he is a figment of your imagination. ;)

Re:One OS

[Anonymous Coward]

"One OS, under the FreeBSD Core Team, indivisible" would make far more sense, given that Linux is not an operating system.

Re:One OS

[Anonymous Coward]

"One OS, under the FreeBSD Core Team, indivisible..."

"... with no remote root exploits in the default install for six years"?

Re:One OS

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be Openbsd dumbass. I seen they've also changed it to 1 remote root exploit in 6 years now.

Re:One OS

[Fenris Ulf]

I hear Andy Tanenbaum wants to have the "indivisible" part removed.

Re:One OS

[IXI]

Ever heard someone pray to heavens core team?

Re:One OS

[Anonymous Coward]

d00d, Linux Thorvalds iz liek DA BOMB programuh. He got sum strait MAD KODING SKILZ!

Linux Thorvalds, u r my idle.

Good for Mandy

[Apostata]

I think this decision will not only please Mandrake's huge user-base (or at least those who give a sh*t), but also earn Mandy a little more respect from those who constantly refer to it as a Fisher-Price distro.

Re:Good for Mandy

[robbieduncan]

This really is off-topic :)

Why bother posting your reply. The moderator who did this to you can't come back and reply to you (not directly on the page anyway) without removing their moderation. Just live with it. Everyone gets bad moderations sometimes.

Re:Good for Mandy

[Vinson Massif]

gak. A reply to an off-topic...

Why post a mod complaint? If the moderator posts in an attempt to explain himself, the mod magically disappears.

Re:Good for Mandy

[Afrosheen]

Sounds good to me. All moderators that make bad mods, please respond to explain yourself. That'll make everyone happy.

Re:Post mdoerated +1 Flaimbait

[six809]

There's no reason that all Linux venders can't use the same base for rpm compatibility, etc.

You're not helping stop any potential flame war there, y'know. Some of us much prefer debs.

Re:Post mdoerated +1 Flaimbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of Distro Flamewar

www.gentoo.org

mandrake

[gralem]

Mandrake is simply the best distro out there. It doesn't get bogged down by "this package uses the wrong license" or "this is too cutting edge" or "this is too average user", either. They simply go out there and offer their users EVERYTHING in the linux world. I will always only install Mandrake.

And not becoming a part of United Linux is partly due to the above and partly due to their use of RPM. I think they're doing the right thing, and the United Linux people fill fall big time.

---gralem

Re:mandrake

[BrokenHalo]

I agree that mdk can be fairly groovy (and God knows, it is certainly easy to install). However, it does get seriously bogged down with the dependency hell associated with RPM, especially in 8.2. I didn't have many problems with 8.1, but three weeks of trying to get 8.2 working properly was enough to send me back to Slackware.

Re:mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

I will always only install Mandrake.

Congrats, you're a zealot.

Re:mandrake

[microsoft.CLIT]

If it's so good how come nobody uses it except smelly geeks who wouldn't know a Real OS from a hole in the ground.

Re:mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the question mark.

Hint: it's the shifted forward slash (next to the right shift key).

Re:mandrake

[essdodson]

They simply go out there and offer their users EVERYTHING in the linux world.

This is exactly the reason I will never use Linux. Talk about WinXP's bloat all you want, check out the latest Linux distributions... very few Linux distributions are still available via a single CD install, quite a shame that the everything to everyone attitude is trashing things.

Re:mandrake

[Matt2000]

"I will always only install Mandrake."

This is clearly retarded. Why do computer dudes always throw down insane ultimatums? It gives us a bad name and it's the reason people in companies don't trust us.

"DOS 6.3 is the last operating system this company will every use, PERIOD."
"Get out."
"Ok."

Re:mandrake

[*xpenguin*]

You can also try Gentoo Linux if you have enough bandwidth. It downloads and compiles the program (with emerge 'app') and dependencies from source, so it is fully optimized for your system. There isn't any dependency hell associated with it (unless you decide to 'emerge unmerge glibc' or something)

Re:mandrake

[sir99]

This is exactly the reason I will never use Linux. Talk about WinXP's bloat all you want, check out the latest Linux distributions...

That's just... silly. You can get exactly as much bloat as you like, just choose the appropriate distro. Use linux on a floppy, it's usable at least for specialized purposes. I can't speak for other distros, but Debian's base installation is less than 100MB IIRC. Not terribly useful at that point, but usable.

Speaking of bloat, Debian recently passed the 10,000 packages mark. Many of them are silly or superfluous. However, the redeeming quality is that you don't have to install much unwanted software. When a package depends on oodles of unnecessary crap (like kde and gnome libraries), there's usually a lighter alternative.

As an example, I have about 250 packages installed on my firewall (including many I don't really need, such as complete X and gui programs), and about 550 on my desktop.

The only area I think is uncomfortably bloating is that each new version of a package is slightly bigger than the last. This is probably feature creep, but some of it is also probably new documentation (which is good!).

Anyway, my point is, you have a ridiculous number of distributions to choose from. Don't judge Linux as a whole based on the mainstream distros, which are trying to gain marketshare by making Linux more Windows-y. Linux is trying to be "everything to everyone," but each distro caters to a different subset of "everyone."

Re:mandrake

[SpaceJunkie]

If you aint a smelly geek - what're you doing on slashdot? Trolling for kicks?

Re:mandrake

[Bytenik]

The key here is that they "offer" a huge choice of things to install. You don't have to install EVERYTHING.

WinXP would come on many CDs too if MS Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, Visual Studio, etc. were all included.

Claiming that "this is exactly the reason I will never use Linux" is just zealous rhetoric.

Now that I've proven your reason for avoiding Linux wrong will you try it now?

Re:mandrake

[supabeast!]

With Mandrake, everything includes light installs. The Mandrake 8.2 install CD can do functional installs that weigh in at less than 80 megs.

Re:mandrake

[Sabalon]

Get back to me after you've installed Windows, Visual Studio, MS Office, Photoshop, mIRC, some snmp tools, IIS, etc...

Yeah...the media may be bloated, but you don't have to choose "Install everything". Get back to me when you can install WinXP and IIS without the bloat of the GUI.

The media is cheap so why not pack it. Much prefered to the "here's the OS, go buy/download everything else"

Re:mandrake

[breser]

I like Mandrake but your comments regarding them not caring about the license is just plain wrong. 8.2 no longer includes Netscape. The next version will not include pine because of license issues. Mandrake has made a large attempt to remove all software that isn't free software from the GPL CDs. The only way to get anything else is to belong to the MandrakeClub or buy the PowerPack.

Re:mandrake

[Cardhore]

I second that. Mandrake has a ton of cool features no one else does, like a boot progress bar, using GCC 3.1.1 to build their packages; DevFS has been in use since 8.0. They let you use ext3, ext2, reiserfs, and xfs. There is no "you must use ext3" like some distros....Quality

Re:mandrake

[_Sprocket_]

Talk about WinXP's bloat all you want, check out the latest Linux distributions... very few Linux distributions are still available via a single CD install, quite a shame that the everything to everyone attitude is trashing things.

We'll ignore that distros offer fire-and-forget auto-installs of suggested packages OR the ability to narrow down to select packages (and often the ability to automate this customized install process). Lets also ignore that the nature of Open Source software allows distros to include a vast range of software that wouldn't normaly be included in other operating system offerings - and that this software is completely optional and often not even installed in the default install process. Instead, we'll go for a nice quick WinXP vs Linux comparison.

In Linux distros, I can go "Ya know, I really don't like this default Netscape browser that was installed. I'm going to completely remove it and install... ohhh... saaaaay... Opera instead." It doesn't take a howto document and a series of ugly registry hacks to do it. And it didn't take a federal court case.

Comparisons to WinXP and complaints about multiple CDs sounds like a fear of choice.

Re:mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do computer dudes always throw down insane ultimatums?

Because we're always right, and we always know it, even after we've changed our minds ;)

For instance, a few years ago I *only* programmed in ASM, and I would never use anything else. 'Never' lasted about three months, from memory...

Don't worry, it's usually the teenage computer dudes who act like this... the older ones slowly learn that they can be wrong sometimes
(but since they have experience, naturally, they're always right ;)

Re:mandrake

[horza]

"I will always only install Mandrake."

This is clearly retarded. Why do computer dudes always throw down insane ultimatums? It gives us a bad name and it's the reason people in companies don't trust us.

How is that +5 interesting? It's not in the least bit retarded and where did gralem throw down an "insane ultimatum"? He has learned to trust Mandrake, for him it strikes the right balance between stability and ease of use, and so he uses it each time he does an install. Sounds fair enough to me and not in the least bit deserving abuse. You (Matt2000) may not be trusted, but don't inflict your paranoia on the rest of us.

Management: "Please install a Linux server that will handle all our email"
Admin: "Ok, done"
(notice lack of discussion about merits of various distros)

Phillip.

Re:mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent! Way to completely miss the point.

Retard.

Re:mandrake

[Anonymous Coward]

That tagline is beautiful.

UnitedLinux

[KoopaTroopa]

UnitedLinux may result in less diverse practices and standards between the distributions, (or at least fewer of them,) but, as with any joint venture brought on by competitive pressure, sounds like a really good way for the constituent groups to argue about exactly WHAT becomes the standard and such. That kind of stagnation and bickering is not what needs to happen for success.

Joining under a common banner with common practices and standards is fine and dandy. Someday it might even be a Good Thing, but doing it because you're afraid of RedHat just doesn't seem healthy to me.

debian rocks :)

[ard]

lets get that 3.0 / Woody out the door and show who really has the best dist :)

Re:debian rocks :)

[shadow303]

Yup, Gentoo all the way.

Re:debian rocks :)

[BrokenHalo]

Yes, but Woody shows no sign of being released in my lifetime...

Re:debian rocks :)

[tomhudson]

maybe debian needs a dose of viagra to get that woody going!

Seriously, this United Linux concept looks like something that I would have expected to come out of a Redmond marketroid.

Re:debian rocks :)

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a 3 inch woody? i'm sorry dude

Re:debian rocks :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian's cool if you don't mind wathing water boil.

Re:debian rocks :)

[sir99]

Yes, but Woody shows no sign of being released in my lifetime...

Ah, the traditional Slashdot lament.

At least they're committed to LSB.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a fan of mandrake, but this is an extremely well-written document all the way through. I would like everyone to take note of the fact Mandrake seems to be committing in here to follow the LSB.. so that's good. One thing i wonder about though:

"In the same spirit, all software publishers should certify their products for a given version of the LSB (Linux Standard Base), not for a particular brand of Linux. Therefore, that software would work equally well with any Linux distribution that is in conformity with the LSB. "

Is this correct? The UnitedLinux people have been implying that they are somehow just the logical conclusion of the idea of the LSB, and in some way they will make things easier for developers-- i.e., less varied systems to test. Is this correct, or just misleading marketing? Are there any situations where it would be possible to certify a single binary for UnitedLinux, but not possible to certify a single binary for the LSB becuase the LSB is not extensive enough?

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[rseuhs]

The story goes like this:

1) LSB is formed

2) SuSE implements it, nobody else cares (especially RedHat and Mandrake)

3) SuSE forms United Linux with Caldera and some others.

4) All of the sudden Mandrake likes the LSB.

But I still don't believe Mandrake being compliant unless I see it.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[lfourrier]

Last time I checked (a few year ago), there was the notion of LSB-compliant and LSB-conformant.
That is a LSB conformant respect strictly the LSB.
A LSB compliant add just a bunch of links in order to present a LSB compatible organisation.
When I'll go in the business of choosing a distro, LSB compliance will not be on my list but LSB conformance.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[platypus]

Indeed, and I really wonder about the hostility against united linux.

Ok, they have caldera+ransom love onboard, that may explain it.

But the notion that LSB is enough to get a common base for installing binary software is complete nonsens. Yeah, it works in theory, but in practice, for enterprise ready software, you _want_ to test on an actual platform, not hope that everyone will play well along the standards.
LSB is a good thing, but nicely written standards don't compensate for excessive regression testing on a real environment (which is what united linux gives us)
Especially with such a complex beast like a GNU/linux/whatever environment - hell, this mindset fails with simple things like tcp and http. What does MDK think "reference implementations" are for?

And please, can we stop all this nonsens about "monopolisation", "per seat license" and stuff in combination with united linux?
The GPL is the GPL is the GPL

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[sab39]

Nobody else cares? Excuse me?

Debian has gone through hell (ask any debian developer about /usr/share/doc) working towards LSB compliance. As I understand it they're still a way off, but they've been committed to it forever.

I'd bet money that debian has a larger market share than any of the UnitedLinux companies.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the GPL is the GPL is the GPL. *BUT*, when you have a distro with a closed-source installer and configuration utilities, with a license that only allows installing it on one system, you've still got to pay the per seat license to install it on all your boxes. You're still welcome to twiddle the Open Source/Free Software stuff, but the stuff that makes your distro what it is is untouchable.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[LordWoody]

You have bullets 3 and 4 out of order at a minimum. Mandrake has for quite some time been committed to LSB compliance. I am not sure if SuSE started before or after Mandrake on the path towards that compliance, but I can tell you Mandrake was working on LSB compliance long before UL was a twinkle in Love's eye.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[batand]

The LSB is important, but isn't sufficient.

When an ISV want to write software he should use the LSB as a reference, which should provide some compatibility. However he cannot test against LSB, he has to test against a number of concrete distributions. Bringing that number down is important, maybe not to you, but to the ISV.

I am very pleased to hear that not only SuSE and UL but also Debian and Mandrake are committed to it.

As usual a lot of people here cry wolf at the slightest sign of distribution consolidation.

UL is not forcing anyone to do anything. It isn't even threatening to stifle competition, as there are plenty still. A non-dominating number of players decided that ISV are important, and to ensure that they get ISV support they form a group and standardize some of their binaries. I have no problem with the fact that Mandrake are not a member of UL. Fine! More competition. I just hope UL is big enough to push some standards, but not so big as to create de-facto standards like Red Hat.

In addition they get the advantage of additional combined testing. This is what I, as a user, consider extremely important. I have yet to try installing Linux on a nontrivial box without problems. There has always been something wrong, and if the next version fixed it, there was sure to be another problem with that. I am talking soundcard, 3D, scanner, printer, X in various resolutions, monitor frequenzy, CD-burner, IDE-DMA, netscape plugins, java. I won't even begin to mention upgrading versions. If anyone new to Linux read this: Always re-install Linux from scratch! Never upgrade!

Debians notion of stable and unstable is great and I hope one of the UL distributions will focus on being stable as opposed to the current obsession with being current.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[platypus]

Sure, the GPL is the GPL is the GPL. *BUT*, when you have a distro with a closed-source installer and configuration utilities, with a license that only allows installing it on one system, you've still got to pay the per seat license to install it on all your boxes. You're still welcome to twiddle the Open Source/Free Software stuff, but the stuff that makes your distro what it is is untouchable.


Yes,
but:

What has this to do with United Linux?

I fear most people have not really understood what this is.
SuSE already had said that
"We plan on having a downloadable developer's version as well," [and] "We are absolutely committed to working with the community to produce this product under the GPL."

So either they lie, or the majority is wrong.
Oh, and please, SuSE's YAST is _not_ closed source, binary only, etc. Whoever thinks that should read its license. Therefore, YAST is not an example for something to come with UL. In fact, publishing UL's installer under GPL might make the collaboration easier.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[Anonymous Coward]

The LSB helps in that it standardizes where things are located on the filesystem.

However companies distributing binaries also tend to need to test and rely on certain versions of libraries/language runtimes/etc. (for an example of this Red Hat has remained with Python 1.5 for their entire 7.* set of releases despite complaints from python fans that they want python 2.*. This means anybody writing a python program for Red Hat knows that the entire 7.* series has python 1.5, which means you know what to aim for and test against).

There are many variables amongst the linux distributions whether it be perl, python, glibc, gcc, java, etc. which is a support nightmare. This is why commercial programs only support Red Hat, not the rpm issue.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[Jason Earl]

When the LSB was first being kicked around Bruce Perens happened to be on board and he suggested using Debian's set of core packages as a test distribution. However, Caldera (and to a lesser extent SuSE) didn't want a binary standard base that you could actually install, because the leaders at these companies knew that many people might simply deploy the test distribution and not pay for the proprietary extras that Caldera and SuSE had to offer. After all, if all you need is a Linux distribution that you can run Oracle on, it really doesn't matter which distribution it is as long as it is supported by Oracle.

That is why we have a written LSB standard and a set of tests instead of a much easier to create and use binary standard.

Well, Caldera and SuSE (and TurboLinux) have finally realized that their developers want a binary standard, and if they can't have one from the LSB they will simply use RedHat which is a very popular and extremely open.. Once again that leaves the proprietary distributions (Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux) out in the cold, and so they have banded together to form a proprietary alternative. You see, they have created a binary distribution, but they want to charge people to use it. Since most of the software is GPLed, they can't deny sources to most of the distribution, but you can bet that they will be up to the same old tricks that they have always been up to. Caldera has said unequivocally that the UnitedLinux core would be licensed "per seat."

The truly unfortunate bit is that it would appear that Caldera is going to use UnitedLinux as a chance to drag SuSE into bankruptcy. SuSE gets to pay for the development and maintenance of UnitedLinux, and Caldera stands to receive a disproportionate amount of the benefit. Meanwhile Caldera still has revenues from the old SCO Unixes to keep itself afloat.

Personally, I use Debian, and think that it would make an excellent binary test platform. It is well-maintained, non-commercial, and it is a relatively slow moving target. There is lots of room for adding value to the Debian core packages. That being the case, I would much rather see RedHat or even Mandrake (both of which have firm policies of releasing source code under the GPL) become the binary standard than UnitedLinux.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not wanting to distract any Debian developers from their important work, could you just give us a link documenting these /usr/share/doc problems?

I'm actually just curious... it seems to me that it would be hard to HAVE trouble putting some text files in the right directory.

Re:At least they're committed to LSB.

[sab39]

I don't know many links, but I can explain why it was so difficult.

Debian consists of (at the last count that I'm aware of) 3000 packages maintained by several hundred distinct maintainers. Every one of those packages, per Debian Policy, had previously put their documentation in /usr/doc.

Debian also has a policy that upgrades from one version of the distribution to another, including partial upgrades of just a few packages, should not result in a broken system, regardless of how unusual the system's setup had been (one example of an unusual setup would be if /usr/share and /usr/doc were on different partitions). Plus, they didn't want to force users to check two different locations for documentation (is it in /usr/doc? No, then it must be in /usr/share/doc). They also didn't want to break experienced users' expectations that documentation could be found in /usr/doc. Oh, and they didn't want to break if old packages (that used /usr/doc) were installed on new systems with /usr/share/doc.

These constraints ruled out all the obvious solutions, including "mv /usr/doc /usr/share/doc; ln -s /usr/share/doc /usr/doc".

The final solution was to require that every one of the maintainers of those 3000 packages modify their packages to put the documentation in /usr/share/doc, and then add a symlink in /usr/doc to the new directory. Since these are several hundred maintainers who all have their own jobs and lives and priorities and some of whom have disappeared entirely since originally creating the package, this process took over a year. It was just about completed in time for the upcoming "woody" release. In fact, this page indicates that there are still 3 packages that haven't had this transition completed yet.

This page is the part of Debian Policy that indicates what must be done for every package.

All of that, and then in time for the next release of Debian, they'll be removing the symlink farm from /usr/doc which will involve updating Policy again and then changing every one of those 3000 packages once again.

Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[StandardCell]

As a (relatively new) Linux user, my first distro was Mandrake 8.1. What's nice about Mandrake is that there are GUI interfaces for everything. I mean, I've been working with Solaris and HP/UX for years and writing perl scripts and scheduling cron jobs, but never had to deal with "admin-type" issues like drivers and installing software and hardware. I don't mind going in and trying to figure out command-line switches for various tools and turning system services on and off. Mandrake is getting pretty close to the ideal, particularly with its HardDrake detection and its unbelievably good disk partitioning tool. That's not to say that it's perfect - I still think the whole package/RPM thing needs a lot of refinement, and there are bugs like losing sound on my A3D card for no reason (a known KDE problem). In fact, there's the rub - when it comes to ease of use, Windows still has Mandrake and the rest of the Linuxes beat hands-down. But like I've said before - with 10% of the development budget of Windows products, and buy-in from major software developers in multimedia, Linux could be a Windows killer. Just like UnitedLinux is supposed to do. Therein lies the problem - do you take the distro with the currently closest emulation of Windows' ease-of-use and push it to effective completion, or do you go and pool development efforts to make all the rest of the distros good? My hope is that cooler heads and better attitudes prevail, because many Linux distros and the fate of Linux on the desktop lies in the next move made by all Linux companies.

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[Jucius Maximus]

"As a (relatively new) Linux user, my first distro was Mandrake 8.1. What's nice about Mandrake is that there are GUI interfaces for everything. I mean, I've been working with Solaris and HP/UX for years and writing perl scripts and scheduling cron jobs, but never had to deal with "admin-type" issues like drivers and installing software and hardware. I don't mind going in and trying to figure out command-line switches for various tools and turning system services on and off. Mandrake is getting pretty close to the ideal, particularly with its HardDrake detection and its unbelievably good disk partitioning tool."

I have to agree that Mandrake is an excellent introduction into the linux world. Before I started using it a year ago, I was a well experienced windows user who paid for university textbooks by building computers, setting up networks, doing user training/consultation all on windows.

Mandrake is great for easing users in, because as you say, the GUI helps prevent 'shell shock.' Now I started off using DOS in the mid 80s, but you can do so much more from the linux shell. Mandrake is great because you can ease yourself in and learn the linux shell slowly.

Just last weekend I compiled and installed Apache 2.0.39 singlehandedly (which is trivial for msot *nix users, I know) but this is a testament to Mandrake's user friendliness and ability to help users help themselves into the linux world.

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[d_i_r_t_y]

> I have to agree that Mandrake is an excellent introduction into the linux world. Before I started
> using it a year ago, I was a well experienced windows user who paid for university textbooks by
> building computers, setting up networks, doing user training/consultation all on windows.

it is more than that -- it is a great experienced user's desktop (mine for the last 4 year's linux development, all day every day), and makes for a very stable server platform (our 100+ person company's SMB, NIS, NFS, pop3, smtp) as well.

anyone who says mandrake is only for beginners is full of shit.

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[King_TJ]

I agree that Mandrake is probably "closest to getting to mainstream" if you define that as the home/soho user. If you're talking about corporate America, however, I think RedHat still has that market pretty well locked up right now.

Mandrake has a great distro, but their sales and marketing tactics are a little too "consumerish" for the business world.

AKA. We're low on funds, so let's petition our membership with spam-like emails begging for contributions. Hey, wait, we'll make a little "club" so people feel good about contributing to us! We'll even throw in single-user licensed of some commercial software like StarOffice! Now, let's try to sell some stocks in our company since we can show how our revenues are up. Yeah, I know - we're not listed on any major stock exchange (yet)... but nevermind that. Buy it anyway and we'll get listed eventually! Really, we will!

Meanwhile, RedHat has most of the deals inked to come pre-installed on name-brand servers when you order them with Linux.

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[13Echo]

You lost sound on your A3D card because it is not completely supported in Linux. Drivers are beta, and were never finished since Aureal went bankrupt and sold their IP to Creative, who has done nothing with it so far. Hacked drivers are available on Sourceforge, but dev hasn't continued since late 2000/early 2001.

Linux can be just as easy to use as Windows... It is just different. It is just the way it goes. Try using something like Lycoris which streamlines everything. RPM is a bit goofy at times, but has its pluses. I personally love just compiling programs from the source codes. I always worksright for me, and is pretty simple once you figure it out. There is always a learning curve with anything. Linux is pretty diverse, and totally refining everything in the way that you wish isn't as quite as simple as that.

Windows... One architecture (except the few 64 bit ports) and one distribution. Unix, Linux, etc... Take a look. There are many variants.

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[Afrosheen]

Mandrake is struggling just like everyone else. They had a big infusion of cash last year and big corporate manager types came along for the ride. After forking mandrake into e-learning crap and wasting money they all got the boot. Mandrake was struggling and turned to it's users for help. I don't see anything wrong with it. Under their current business plan they should return to profitability by the end of this year. Kudos to Mandrake for creative solutions to serious problems.

And by the way, mandrake and everything it creates is 100% gpl'ed. All their nice tools like Drakx, DiskDrake, etc. are all FREE. Keep this in mind next time you slam them. They're NOT Redhat or SuSE but they play in the same sandbox.

Oh and Mandrake recently penned a deal to come preinstalled on those affordable Microtel pc's that you can get online from Walmart. Another smart move.

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[jonadab]

> anyone who says mandrake is only for beginners

Not "only for beginners" per se, but Mandrake is especially
well-suited for users crossing over from other OSes, especially
from Windows. This doesn't mean it can't be used for other
things, only that the places where it shines out and is
notably better than other distros are mostly to do with
being friendly to the unwashed masses. Yes, it's also
optimized for Pentium... but in that regard it can't
claim to be better than Gentoo, for example; Mandrake
is, however, more friendly to newbies from Windozeland
than Gentoo. That's the most significant strength of
Mandrake (and it is an important thing).

Re:Mandrake is closest to getting to mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

> AKA. We're low on funds, so let's petition our membership with spam-like emails begging for contributions. Hey, wait, we'll make a little "club" so people feel good about contributing to us!

You're misrepresenting things; Mandrake's user base was the one petitioning the company for ways in which they could contribute money to the distro. Mandrake obliged, just as a customer-oriented company should do.

This wasn't a case of the Big Bad Company spamming its customers without warning; the customers had already spammed the company, so to speak.

Why Mandrake is right

[Ali Jenab]

Much has been written about the supposed "fragmentation" of Linux distributions. However, what the stories don't mention is that there are simple solutions for the problems that seem to keep cropping up. The core issue, though, is simple to understand but hard to solve: proprietary software developers are incompetent. Let me draw from my personal experience as a Linux guru and system administrator of many years and explain why that is the case:

• Commercial software companies don't understand dynamic linking. It is a basic principle of dynamic libraries that versions and functionality changes between releases. Ever notice how many different versions of Microsoft's DLLs you have on your Windows box? That's no coincidence - Windows developers are forced to incorporate the version of the DLL that works with their application. Linux provides a far superior development model, allowing publishers to statically link the correct library into their binary. Mozilla does it; Oracle does it; why can't the rest of the vendors get a clue and do the same thing?
• Commercial software developers don't understand the UNIX filesystem. UNIX is not like Windows: when a user installs an application on UNIX, he does not expect that application to install random files in arbitrary directories all over the filesystem. There is no registry in UNIX and no guarantee that the application won't be relocated to another system. Any application that forces the user to use anything more than 'tar xvf' to install it is improperly designed, from an experienced UNIX user's perspective.
• UnitedLinux is an illegal cartel. Similar to OPEC and De Beers, the members of UnitedLinux realize that their product is nothing more than a commodity in a very crowded market. To that end, they intend to fix prices, limit supply, and use anticompetitive tactics to artificially inflate the market share and supposed importance of their "standard." As the most influential group of UNIX users and administrators in the industry, will we allow them to get away with it? I hope not.

/ali

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[reaper20]

I wouldn't say that commercial developers are incompetent, more like 'commercial software houses as a whole are incompetent and lazy.'

It would be easier to code to something like UnitedLinux than support 5 or 6 different distributions. They'd rather just pick one (most just pick Redhat) and be done with it. They're just not willing to invest developer costs.

Love would have everyone believe that Linux is fragmenting Unix-style. But that just doesn't happen with open source. I mean, look at Ximian, they're a relatively small software house, they support boatloads of distributions.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[damiam]

UNIX is not like Windows: when a user installs an application on UNIX, he does not expect that application to install random files in arbitrary directories all over the filesystem.

Yes he does. A proper UNIX program will install files in /usr/bin, /usr/doc, /usr/share, /etc, and various other places, as opposed to a Windows program that installs everything in C:\Program Files\$progname, with the occasional library in C:\windows\system

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's take this a step further. Software developers obviously are greedy people. I personally believe in free software and I think that there's no alternative to the quality and warranty guaranteed by it. These people who develop free software obviously make enough money off of it to not have to resort to commercial software

If you work at a commercial development software, I suggest you leave immediately. Open Source Software has been shown to increase profits ten-fold and guarantee business security. To those who call software dirty GNU hippies, well I have four words for you:

LOOK WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Any application that forces the user to use anything more than 'tar xvf' to install it is improperly designed, from an experienced UNIX user's perspective. Huh? "tar" does not perform configuration changes, like adding entries to /etc/services or /etc/inetd.conf. "tar" does not perform pre or post events to validate the install. Simple app's can be done via "tar" itself, but a lot of software is NOT a simple install. If I use the source from a "tar" image and then run "make install", you might be closer to being correct. I would certainly agree that one of the biggest problems in the Unix environment is the lack of a common installation format. Linux (RPM and Debian formats) BSD (Packages) Solaris (Packages) AIX (Installp) etc. Many have settled on RPM or combinations of the above, but RPM does not address the entire issue either. One thing is for sure, the answer is not "tar"

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[torinth]

It is a basic principle of dynamic libraries that versions and functionality changes between releases. Ever notice how many different versions of Microsoft's DLLs you have on your Windows box? That's no coincidence - Windows developers are forced to incorporate the version of the DLL that works with their application. Linux provides a far superior development model, allowing publishers to statically link the correct library into their binary. Mozilla does it; Oracle does it; why can't the rest of the vendors get a clue and do the same thing?

Ugh. Is this a troll? Am I missing something? Staticically linked libraries are not a 'far superior' development model. Seriously. If you want to use your system efficiently, you really don't want every application completely self-contained. That's a lot of redundancy, and thereofre, al ot of waste. Not to mention the distribution of bug fixes. Linux or Windows, it's much nicer if I can download/build a new .so or .dll to fix a problem in a library used in a number of applications, without having to rebuild every single one.

If you want everything self-contained, then throw yourself back to some single-tasked OS from the 70's. If you want to take advantage of modern advances in application and systems design, you're just going to have to get "used to" the idea of some standard that applications can conform to. This could be the LSB or a guide from the OS vendor to which an application is tailored, but you have to have something. Otherwise, your wasting alot of (system/manpower) resources maintaining n-hundred copies of the same statically-linked library distributed throughout your system.

Welcome to the world of modern software. Have a nice day.

-Andrew

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[2g3-598hX]

DLL hell is not caused by general dynamic linking but rather Microsoft's specific (bogus) implementation of it (COM). Apparently .NET will solve this, the DLL version info is just going to be in one place...

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Junta]

I would say this is more flamebait, but anyway....

I would say commercial software companies understand dynamic linking fine, they are not idiots (at least my company isn't). There is nothing about the windows architecture that forces *anything* to be in a .dll file, just like linux doesn't require anything to be in a .so file. The difference is not one of architecture, both are equally well suited for dynamic linking. The difference is in the way licensing tends to work, convenience, and update ability. Companies in the windows world frequently license the use of a third party component, but they never exchange a line of source code, but instead only get API documentation and necessary .dlls. The agreement often also stipulates that redistribution is *only* permitted in the form of a dll. Also, when it comes to updates, it is easier to update individual dlls bandwidth wise than a whole application. You see linux binaries that are dynamically linked to let users try their luck with .sos too, in most cases.

- Commercial companies can understand the filesystem fine, but that doesn't mean they like it. The typical installation strategy of putting binaries, libraries, headers, and documentation in standard, shared places can make it easier on CLI users, but makes support and integratin testing/implementation a nightmare. Companies want maximum control over the install process and want to keep things in a separate directory not because they don't "get it", but because they can only test a finite number of combinations, and the more the user deviates from those tested configurations, the more potential conflicts/bugs could be exposed by exotic configurations. If their product just happens to use the same filename as another product, and the user in trying to install erases the other applications file, will get upset with the second company. Same goes with relocation and such. Many commercial Unix apps never require access outside of ~, but some do, but same goes for a few open source projects.

- That whole last paragraph smelled of pure FUD. Quite frankly I don't see much the point of UnitedLinux, but I don't think they are doing this, if for no other reason then they *know* they lack the market presence to pull it off. As mentioned in the story, Linux distributions are not the same as the Unix vendor differences, and UnitedLinux seeks to solve a largely non-existant problem.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

de beers and opec are legal cartels, in the US they would be illegal, but since they are not, it doesnt matter.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[ceswiedler]

Dynamic linking is bad, and we should all go back to static linking? Well, why don't we get rid of this whole "networked computers" thing and go back to timeshared servers?

Dynamic linking has its problems, but the answer isn't "statically link everything". There should (and can) be a clear separation between changing the interface of a dynamic library and changing its underlying implementation. All of my applications which use zlib should benefit from upgrading the shared library to fix bugs.

Microsoft has tried to answer this with COM, where COM objects have interfaces which never change and instead create a new "version" of the interface if it needs to be updated. It's no panacea but it's the right idea.

The problem is that programming is hard. There's no quick solution that will fix all of these problems, and we don't need to go back to static linking either. Developers need the discipline to use the techniques which answer the problems effectively. And there is no way you can convince me that open source developers have more discipline in that area than proprietary developers.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[MagPulse]

"Linux provides a far superior development model, allowing publishers to statically link the correct library into their binary."

Statically linking all your libraries is not a solution to DLL hell.

• Instead of DLLs lying around you now have large binaries.
• Programs can't share code like they can with DLLs and SOs. In Windows, the code to display and operate a button can be loaded once in memory and used by many different programs. Statically linked programs need their own copies.
• Static linking is a matter of having the source, not using Linux.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[cjpez]

Or, if you've thought things through, you'll be using something like Encap or GNU Stow, in which case you will be installing into one directory.

Seriously, try it out. It's absolutely wonderful. By far the best way I've found to keep your system from accumulating too much cruft (well, it won't stop the accumulation, but it will make it trivially easy to get rid of later). I've only used Encap, but it's way way cool. When you compile a program, use "--prefix=/usr/local/encap/program-1.0" with the configure script, and then you'll have /usr/local/encap/program-1.0/bin, /usr/local/encap/program-1.0/share, etc . . . Then you run "epkg -i program" and it'll install all the symlinks correctly into /usr/local the way you'd expect. Then you can remove packages, upgrade, etc, etc, etc. Very fun.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[be-fan]

Is this a good thing? I think it's a stupid relic of the days when $PATH and $LD_LIBRARY_PATH were the best way people could come up with of taking individual software applications and importing them into a common environment. These days, a database mapping command and .so names to binaries and libraries that live in their own application directories would be a far cleaner solution. It could even be automatically managed by RPM or DPKG, with something like 'menu' on Debian.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[abe ferlman]

when a user installs an application on UNIX, he does not expect that application to install random files in arbitrary directories all over the filesystem. There is no registry in UNIX and no guarantee that the application won't be relocated to another system.

I wish that this were true, but "make install" typically writes to a lib directory, a bin directory, and runs ld to update the library directory listings. Thank goodness it's not a binary-only registry like windows has (ld.so.conf is pretty simple to grok once you know why it's there), but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

This, in fact, is the only reason I use rpms on my redhat boxen- it's a lot easier to uninstall a package than a tarball that has had "make install" run because the package management software keeps track of where all the files were installed for you.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got the love the headline: "Mandrake is too cool for UnitedLinux,"

Did anyonse seriously think that Mandrake would join an alliance of companies against RedHat? Mandrake is, by any definition, a parasite. It takes all of the hard work done by RedHat on the infrastructure, and changes it in small ways to produce their distro. They track changes in the base redhat distro very carefully -- don't believe me? Take a look for yourself.

I suppose I havs to give them credit for having the cheek to portray this as being cool... when really they have no choice.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[RealisticWeb.com]

Ever notice how many different versions of Microsoft's DLLs you have on your Windows box? That's no coincidence - Windows developers are forced to incorporate the version of the DLL that works with their application.

<disclamer>Before I start talking I want to say that I don't know a whole lot about libraries so there might be things I don't understand. If so someone please enlighten me.</disclamer>

What you said above is exactly what I have been thinking was a strength of Windows! Almost every single time I try to install an X-based program it chokes because I'm missing some library or another. In fact more than once I have tried to run a program and it says that I am missing a library that I already have! This is especially a problem with any audio/video software, and it's all because of staticly linked libraries. This never happens to me on a windows box! I do have a whole slew of other problems, but installing and running software is the last thing I have to worry about, because 99 percent of the time it "just works". Don't get me wrong, I'm hate M$ as much as the next geek, but I don't understand why the typical OSS method of library linking would be considered a strength.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Eminor]

It would be easier to code to something like UnitedLinux than support 5 or 6 different distributions. They'd rather just pick one (most just pick Redhat) and be done with it. They're just not willing to invest developer costs.

Compile for Red Hat.
Compile for Mandrake.
Compile for Slackware. .......

Good God it's such a bitch to make binaries for all target distros.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Fastball]

Statically linking is not a waste when you consider the cheapness and size of today's storage solutions. Unless you install everything under the sun, this is not a problem. Additionally, you get a performance increase with statically linked libraries. Dynamic linking might have been *the* way of life when storage capacities were in the tens or hundreds of MB, but by no means is it the only viable solution these days.

That said, you are probably right about the expediency of bug fixes through libraries. Still, when you consider the rapid pace of development of some projects, I think this isn't as much of an issue as you might think it is.

Worse than DLL or .so hell is RPM hell. I am sure all of you who have been exposed to this technological travesty agree. When a distribution's installation hinges on the installation of the Perl RPM, for example, you are virtually guaranteeing that you will break something and potentially assfuck your system if you remove or don't install the Perl package in favor of compiling from a tarball.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Zenki]

COM was probably the first/second attempt at controlling DLL versioning problems. When using COM it's possible to maintain versions of interfaces to a library, which is one of requirements of backwards compatibility. .NET just makes it a lot easier to author COM-ish components because a lot of the basic ground work is done in the background, such as reference counting and other stuff.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[fmaxwell]

Staticically linked libraries are not a 'far superior' development model. Seriously. If you want to use your system efficiently, you really don't want every application completely self-contained. That's a lot of redundancy, and thereofre, al ot of waste.

My last 80GB, 7,200rpm hard drive cost me $75 after rebates. Thus the redundency and waste arguments are just not relevent to most people. I'd much rather buy a larger hard disk than give up system stability.

Not to mention the distribution of bug fixes. Linux or Windows, it's much nicer if I can download/build a new .so or .dll to fix a problem in a library used in a number of applications, without having to rebuild every single one.

And what happens when the "new and improved" .dll does not work properly with an existing app? That's happened over and over in the Windows world. Suddenly CD burning stops and it turns out that something replaced one ASPI-related .dll with an older or newer version that is incompatible.

The entire concept of .dll files flies in the face of software regression testing. If the software that I deliver to you can be changed because you installed software from Adobe, Microsoft, or AOL (that replaced a shared .dll), what good was my testing?

Welcome to the world of modern software.

You act like "modern software" is somehow better than older software. In fact, the number of bugs that exist in the typical business application dwarfs its equivalent from a decade ago.

But all of that aside, the shared .dll concept is like disk compression software -- an answer to a problem (expensive, limited disk storage) that no longer exists.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, .so's already do all of this. However, many developers do not use the provided mechanisms!

You can give your .so a major & a minor version. You can upgrade the minor number when a change is made that does not break the API. When you break the API, you should incremement the major number.

Applications can be linked against any version, any major version, or a specific major & minor version. Look ma, shared object versioning!

If developers would learn to use the provided tools correctly, we wouldn't see even a fraction of the "binary compatibility" or ".so hell" that so many people complain about.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Statically linking is not a waste when you consider the cheapness and size of today's storage solutions.

Static linking increases disk usage, load time, and RAM usage. Large drives address only the first point.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[hey!]

In the windows world, the issue is trust.

Do you trust the providers of the DLL to only to provide updates that are strictly compatible with the version you installed on the user's machine?

Do you trust the other software vendors to do the right thing when writing their installers?

You balance off your feelings of unease with the performance cost of providing a copy of the DLL in your application directory or statically linking such functions as you need.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[captaineo]

Very, very good points, especially about regression testing. Most software companies have enough trouble verifying that their own code works correctly; it gets worse when third-party dll developers can make changes at their whim...

Binary software vendors have been doing a better job of not breaking DLL interfaces. It comes out of necessity - you can't just ask each of your customers to recompile a whole bunch of things every time you make a change (like some open-source library developers have been known to do =).

Consider the *immense* lengths that Microsoft has gone to in order to avoid breaking user32.dll and msvcrt.dll after umpteen different changes. (e.g. according to Joel Spolsky/Joelonsoftware.com, MS kept a bug in malloc/free just so that SimCity would continue to run on Windows 95).

I do see a certain advantage to DLLs however - cache footprint. It is better to have one shared copy of a "hot" function like malloc() than many statically-linked copies... But this is a really small concern.

Keep in mind that even if all executables are 100% statically linked, they still depend on a stable kernel syscall interface. The Linux kernel developers have been pretty good about binary API stability over the years, but there have been occasional breakages. (e.g. changing the layout of files in /proc)

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[torinth]

The entire concept of .dll files flies in the face of software regression testing. If the software that I deliver to you can be changed because you installed software from Adobe, Microsoft, or AOL (that replaced a shared .dll), what good was my testing?

Dude. The entire concept of Open Source Software flies in the face of regression testing. If the software that I deliver to you can be changed because your workstation admin thinks he knows how to better implement by algorhithm, what good was my testing? You have to understand that regression can only guarantee software in a clean-room environment. Only closed-source, one-file applications could be safe from this. But that limitation really raises the bar for what needs to be done to release a (security, performance, or bug) fix, and makes it much less likely to be done.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the very kernel that your software is running on is not under your control either. What good was your testing when a user upgrades from kernel 2.1.1.23.123.123 to 2.1.1.23.123.124? Apparently nothing... Oh yeah, that's right, you trust that the kernel developers won't break documented features that they expose - the same is true with library developers: a library developer can be trusted to not break functionality between minor versions. A good one anyway.

This is why you don't have to rebuild every windows application that uses MFC 6.0 or above. Features can be added, undocumented/unsupported features can be removed, and internal implementations can change and it shouldn't affect your app - As long as your application doesn't use any features that weren't documented/supported.

You act like "modern software" is somehow better than older software. In fact, the number of bugs that exist in the typical business application dwarfs its equivalent from a decade ago.

Yeah. Office 2000 and Photoshop 6.0 crash on me all the time. Buggy as hell. You're right.

-Andrew

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[fmaxwell]

Dude. The entire concept of Open Source Software flies in the face of regression testing.

If a firm develops an open-source app and regression tests it, I can trust it. If I change it, then all bets are off. But the goal of United Linux is to make the Linux platform appealing to application developers, including commercial, closed source applications. When you play swap-the-dll on them, you make support more difficult and expensive.

Oh yeah, that's right, you trust that the kernel developers won't break documented features that they expose - the same is true with library developers: a library developer can be trusted to not break functionality between minor versions. A good one anyway.

You may trust them, but I've seen enough problems to know that I want as much control of my app as possible. If I test it with whatever.dll version 6.3.1.4, then I want 6.3.1.4 on the system, not some version that someone thought would work better.

Yeah. Office 2000 and Photoshop 6.0 crash on me all the time. Buggy as hell. You're right.

Well, if you aren't aware of the bugs and if they don't result in a complete crash, then they don't exist, right? Try going to the Microsoft Knowledge Base for, say, Word 2000 and searching for the phrase "Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem". The search maxes out at 150 results. God (and Bill) only knows how many bugs really exist.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Tepic]

Statically linking is not a waste when you consider the cheapness and size of today's storage solutions.

This is so easy to say when you have money.

Additionally, you get a performance increase with statically linked libraries

If you were to only ever run one program you would get a performance increase. But say you decided to statically link glibc into all your programs. Every time you run a program you have to load the copy of glibc statically linked into your program from disk, instead of just using the dynamic version that has already been loaded into memory. Reading from disk when loading a program degrades performance (far more than dynamically resolving libraries, as far as I can see).

That said, you are probably right about the expediency of bug fixes through libraries. Still, when you consider the rapid pace of development of some projects, I think this isn't as much of an issue as you might think it is.

Wouldn't it exacerbate the issue? With a faster development of projects more libraries would get updated more often and more packages would need to be downloaded.

Furthermore bandwidth is not nearly as widely available or cheap as storage. Have you seen the dependancy list for a library like glibc or zlib? Can you imagine having to re-download large parts of, or your entire distro whenever these get a critical security or bug fix? All that updating of programs with statically compiled libs will bulk up the packages a 'little' too.

When a distribution's installation hinges on the installation of the Perl RPM, for example, you are virtually guaranteeing that you will break something and potentially assfuck your system if you remove or don't install the Perl package in favor of compiling from a tarball.

Possible solution: Can't you install the new version of perl you want to a different path/prefix and make sure that these appear before any standard paths in the environments you want to use this version of perl?

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Tepic]

Almost every single time I try to install an X-based program it chokes because I'm missing some library or another. In fact more than once I have tried to run a program and it says that I am missing a library that I already have!

I think this is a distribution problem rather than a problem intrinsic to dynamicaly linked executables.

Its also one of the reasons I run debian (the new 'versions' - not the last official stable release). If you're running an RPM based distro and if apt-rpm is anything near as good as what I've seen on debian then try that - you'll never look back. If you're running Mandrake I think you should already have an equivalent in urpmi. Any troubles you have are then down to Mandrake's packaging.

This is especially a problem with any audio/video software, and it's all because of staticly linked libraries.

I think you mean 'dynamically linked libraries'. Dynamically linked libraries are where the library is in a seperate file to the program. This is the normal method in both Windows and Linux (and I assume most other Unices).

Statically linked libraries are where the library is included in the program.

I'm hate M$ as much as the next geek

LOL. How much is that and who is the next geek?

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Dehumanizer]

This is not a troll. It's a very well written post. Who the hell moderated it?

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Dehumanizer]

"Parasite"? You have heard of the GPL or other free software licenses, right? What the're for?

Both can use code from each other. And there are lots of contributions from Red Hat *and* Mandrake in software like the Linux kernel.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[2g3-598hX]

Can someone explain to me how this is a troll? I'm merely stating a fact...I mean maybe a bit offtopic...but a troll? Anyhow...I think /. moderation should be transparent like Kuro5hin

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

RAM is cheap, and hard drives are getting FASTER as they get bigger. Maybe not in a linear relationship, but still... modern hardware does address all three of those points.

Not that I'm suggesting everyone should do this - everyone has the option of optimising their system the way they would prefer. The beauty of having the code. People who have the RAM and disk space, and care about their software running uninterrupted after an upgrade, can statically link things themselves.

However, for software for which I did NOT receive the code, I actually think I'd prefer a statically linked file - I don't want to keep the shitty versions of random libraries that the original developers felt they liked the look of... if they statically link their product, I can ALWAYS run it (within reason...) regardless of how often I update any libraries I keep.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible solution: Can't you install the new version of perl you want to a different path/prefix and make sure that these appear before any standard paths in the environments you want to use this version of perl?

I think many professional UNIX admins take this approach...
It seems excellent to me... now let's get it implemented in a package system =P
(please post links to the original wheel, if there is one)

I feel I have to plug FreeBSD's ports system too... it's amazing.

"Hmm, I would like Apache installed"
cd /usr/ports/www/apache13
make install

Sorry, this version of apache has a security issue, and I wont let you install it.

Hmm... better update the ports tree...
cvsup ~/ports -h cvsup2.freebsd.org
make install

I need these various packages to compile apache, but never you mind, I'll handle all that... aaaaaaaand done.

SUH-WEET!

I just don't know if it could ever work under Linux... there's only ONE FreeBSD.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[HiThere]

The real argument for static linking is simple. If you use static linking your program is more likely to run after system updates. There are other answers, but they are a bit less reliable.

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[JonK]

It should in fact have been modded Wrong, and displays both completely muddleheaded thinking and lack of understanding, but since that's not an option, Troll has to do...

Love, your friendly local pedant -- Jon

Re:Why Mandrake is right

[2g3-598hX]

Yeah well you obviously know so much about the pros and cons of dynamic linking vs static linking ...

You think that parroting "everything in linux is good and everything msoft does is bad" makes people believe you are a real hacker...

Grow up, slashdot weenie...

Grrr!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "UNDER GNU/LINUS", dammmittt!!!

GRR!!

--RMS

Re:Grrr!!

[IXI]

GNU is not the god, RMS is. And Linus is only the kernel god. So it must read: one OS, indivisible, under RMS -- which is the same as the absolute value of the OS (SQRT(OS*OS) = |OS|)

They dont need it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandrake is one of the most widely used releases of Linux next to Red Hat. It would be a huge boost to United Linux if they joined, but it would not to much for Mandrake. It could even hurt them by losing followers that are not interested in UL.

"best distro"?

[vogon jeltz]

"I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar ;)"
Well Taco, it might just happen that United Linux fits your needs perfectly then: http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2002/25/

Re:"best distro"?

[ImaLamer]

Wouldn't it be nice if Taco just posted the first reply put it at +5, locked it, and didn't throw his opinion in the mix?

Re:Post mdoerated +1 Flaimbait

[killmenow]

And some of us prefer .tar.gz <grin>

Re:Post mdoerated +1 Flaimbait

[flokemon]

Tsk, and how would we get arguments about the best distro if one day everything came under a United Linux?
Go on, admit you would miss the flame wars :)

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it's pretty damn easy to find comparisons between pretty much anything, and tossing out a half dozen of them doesn't make your implied statement true.

It's nice though how you politely neglected the differences between terrorism and linux.

Hell, someone could easily toss up six comparisons between Microsoft and cruel dictators.

UnitedLinux would stifle innovation

[fishlet]

I think that Mandrake tends to be an early adopter of new features... more so than other more conservative distro's like Red Hat. Whether that's a good thing or not is a whole other discussion- I personally think it's great. Mandrake was (one-of) the first to use a graphical installer, journaling file systems, etc. I imagine being part of a coalition like 'UnitedLinux' would entail restrictions as to what they can and cannot do. I'm glad that Mandrake has decided to continue choosing their own path.

Re:UnitedLinux would stifle innovation

[HiThere]

This is the wrong end of a very important point. The different distributions tend to be experimental in different areas. Mandrake pushes GUI tools. Red Had pushed compiler development (who released gcc 2.96?) TurboLinux pushes Oriental languages. etc. (I don't know SuSE well enough to comment on what they push, and why slap Caldera?)

This is an extreme oversimplification of course. E.g., Red Hat pushed Gnome development, and Mandrake pushed KDE. Etc.

And every distribution that has existed has pushed some special element. The main reason for expecting UL to stiffle innovation is the presence of Mr. Love. It's a pretty good reason, but not totally convincing. Perhaps we should wait to decide. Don't forget, there are plenty of Linux distributions that are just not heard from, so if UL takes out a couple, there are others waiting in the wings to take their place.

In a way, the most important single distribution is Debian. Not because of technical achievements, but because they are trying hardest to "do things right". They act as a conscience to the rest of the community in a way that would be harder to replace than a commercial endeavor. We may not always agree with them, but they fill a possibly vital role. Certainly a role that shapes the character of the rest of the community.

UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[FreeUser]

Best distro eh? Thats just *begging* to begin a flame war!

Well, yes, considering the best distros can be found here and here.

Personally I like the idea of United Linux. There's no reason that all Linux venders can't use the same base for rpm compatibility, etc. It'll hapen one way or another. Do you want one company to control the standards, or a shared effort?

I think the idea of UL is horribly flawed (and rather arrogant on its part), and the underlying premise of your reasoning for supporting UL equally flawed.

It isn't necessary to have One True packaging scheme, or One True distro to which all must maintain binary compatability, in order to effectively release binaries.

It has already been demonstrated by the folks at Blender, VMWare, Id, Loki, and others that it is quite possible to release binaries that are distribution agnostic. These real world examples, all of which install and run just fine on my Source Mage and Gentoo boxes, as well as my Debian, Mandrake, and Suse boxes, exist despite naysayers saying it isn't possible, and claiming that UL, or UL+Red Hat, bring a much needed cohesion to GNU/Linux.

Nonsense. It is an effort to impose a proprietary embrace-and-extended standard on a community that is doing just fine with consensual standards where they make sense, and a wide open, free and fair marktetplace that encourages choice everywhere else.

Telling commercial vendors that they should package their wares up as RPMs aimed at one (or two) distributions, when it is quite possible, and vastly more desirable, to package them up in standard tar.bz2 or tar.gz format along with a README listing the required libraries+versions, as well as a statically linked "last resort" fallback binary in parallel with the dynamically linked binary and thereby make them compatible with almost every distribution out there, is a terrible disservice to both the Linux community at large, and the vendors themselves who are being misled and excluding a big chunk of their target market.

This nonsense only serves the interests of the purveyors of UL, at the expense of virtually everyone else, and at the cost of our freedom of choice as GNU/Linux users. There is IMHO absolutely nothing good about this whatsoever, regardless of what your favorite distro happens to be, and even though I am not a Mandrake fan per se, I applaud them for their courage in standing up to this nonsense.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[Marx_Mrvelous]

While your rhetoric sounds nice to a well-educated linux guru, it hold one major flaw: it assumes all Linux users know how to download, compile, and install all their own software.

Personally I run Slackware and compile almost everything I use. However, in a family of 5 that owns 4 computers, I'm the only know who even has a clue, or who wants to have a clue. So yous claims that packaging everything as .tar as being "vastly more desireable" ignores the fact that most people can't use sofwtare in that format.

You seem to be from the camp that says "If you're too stupid to use Linux, then don't bother." I'm from the camp that says "Linux is good for everyone if efforts aer made to bring it to the general public." That's the difference of opinion, it seems to me.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling commercial vendors that they should package their wares up as RPMs aimed at one (or two) distributions, when it is quite possible, and vastly more desirable, to package them up in standard tar.bz2 or tar.gz format along with a README listing the required libraries+versions, as well as a statically linked "last resort" fallback binary in parallel with the dynamically linked binary and thereby make them compatible with almost every distribution out there, is a terrible disservice to both the Linux community at large, and the vendors themselves who are being misled and excluding a big chunk of their target market.


and they say Linux will never reach the computer illerate masses. bah!

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[Anonymous Coward]

Vendors: Lack of 100% Binary Compatibility is a problem with Linux

Community: No it isn't. Binaries run fine!

Vendors: Not for anything non trivial they don't. Lack of 100% Binary Compatibility is a problem with Linux.

Community: You should package with tarballs!

Vendors: That doesn't solve the lack of 100% Binary Compatibility problem.

Community: Just statically link!

Vendors: Then we get 100MB bloated binaries that you guys complain about. Lack of 100% Binary Compatibility is a problem with Linux

Community: I don't have binary compatibility problems because I build my Linux install from source code!!! Gentoo R0CK3RZ!

Vendors: Ummm. OK. Time to step away slowly.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[FreeUser]

While your rhetoric sounds nice to a well-educated linux guru, it hold one major flaw: it assumes all Linux users know how to download, compile, and install all their own software.

That simply isn't true. It assumes the Distribution Creators know how to untar a tarball and install it into their own distribution.

There is nothing preventing Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, et. al. from creating their own RPM/deb wrapper utility that will take a binary tarball and install it onto their respective distribution, perhaps even parsing the list of required libraries and versions and mapping it to their dependency resolution mechanisms anyway.

This is a far more reasonable and equitable approach to take than to tell vendors they should target one or two "preferred" distros and leave everyone else groping on their own, denying people choice and undermining the diversity of the community in the process.

You make grand assumptions about where people are coming from without any reasonable or logical basis for doing so, and extrapolate from that (example: I am in the "GNU/Linux should be for everybody camp", but that doesn't imply what you erroneously think it does), but those underlying assumptions are as false as those being promoted by the likes of United Linux, and the conclusions thereby just as erroneous.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[spongebobsquarepants]

>and even though I am not a Mandrake fan per se, I applaud them for their courage in standing up to this nonsense.

You are applauding them for their efforts to be charlatans of the community!
They stand up only when they think it might cost them a buck or two.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[microsoft.CLIT]

I don't see why you guys want to use lunix anyways. microsoft has been the standard for 20 years now. A superior product means you get more market share. hence redhat of all the linuxi has the most market share. Of course it's still a pathetic product compared to Windows, but thats another matter.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[Anonymous Coward]

moderate this up. Very true..

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[reflective recursion]

There is nothing preventing Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, et. al. from creating their own RPM/deb wrapper utility that will take a binary tarball and install it onto their respective distribution, perhaps even parsing the list of required libraries and versions and mapping it to their dependency resolution mechanisms anyway.

From a technical standpoint _and_ a business standpoint, there is everything standing in the way of "package once, use everywhere." Those "tarballs" you speak of have no guarantee of information contained within them. The only information is basic directory structure and files contained within. You cannot simply wrap around a tar file and install it correctly. Some applications have very different needs and install very differently. You can't assume you can always do "./configure; make install" or similar. Perhaps the binary lives 2-3 directories deep. How would the tar wrapper get to it? So how would you get this perfect tar system? You would force _vendors_ to adhere to certain standards. The problem here is, Red Hat is in need of depedency control. They want to play the guy in the middle much like MS does. They are using RPM as a de facto standard for Linux. You can't simply make them give that up. Doesn't make good business sense. Even if there was this system, you would have to get Red Hat and other vendors to support it before application vendors would use it. Application vendors follow the lead of the controlling system(s). It makes good business sense to them.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[Anonymous Coward]

>It has already been demonstrated by the folks at Blender, VMWare, Id, Loki, and others that it is quite possible to release binaries that are distribution agnostic.

The point is: Redhat, Mandrake, SuSe, Turbo, Caldera etc are not doing it. Yet they are all using RPM, so their apps must be compatible, right? Give them a standard like LSB, are they going to do it, or just lip service?

Tell that to developers to support them all, build 6-7 sets of binaries everytime.

Many of you think that Gentoo is cool because you can optimize your compilation. I have tried over 50 packages, I have found only ONE package (bzip2) actually benefits from cpu specific optimization, none of them shows any improvement with non-cpu specific compiler flags whatsoever. If you want performance improvement, look for applications that support things MMX, 3Dnow.

The only edge that Gentoo over Debian is when downloading source resolves compilation dependencies (that issue is being addressed). Other than that you end up with all the development libraries installed and never really need.

Distributors works together towards a standard, for whatever reasons, is not flawed. Because, without it, they are not going to follow the LSB standard, not one bit.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[Isaac-Lew]

Nonsense. It is an effort to impose a proprietary embrace-and-extended standard on a community that is doing just fine with consensual standards where they make sense, and a wide open, free and fair marktetplace that encourages choice everywhere else.

If you're referring to the packaging system (which will most likely be rpm), I hope you realize that rpm *is* released under an open license -- the GPL.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[lmfr]

There's a nice program that spies on the make install and generates a RPM, Debian or Slackware package.

It's called checkinstall and is available here

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[IXI]

> There is nothing preventing Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, et. al. from creating their own RPM/deb wrapper utility that will take a binary tarball and install it onto their respective distribution, perhaps even parsing the list of required libraries and versions and mapping it to their dependency resolution mechanisms anyway. Parsing the dependencies from the readme? ROTLFBTC There is already a wrapper that will take an LSB (RPM, DEB, ...) package and install it into different distributions. So we are already a step further from your suggestion. And packaging in LSB (RPMv3) format just adds dependency information in a defined and machine readable format to a cpio archive. So this has no disatvantages over packaging with tar. > perhaps even parsing the list of required libraries and versions and mapping it to their dependency resolution mechanisms anyway.

Re:UL is a disservice to the GNU/Linux Community

[IXI]

Sh**, one time you forget to preview it's messed up. POT should be the default anyway.

> There is nothing preventing Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, et. al. from creating their own RPM/deb wrapper utility that will take a binary tarball and install it onto their respective distribution, perhaps even parsing the list of required libraries and versions and mapping it to their dependency resolution mechanisms anyway.

Parsing the dependencies from the readme? ROTLFBTC

There is already a wrapper that will take an LSB (RPM, DEB, ...) package and install it into different distributions. So we are already a step further from your suggestion.

And packaging in LSB (RPMv3) format just adds dependency information in a defined and machine readable format to a cpio archive. So this has no disatvantages over packaging with tar. > perhaps even parsing the list of required libraries and versions and mapping it to their dependency resolution mechanisms anyway.

Best Distribution link?

[Kaypro]

Why is the link for "best distribution" linked to www.debian.org? I though Gentoo's site was www.gentoo.org?

Re:Best Distribution link?

[damiam]

It is. How is that relevent?

Re:Best Distribution link?

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot, he is referring to the point that in his opinion Gentoo is the best distro.

Re:Best Distribution link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, now I get it. Thanks!

Re:First of all....

[catch23]

Dude, of course slackware is better than debian or redhat! I mean, slackware is already at 8.1 whereas debian is still 3.0 and redhat is still stuck at 7.3. Isn't it obvious from the version numbers that debian is stuck in the ice ages and slackware is newest and greatest thing currently available?

UnitedLinux is not the solution

[bigjocker]

We Linux users know there is a problem with the current linux distributions. It's not only an interoperability problem, but a core one. We have came to a point where we knew we were going to get to, but we haven't tought of a solution because we were making linux ready for the mainstream. Now is the time to solve this, UnitedLinux is a start, but, as many of you, I dont like the approach they took.

We all know all the problems with RPM based distros, compatibility between them breaks a lot, and, even if you should have only one RPM for any distro, when we go to download an application we get a RH6.X.rpm, RH7.rpm, MDK8.rpm, MKD8.1.rpm, etc ...

I'm a Mandrake user, and I love it, but I have seen apt-get working, and I'm really impressed. I think apt-get is the right direction for a real package management tool for all distros. This is the direction package managment under Linux should be taking, and not creating commercial standards without atacking the core of the problem nor creating apt-like solutions or apt-like-frontends for rpm based solutions.

Conclution: LSB + apt-get should be mandatory to be able to call anything a Linux distribution. I know a lot of us would kill for apt-get to be the default package manager in all distributions.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Seanasy]

There's an RPM version of apt-get at freshrpms.net. It's for Redhat but I don't see why it wouldn't work for Mandrake.

I don't think apt-get will solve the problem of different RPMs for different distros.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[bigjocker]

There's an RPM version of apt-get at freshrpms.net [freshrpms.net]. It's for Redhat but I don't see why it wouldn't work for Mandrake.

That's exactly what we shouldn't be doing. Is the RPM package/dependencies list available to the apt packages? is the apt packages list availabe to RPM? Do they use the same notations? Ah, I see, making a RPM version of apt-get solves the problem, because we need more front-ends that hide a poor designed system.

We need to stop for a second and rethink a lot of things, and among them is package distribution for linux. No matter which distribution we use or we make, this is a issue that is comming back to us right now, and if we don't do anything it will get a lot worse in the future.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[tunah]

LSB + apt-get should be mandatory to be able to call anything a Linux distribution.

What about a distro with no package management? Are they going to be forced to install an unused apt-get? What about gentoo? I prefer portage to apt. What about when I want to write a better package manager tomorrow? It can't get it's foot in the door because apt is standardised. What about...

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[rdieter]

We all know all the problems with RPM based distros, compatibility between them breaks a lot...

...

LSB + apt-get should be mandatory to be able to call anything a Linux distribution

FYI, apt-get sits on TOP of rpm (or dpkg in debian's case), handling automatic dependancy resolution and downloading of packages. apt-get does not solve or address your issues with rpm.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Strog]

Have you tried urpmi on your Mandrake box?

It's the backend for the graphical software manager. Automatically downloads dependancies etc. similar to apt-get(I said similar, not like apt-get). I like typing partial package names and it will give you a list of all matches, versions, etc. Works fine out of the box but you really need to add mirrors for updates and cooker if you want to really work well.

Urpmi has had some teething problems in the past but works well now on my systems. Anyone working with it on the 8.0 PPC release will know what I'm talking about. The issues basically convinced me to run the development version (cooker) on this iMac until the bugs were worked out. Worked much better when I got the latest wget. Curl didn't really help the issues for me. The last couple releases have worked flawlessly for me. That has me looking for problems that may or may not be there. YMMV

I'm not knocking apt-get. I've used it and thinks it works great. I also like the package management in FreeBSD too. I think more Distos/OSes can look at what's been done and follow these examples.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[d_i_r_t_y]

> I'm a Mandrake user, and I love it, but I have seen apt-get working, and I'm really impressed. I think
> apt-get is the right direction for a real package management tool for all distros.

in principle, i agree, but as a mandrake user, have you ever tried using urpmi? there is virtually no difference between it and apt-get (you can't upgrade an entire dist reliably with urpmi.. but then i have seen some apt-gel dist upgrades fail as well...).

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you don't know what APT is.... Apt is a Dependency resolver.. That's it.. on a Debian system apt resolves dependencies for what you are wanting to install/upgrade/remove and then downloads appropriate packages and then runs the debian package manabger dpkg.. dpkg is completely anagolis to the rpm program.. apt-get IS the front end. and there are several other dependency resolvers available as well, Ximians Red-Carpet, RH's up2date, Mandrakes, urpmi, and rpmfind.. The issue with compiling programs in a package for multiple distros is that they do dependiencies differently.. for example... Redhat packages a library as libpng where as Mandrake packages it as libpng1. putting the major revision number as part of the package name.. Also the reason for a RH 6.x and a RH7.x release of RPMS is that they are built on different version of GNU C.. which alot of the time you CAN'T run binaries on a newer version of glibc on an older versoin (ie glibc 2.3 on glibc 2.0) so you HAVE to have the programs compiled differently...
Even Loki with there unified loki setup program for installing games had several compiled binaries for the game.. compiled with different versions of glibc and having static compiled binaries and dynamic compiled binaries..

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Lumpy]

the biggest problem is NOT rpm.. it's software developers trying to use a package manager as an installer which is VERY wrong.

you dont try and use windows-update to install photoshop, so why the hell are linux programmers doing the same? There is an excellent installer package available to all and is top notch... It's from loki, and doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out...

the other problem is the overwhelming desire by EVERY programmer to use incompatable and bleeding libs.. if you are writing an app for the masses, USE COMMON LIBS THAT ARE ON CURRENT DISTROS. you dont see apps sold for windows that use pre-pre alpha graphics libs that are being designed for the next windows release... so why do linux users have to suffer? developers that cant keep their hands out of the CVS for the libs installed on their machine either need to be slapped or forced to publically state that "My program XYZ WILL NOT WORK ON A STANDARD LINUX INSTALL... See my requirements list for why"

and a standard linux install is RH7.2,7.3 Mandrake 8.2 or whatever. just list it, take the time to be sure your users can actually compile your app. Or offer up a completely statically linked version... no worries about libs there...

Linux is ready for prime time.. now only if the app developers would start getting ready.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

"apt packages"? Apt-get is a front-end (in debian) for .debs and (if you install it on an RPM based distro) for .rpms. It's a lot like Red Carpet (from Ximian) in that sense - or urpmi from Mandrake.

You've fallen prey to the classic confusion between package formats and front-ends for installation. :)

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Nothinman]

1) RPM is already the standard package format for the LSB
2) Apt is a front end to the package manager, whatever you come up with will probably be usable with apt with a little tweaking.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[NitsujTPU]

apt-get...

apt-get is cool, but it has 1 problem. If you let apt solve your dependencies, you have the problem of breaking it when you start installing things from source. You also have the problem of breaking it when you install anything in a manner OTHER than apt. So if you run dselect, have it solve all of your dependencies, it's going to start screaming. Yeah, you can use apt without that, or force it, but then you just might break something else!

The mainstream solution? Ironically I think that MS probably has it right in some ways... Have installers that check for the .so's that you need so you don't check for the package. Then people like me who want to compile the kernel from source and an handful of other goodies don't get errors complaining about missing kernel packages.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[captaineo]

Yes, I'd say that RPM + automatic dependency downloader = APT. However, the important thing is that the developers of APT-based distributions traditionally pay a lot more attention to forward- and backward-compatibility than RPM-based distros.

As you pointed out, on Debian the major library version number is appended to the library name, e.g. libgnomeprint0. This is because the Debian people know that at some point in the future, the GNOME developers *will* break the libgnomeprint API. Then they will label the new package libgnomeprint1, and all your software continues to work. On Redhat it would still be named libgnomeprint, and you wouldn't be able to install the new version until all apps using the old version are fixed and recompiled...

Give APT to the Redhat folks, and before long you will end up in "APT hell," I guarantee it =).

glibc and gcc breakages are a separate issue. The developers of those packages need to be shot... I've read posts to the gcc mailing lists regarding libgcc that show most gcc developers haven't the faintest idea what "backwards compatibility" means.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[KeyserDK]

No I dont all know the problems with RPM based distro's.

As a mandrake user you should try urpmi/rpmdrake.

When does debian ppl understand that there is not only ONE apt-get and no one else is capable of making the same functionality for RPM dists?

I can perfectly follow the devel branch of mandrake (cooker), with daily updates with a tool similar too apt-get.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Mana Mana]

Let me state the obvious, but, that somehow gets past most folks. Donate to Debian, SPI: monies, equipment, bandwidth. I would urge monies, it's the most fungible commodity of all. The work of the developers is free, as well as gratis, but funding will help the day come sooner when the stable branch is filled with recent debs/packages. As is, the experienced folks run Testing, Unstable as a stop gap, but the crux of the issue is lack of resources. Fund the project. I do. A $20 check at least once every six months is my suggestion. If you're an OBSD user, you'll be used to the cycle of support on that OS. You contribute/pay not to get a CDROM, but to fund an effort. It's noble, baby.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[KeyserDK]

Not with mandrake, they are using the same naming conventions for packages just as debian.

so they are:
libX
-devel
-devel-static (is being done for 9.0)

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

do you know if that (apt-get for rpm) will work with firwalled proxies?

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Afrosheen]

Mandrake is aware of this problem and implemented urpmi to take care of it. Simply typing urpmi apache will solve dependencies and install apache for you. It's not apt-get but it's close in many respects.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

> apt-get is cool, but it has 1 problem. If you let apt solve your dependencies, you have the problem of breaking it when you start installing things from source.

The aptian solution is to install source packages, then build & install the resultant binary. Apt's happy, you were able to build from source, everyone wins.

Software that doesn't have a source package is another matter; building an .rpm or .deb source package is nontrivial, and probably more work than casual users want to do just to get s/w installed.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[LeBleu]

Yes, it will, as long as you set the environment variable or modify /etc/apt/apt.conf so it knows where your proxy is. I have used it at my current job through the squid proxy server here.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Ian Bicking]

you dont try and use windows-update to install photoshop, so why the hell are linux programmers doing the same?

Adobe doesn't have access to windows-update. If you could install or update all your Windows software as easily as windows-update allows, that would be a tremendous feature. It can't happen, because MS charges all sorts of tolls, and the proprietary model makes cooperation very difficult.

Centralized package management is great. I have 1400 packages installed on my system. A lot of them are libraries, and a lot of them are only required as dependencies, but even if only a hundred of them are real pieces of software, that's still way too many for an interactive installer to work.

Windows gets by because proprietary applications tend to be designed in a monolithic way. Each application has much more functionality (so you need fewer applications) and they don't depend or interact with each other very much (so dependency management isn't that important). And Windows installers still suck, because each installer is ad hoc.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

ok smartypants... why doesnt adobe just release photoshop as a tarball? oh wait zip file...

then the user can just unzip it in place and then move the icon to the desktop..

Oh wait, because they WANT USERS TO BUY AND USE THEIR APP! so they make it easy, colorful, even drool-happy clickvert turds get grinny with watching nice progress bars... and it NEVER asks, "FAIL: you need to install buttheadlib3.17preAlpha1 .. .failed dependancy you dipshit..."

noo, it HAS on the CD EVERY lib it needs, and if it dont find it it INSTALLS IT! or better yet, is STATICALLY COMPILED TO AVOID LIB NIGHTMARES.

this is linux's only problem, moron programmers.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[nusuth]

And Windows installers still suck, because each installer is ad hoc.

Huh? I find installers for windows programs excellent as they do what they are supposed to do every single time. I don't recall a single instance of a windows installer failing. OTOH the best linux installer I used so far is emerge, and I had 4 serious problems with it in just 3 weeks. Second best linux installer (urpmi) was really horrible. Either you use a very good linux installer, or you use very strong stuff to get high o have such a twisted view of linux vs. windows installers. Which one is it?

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[Ian Bicking]

Windows installers (generally) work, but they don't leave you knowing what they've done. You can't find out who a file belongs to, for instance. And have you ever noticed how, on uninstall, you always get messages about unused DLLs? Windows ought to simply know that the DLL is unused... but it can't, because of the adhoc install system.

Serious problems occur in Windows too, especially if you don't use the normal defaults. There's lots of variables in Windows that are kept in the registry, but are almost always the same. E.g., Windows is kept in C:\Windows. If you mess with these, it is not uncommon that installers will break.

I admit RPM-based packaging isn't great -- the package information isn't quite right (e.g., file depends), and of course there are simply bad packages (which happen in Windows too, but you are just less likely to install alpha software on Windows).

Debian, however, works like a dream. RPM-based distros have been improving, so there's hope for them too. Though they are unlikely to ever achieve the culture that Debian has, and the strong policies Debian uses, coupled with the inclusive nature of the development process.

Re:UnitedLinux is not the solution

[nusuth]

You have good points but you are mistaken about assumed defaults. I do mess with defaults (following your example f: is my only windows drive) and windows installers still doesn't break. That is not to say all programs install nicely (eg. Soar) but those broken "installers" are always executable archives rather than installers proper.

I never used debian. I keep hearing apt-get is very good but I'm likely to stick with a source based distro after being spoiled with gentoo :)

Re:LINK CORRECTION

[zdzichu]

first think I thought about when I saw that wrong link. :-]

they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[johnjones]

yeah great they did an installer and learnt how to compile src rpm's to what they like but I have yet to see them actually upgrade anything before redhat has put its fix's in

e.g. lets see them actually use gcc3.1 before redhat

regards

john jones

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[srw]

I haven't used Mandrake for a few years now, but back in the 6.x days, they were using pgcc (Pentium optimized compiler, ~30% speed improvement over stock gcc at the time) and did a lot of work on ironing out problems compiling things with pgcc vs. gcc. That seemed pretty important at the time. Of course, my few remaining Mandrake 6 boxes have a hard time compiling anything current now...

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[LinuxGeek8]

yeah great
lets see them actually use gcc3.1 before redhat

Nice flamebait.
They are already using gcc 3.1 in Mandrake Cooker, their development distro.
They built everything with it short after the release of 8.2. They tried before, with Mandrake's rpm-rebuilder robot, but a lot of software didn't build with gcc 3.0 then.
With gcc 3.1 and 3.1.1 things look better.

They were the first with devfs in mdk 8.0 I believe, allthough that might have been a bit early.
They were the second distro to use apt-get (after Connectiva), but they switched to their own tool, urpmi, which is working rather good nowadays (apt-get for rpm isn't perfect yet too, you know).
So all in all, it seems to me you put out a rather cheap flamebait; you mostly lack the right information.

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[xonker]

lets see them actually use gcc3.1 before redhat

Yeah... Hell, Red Hat goes to new versions of GCC before the GCC folks even say they're ready, that's really something to be desired...

If you must play on the bleeding edge, you can always roll your own packages. I tend to prefer older, tested and more stable releases. I'm happy to use an older version of GCC or any other software that's less likely to have issues than jump to the new version just because. If you absolutely have to have a new feature, you can always grab it - but I don't think it justifies fobbing off beta stuff on paying customers.

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[Hamshrew]

Not quite the MOST current, but close enough. They sometimes mask out packages that interfere with important stuff, and Portage broke a while back.

That said, Gentoo is still my favorite distro.

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets actually see a Red hat user make use of a compiler.

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[Tepic]

e.g. lets see them actually use gcc3.1 before redhat

Why are you asking (taunting?) them to duplicate work, and waste time and money?

Whats wrong with using someone elses work in this context? I think it should be encouraged.

Re:they dont hack libc libm or anything important

[Eil]

e.g. lets see them actually use gcc3.1 before redhat

You troll. Because gcc > 2.95 is simply broken.

Re:LINK CORRECTION

[Rieger]

I'll just stick to the best distribution [debian.org] and watch the fun from afar

should be

I'll just stick to the best distribution [slackware.com] and watch the fun from afar

should be

I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar

Re:LINK CORRECTION

[swagr]

I almost agree, except Gentoo isn't really a "distro" so much as a set of tools to create a distro.

So you could say "Rieger-Linux", built by portage, based on the Gentoo Linux core, is the best distro.

After all, I could use the tools included in Slackware (gcc, vim, the source packages, etc) to make a new distro, but that wouldn't make it Slackware.

More Links and More Opinions ;-)

[FreeUser]

LINK CORRECTION ... [debian.org] ... should be ... [slackware.com]

heh!

But of course, that should actually read:

I'll just stick to the best distributions and watch the fun from afar

[grin]

Seriously, though, it is this choice that allows you to use and enjoy slackware, and me to use and enjoy Source Mage and Gentoo, others to use and enjoy Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, and so on, that makes the GNU/Linux community, and the Free Software community in general, so dynamic and so productive.

It is this choice the efforts like UL are trying to undermine, by promoting the myth that commercial and proprietary software vendors should (or need to) package their wares up for one or two reference distributions, rather than packaging them up in a distribution-agnostic manner as Blender, VMWare, Id, and Loki have done. This myth may serve the interests of the distribution promoters in question (in this case, UL), but it is a disservice to the GNU/Linux community as a whole by creating unneeded incompatabilities with other distributions and excercizing some degree of coercion for people to adopt the reference distribution instead. What is more, as other binary releases have proven, it is absolutly unnecessary.

It behooves us all, slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake, and Source Mage enthusiasts alike, to stand up and make sure the word gets out to commercial vendors that they can, and should, package their software in a distribution-agnostic manner so that they can target their entire marketplace, and not just a portion thereof, by packaging their software in standard tarballs, documenting precisely which versions of which dynamically linked libraries their software requires, and providing a statically linked binary-of-last-resort in parallel that will run regardless (this is important as distros mature and the old version of the software remains desirable anyway, so it not only allows any distro access to the software, it also provides insurance that the software will run on most any GNU/Linux distro 5 years hence, or even longer, long after the state of the art has moved a great deal further along).

Re:First of all....

[dmarien]

I dont normally reply to this, but here goes.

first, imma go by lisitng the versions of some popular software packages that slackware is shipping with, then i'll do the same for debian... are you ready... okay - here comes the slackware listing...

apache: 1.3.26 gnome: 1.4.0.8 bind: 9.2.1 kde: 3.0.1 gcc: 2.95.3

wheeee!!! the fun continues with the debian listing...

apache: 1.3.26 gnome: 1.4.1 bind: 9.2.1 kde: 2.2.2 gcc: 2.95.4

fuck. a'ite. i take this back... what the hell happened? i thought debian most mostly outdated? it's more recent than freakin' slack!... hm... okay, well, that said... i don't like their.. um... logo. yeah! that's right, their logo sucks. hehehehehe..... (whatever).

sorry dude, debian is not outdated. I stand corrected.

Re:LINK CORRECTION

[pgpckt]

I'll just stick to the best distribution [debian.org] and watch the fun from afar

should be

I'll just stick to the best distribution [slackware.com] and watch the fun from afar

should be

I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar

Its ok, everyone makes mistakes.

Point-by-point rebuttal

[Marx_Mrvelous]

I'd like to take issue with your statements:
1. Commercial software companies don't understand dynamic linking.
This statement might be correct in a few cases, but Linux does *not* provide a better development model than windows. The simple fact is that you can statically or dynamically link in *both* windows *and* linux. And ask anyone who's tried to update their libraries in Linux if it's easier than doing so in Windows.
2. Unix Filesystem
So, we've got files in, say the /opt directory. The config files are in /etc, maybe adding some lbiraries to /usr/lib, probably setting up some symbolic links in /usr/local/bin. For the most part Unix-style distributions keep everything in one directory, but so do most Windows apps.
As for a guarantee that a program "relocated" will or won't work on two systems, the same thing can be said for Linux/Unix.
3. Illegal cartel
I don't know where you're getting this, but you might as well claim that Steven King killed JFK. It's an unfouned conspiracy theory at best, slander at worst. And since when is OPEC or De Beers illegal? Or UL fo that matter?

Your main point is that prorpiatary software developers are incompetent. You use some... interesting justification. Just because there is so much more sofwtare for Windows doesn't mean that there is more bad siftware, but there us *plenty* of bad software (open source, free and closed) for Linux.

Re:Point-by-point rebuttal

[lordpud]

Is De Beers illegal? Well if they are not why don't they operate in the United States?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/yourbusiness/stor ies/debeers/
http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/news/2 000/020300story.html

I don't think it's arrogance...

[RonVNX]

I think it's just desperation. Especially on Caldera's part, since they're probably going to be one of the biggest collapses of 2002 or 2003.

Why you're all incorrect about UnitedLinux

[k8to]

UnitedLinux is clearly an attempt to raise the commercial value of compatible and LSB-compliant linux distributions.

The Mandrake solution of 'blindly do whatever RedHat does' does make things somewhat compatable, but there are a lot of drawbacks to this strategy, and it doesn't really help the commercial software vendors at all if Red Hat decides to change what they provide from version to version. (And they do.)

The Linux Standard Base is useful, it is relevant, it is important. This draws attention to and raises the bar of interest in this regard.

Now, please explain, all you slashbots, how this is a bad thing?

Re:Why you're all incorrect about UnitedLinux

[HiThere]

I have the feeling that you haven't compared recent versions of Mandrake and Red Hat. They have diverged in many ways. It's not a huge break, more a matter of a difference in focus. But they tend to adopt tools in different orders, and to experiment with different new tools. True, after a couple of iterations they tend to settle into agreement as to which features are worthwhile, and which not worth bothering with. But isn't this what one should expect when the GPL is in force?

And Mandrake does things first about as often as Red Hat does. And they don't always end up in agreement. (Mandrake still prefers KDE over Gnome, and Red Hat the reverse, e.g.)

Hi Ali!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.vasoftware.com/company/management/jenab .php

Re:Hi Ali!

[Anonymous Coward]

The rod up that guy's butt, must have a rod up its butt.

Loki installer

[Ender Ryan]

Or, like Loki, id, and some others... the Loki installer is a perfectly effective and free, easy to use, and reliable way of distributing commercial software. Others have made their own installers(* Office, yeck, nasty installer ;-).

I have never had binary incompatibility problems with any commercial Linux software, on any distribution. And, unlike most freeloaders who read this site, I buy a significant amount of commercial Linux software.

Re:Loki installer

[microsoft.CLIT]

Is loki even still in business? You guys always bag on microsoft but they are still around and making more money then your sorry ass ever will.

Why Should Success == evil forces?

[BRock97]

Over the last few years of open source, why is it that when an open source company becomes successful financially (and by this, I mean is able to operate without going under), they become the source of evil-ness in the eyes of others? I understand that Taco put the "evil forces" in quotes to indicate a certain level of sarcasm, but to some in Open Source Land, they do see it this way.

What has RedHat done that is so bad? Sold out? Stifled innovation? As far as I am concerned, no, they have not. In fact, I am very happy with their products on the server level and use it on three production machines at my local university. The Airforce is even looking into using servers running RedHat. Not only does their stuff run well, but it gets good name recognition for Linux as a whole.

It isn't just RedHat, either. I am sure that if the Apache Foundation were to go private and start selling a commercial version of Apache httpd AND become commercially sound, they would be looked upon in the same way.

I am asking in all seriousness. I want to understand this mentallity.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[Hollins]

successful financially (and by this, I mean is able to operate without going under)

As RedHat is yet to turn a profit, and it remains questionable whether she ever will, I would say she is in certain danger of going under.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[FreeUser]

Over the last few years of open source, why is it that when an open source company becomes successful financially (and by this, I mean is able to operate without going under), they become the source of evil-ness in the eyes of others?

This presumption isn't correct IMHO. Not even Richard Stallman (whos rhetoric, while often quite insightful, is about as feiery as it gets) is guilty of what you describe here, much less the majority of the GNU/Linux and Free Software/Open Source community at large.

Red Hat has done some great things for the community, and has given back a great deal to the community. I may not prefer their distro personally, but I have no trouble suggesting it (or Mandrake) to friends who want to install and play around with Linux.

What has RedHat done that is so bad?

They have encouraged proprietary software vendors to release their wares in a manner that is compatible with Red Hat and not other distributions, by falsely implying that they, Red Hat, set the standards and everyone else follows.

This is bad because (a) Red Hat does not (and shouldn't) set the standards and (b) it is quite possible, and vastly preferable, to package software in a distribution-agnostic form installable by evertyone. Blender did it, Loki did it, Id and several other proprietary vendors do it now.

This is my only real criticism of Red Hat, and if they would cease and desist this behavior (which IMHO does in fact do harm to the community as a whole, and to the vendors who are seduced by the erroneous notion they have to target one or two main distros) I would have absolutely nothing bad to say about them whatsoever.

UL, on the other hand, is an effort to exploit exactly this myth, mislead software vendors in the process (to their detriment and the detriment of the GNU/Linux community at large), all without giving even a fraction of what Red Hat has given back to the community, and that is a very real and serious problem. Actually, propogating the notion of commercially imposed standards (rather than standards formed by consensus) and forcing users to use a One True Distro (or forever chase and mimick a One True Distro) is a terrible disservice to the community, regardless of how much is "given back" to the community to compensate, and it is an effort that should be resisted and fought.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[tempest303]

I must respectfully disagree with a few things here:

They have encouraged proprietary software vendors to release their wares in a manner that is compatible with Red Hat and not other distributions, by falsely implying that they, Red Hat, set the standards and everyone else follows.

This is true to an extent. Red Hat did essentially "go their own way" in some respects, setting up their own standards for some things. The most notorious of these breaks is, of course, the use of GCC 2.96 instead of 2.95. This caused a lot of controversy, and deservedly so, but it's what they felt they had to do for their distro. They had customers who required the enhancements of 2.96, and so they met those needs. They took a lot of crap for it, too, but they stuck to their guns (and the customers they were serving).

RH also took some liberties with file system layout, etc. They obviously felt it was important enough to make the change, so they did.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that in both cases, RH did what they did not to lock out other vendors, or to hyjack the industry, but rather to apply what they felt was some needed sanity into certain aspects of Linux. However, the community has now "caught up" to Red Hat's changes, by releasing GCC 3.x, and the LSB 1.1 spec. RH's next distro (which will undoubtably be called 8.0) is going to be using GCC 3.x, and will be LSB compliant. So it seems to me that Red Hat has only been doing what they felt was necessary until the community made their decision on the direction of things, and then RH re-converged their distro with the community at large.

it is quite possible, and vastly preferable, to package software in a distribution-agnostic form installable by evertyone. Blender did it, Loki did it, Id and several other proprietary vendors do it now.

Yeah, but they did it by making nasty custom installer scripts, typically with no uninstaller! Eek! This might be nice for Slack or Gentoo people, but how about an RPM for the RH, Mdk, Suse, Caldera, and (via alien) Debian users? What's more, they probably also statically linked the stuff to hell and back. I'd prefer to see 2 releases - LSB and non-LSB. A nice RPM for LSB compliant distros, and non-LSB for people who don't give a stuff. ;-) The LSB people are rewarded with package management, and smaller executables, and a smaller memory footprint, but it doesn't keep out the people who aren't compliant.

While I'm on the subject, who isn't compliant now, or won't be by Fall? RH will be fully compliant with 8.0, MDK is/will be soon, all the United Linux distros are/will be (SuSE, Caldera, Connectiva, Turbo), and Debian is/will be as well. What about Gentoo, Slack, and the micro-distros? Anyone know if they plan to conform? FOr that matter, what about Lycoris and Lindows? ANyone have info either way on these?

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat's reputation is not so much because of its size, but that they have a tendency to break things (glibc3), or obscure functionality (/etc/rc.d), or push shoddy tools that the world would have been better off without (linuxconf), or sometimes just make changes that weren't asked for (xinetd) but that actually turn out to be for the better. The problem is that Redhat is a market leader so other distrobutions (like Mandrake) tend to follow their lead, even when Redhat's innovations aren't so well done.

Redhat has a tendency to piss people off because of such changes or missteps. If they'd standardize, and then stick with their standard, they'd make fewer enemies. But I get the feeling that their position is that Linux isn't quite ready for a feature freeze similar to Microsoft's 1995 base that they're still struggling to get out of.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[ftobin]

This is true to an extent. Red Hat did essentially "go their own way" in some respects, setting up their own standards for some things. The most notorious of these breaks is, of course, the use of GCC 2.96 instead of 2.95. This caused a lot of controversy, and deservedly so, but it's what they felt they had to do for their distro. They had customers who required the enhancements of 2.96, and so they met those needs. They took a lot of crap for it, too, but they stuck to their guns (and the customers they were serving).

This is exactly the same reasoning that people give for why IE and other Microsoft products have so many bad-standards-wise 'features'. I don't buy it when it's applied to Microsoft producs, and I don't buy it when it's applied to RedHat products.

Let me be clear that am not trying to knock RedHat here, but merely your means of argument.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[SpacePunk]

It's because "Linux land" is full of a bunch of freeloading hippie goofs.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[tempest303]

I see where you're going with your objection. However, it's a bit apples to oranges to compare the GCC 2.96 thing to the usual "embrace and extend" tactics, because:

• they have demonstrable reasons for doing what they did (ie: not just doing it for the sake of changing things, and thereby breaking them for everyone else)
• their changes were (naturally) 100% open-source
• when the opportunity finally arose to rejoin what the rest of the community was using (GCC 3), they did just that.

By comparison, show me where Microsoft plans to re-join the rest of the Web community and stick to XHTML 1.0 standards for their HTML "standards". :)

What RH did was a temporary fix, whereas MS's changes are meant as a permenant break, thus making them fundamentally different types of divergence, IMHO. I understand your argument of inconsistancy, but given this fundamental difference, I don't believe it's a fair comparison.

Re:Why Should Success == evil forces?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... not quite.

Microsoft goes out of their way to break a standard and then to hide the details from the general public. RedHat hasn't been hiding the details, in fact, if anything they've been openly publishing their changes when they break away from standards.

Besides, what did gcc 2.96 really accomplish? Did it further the RedHat monopoly? No, not hardly. The first several versions 2.96 were buggy and if anything hurt redhat reputation more than it gained them. The buggy versions caused friction between redhat and many in the open source community. Did it push gcc and the open source community towards being more standards compliant? Yes.

Redhat's heart seemed to be in the right place, they wanted gcc to be more standards compliant in the first place. As bero said, The standard isn't gcc-2.9x. The standard is ISO C99 and C++ 98

A public service announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

I like what you are saying, but would like it if we could all just keep one extra thing in mind.

Please (i am not talking to BigJocker here, i am talking to "the community", whereever that is), remember, not everyone is using an x86. Some people are using sparc or alpha. I use debian/ppc.

Please, think of the mac users. Whether you use dpkg or rpm, if possible, release src packages.

This is why i think in the end, distros like Gentoo, or that use the Ports system (do either Gentoo or BSDPorts have any capability for uninstall?) are the future, and distros that cannot extricate themselves from their binaries are ultimately doomed. I think that the greatest strength of open-source, GNU, and linux software is its ability to free itself from the hardware-- windows will never truly be able to escape the limitations of the x86, since if you are going to lose all your legacy software you might as well dump windows altogether. But linux, all that legacy software can be freely compiled, so whenever that day comes that it is no longer possible to squeeze that last drop of performance out of that crufty, old ISA, you can jump ship to something more promising with little consequence.

Is Gentoo LSB?

Re:A public service announcement

[room101]

windows will never truly be able to escape the limitations of the x86, since if you are going to lose all your legacy software you might as well dump windows altogether.

very nice.

But linux, all that legacy software can be freely compiled

Almost. I would like to see a working version of xtank for linux. The source doesn't compile, and I haven't found binaries that worked. Oh, well, other than that, I can't really complain.

Here's an article

[MagPulse]

http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/2002_01/magazine /columns/jfinsel/

This is the first story ever

[Marx_Mrvelous]

Where every post is going to be modded "flaimbait" or "troll" lol

UL is like EU or Mercosul

[Anonymous Coward]

What a lot of boneheads does not understand is: UL is not about compatibility, it's about *political force*. A lot of small distros has no influence over the big hardware makers or against the "evil empire" politics.

Debian for sheer frustration

[Anonymous Coward]

having used Debian for about 4 years now, I can say that while it has a lot of up sides, the down sides have been ever increasing. I used to accept 'older' stuff, as in reality things were old every 2 days. (constant #-##-##.###x releases... show some constraint people) Lately though, it would seem that 'older' is defined as a year old, which by itself is not bad but when you consider that basic support for many devices and features requires a much more recent version of libs, apps, environments, etc... then there is a problem.

People reply often to this problem by parroting "just install the newer packages, they are stable". I wonder what these people mean by 'stable'. If a package itself works, but requires another update (dependancy) that itself requires the first package and ignoring on either or both of those actually breaks the system (and this happens 20+ times each time trying a different approach, then there is a major problem with the system, regardless of nomenclature. What I don't get is why the deb packaging system is so fragile. Fine, a package doesn't install correctly, but shouldn't the system be able to roll back and recover? Instead of giving 'ldconf' errors and not even allowing to reinstall the broken stuff, because of this paradoxical chaos, perhaps the debian installation system should have a rollback and failsafe method. Sure it will cause a larger chunk of diskspace to be taken up, but once the packages are done and the system updated THEN it can delete these. It is much like the tether that climbers use.

This will be seen as flamebait, only because of overemotional children, but the reality is that this request has been made by many and continues to fall on arrogant and deaf ears.

Re:Debian for sheer frustration

[waspleg]

i ran debian for a year back w/ 2.2 and all the library dependency issues and broken everything made me switch back to slackware (at the time).
debian has had issues like these forever but no one cares because people assume that if you run it youre part of some technical elite adn can fix everything yourself -- even if that is true one shouldn't have to and requests for fixing debians broken pieces have been ignored for a lot longer than you know ;)

although everyone says gentoo is good i'v enot tried it.. mandrake makes a fast, easy, pretty desktop but linux still hasn't caught up to windows yet so it couldnt' stay (my g/f complained too much so XP had to make it's way back on)

no real opint to this except to say i agree with you

Typo in the URL

[Tharsis]

it should be www.suse.com

I hate crapdrake

[Anonymous Coward]

I first started to learn linux with zipslack on a windows partition. It was hard, but I gained a lot of knowledge! More than I would if I started with Dumbdrake. It helped me sort out the bugs in it.

When I got Mandrake 8.1 In December 2001 I noticed it was infested with bugs! This is not commerical quatlity software!

Then Crapdrake released its Scam with the Club. If your not a member, then your a theif was their attitude! I got revenge though, I often troll mandrakeforum to vent my anger at crap drake.

But now im using Suse. Its a lot more professional and not a Toy OS like Bugdrake was. Its cheaper and its more reliable. They even make updates easier with a update tool thats not broken

I think everyone should boycott Microdrake and support more ethical Companys such as SuSE. I know their part of UL, but they don't make crap I and would recomend them rather than Trolldrake.

Re:I hate crapdrake

[Strog]

But now im using Suse. Its a lot more professional

Apparently you aren't though.

Car dealships are crap. I started with a block of steel and a lathe. I learned more about cars this way. I'm not really sure how it would handle a crash and do these locks even work? Mine is still better because I did it the hard way. Why does it burn so much oil and gas?

If you can't learn from a developed and proven system then it just means that you aren't self-disiplined enough to learn it. Just because you use a system that forces you to learn doesn't make it necessarily better. It just means you were forced down the road of hard knocks.

The reseaon the military uses boot camp is so everyone learns it and they have a consistent product. Imagine if they let you train and condition yourself. The results would be inconsistent and all over the board. Some would be in better shape and prepared but the majority would be sub-par on their own. While the hard way will get you there, it isn't the only way.

I don't think you deserve more credit/respect/etc. just because you "paid your dues" than someone else that is at the same place without the hard knocks. It was your choice and your road that got you there. Someone else can get to the same place going a different route. Doesn't mean they will though. :)

UnitedLinux Debian (was: Re:"best distro"?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad you pointed that out.

While I don't find this the least bit surprising, as Debian has a solid system, all around. While some people may point at Debian and say "Bloat", others have realized that Debian has implemented a fantastic set of system level tools that make Linux far more friendly without removing the ability to tweak the system heavily or to do everything manually if you like. Debian has really excelled in these lower level (high complexity) areas and is now creeping into the areas which the likes of Suse, Mandrake and of course, Red Hat, have dominated. (Slackware is a whole different breed, and is just as important IMHO)

This does however bring up some questions for me as to how this will affect Debian. Now clearly the wording in the DWN states that UnitedLinux will be based on Debian, but will this have any affect on the continuing direction of Debian? Will this in any way affect the Debian Social Contract and policies? Will political downdraft be something to worry about?

Re:UnitedLinux Debian (was: Re:"best distro"?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Me thinks wwe failed to mention Slackware -

Uncontrollable geek response urge

[Anonymous Coward]

One Word three syllables: "DebianRules".

Pride.

[Anonymous Coward]

UnitedLinux is an effort on the corporate front, or so they say now.
As an user of Conectiva, I was worried about it at first.
Im not against the united thing, but changes are stressing... :-)
Both are right: UnitedLinux seeks a stronger presence with their clients (and reduced costs). This is important, but its really consolidation and Mandrake is right, too -- if they want freedom to control their distro, consolidation is undesirable. I *think* that maybe Mandrake has to consolidate in the future, contrary to their will... but if they want to be independent, all the luck of the world to them! I may even try Mandrake one of these days, theyre really have a cool product. And Redhat should do the same, IMHO.
Now, this "Debian is better than even sex" thing is getting on my nerves. Ok, it is excellent; they have a wonderful update mechanism; they have also great contributors; also, being free makes it very interesting, for the idealism if nothing else...

That said, not having commercial software sucks. I really appreciate RMS, hes a great guy -- but I want small software firms thriving. I use Linux because I dont like greedy monopolies, I have nothing against paid software. Also, _please_ refrain from this "were the best" attitude, because:
a) if youre really, everybody recognizes it and
b) now and then someone has a good idea, and even if Debian copies the idea, that someone is the best for a short time.
Im strongly motivated not to use Debian, just because of that attitude. :-/

Re:LINK CORRECTION

[Rieger]

>So you could say "Rieger-Linux", built by portage, based on the Gentoo Linux core, is the best distro.

well, you've said it. :)

Anyways, I'm kinda new at the linux-thing, tried Mandrake 8-8.2 ,but found out about Gentoo, tried it with my very basic linux skills, and guess what? it works, and it's rock-solid.

That's what I wanted; a clean install with only apps I choose, so Gentoo is it for me.

On topic:
Personally I think the United-initiative is good: create a distro for a large userbase ,when they really get a large userbase, maybe some chainreaction will follow so a new user can choose between a solid easy to use Linux (whatever) os, or a solid (windows isn't that bad, no flame intend...) easy to use windows. so L. and W. users can happily work and live together (or something like that)

you'll get the message (i hope)

Did you read the article?

[jaaron]

If you didn't read the Mandrake article yet, I would really, really recommend you do so. It's wonderfully written and an excellent explaination of what a distribution is and how software should be developed. For example:


It is extremely hard for us to understand why some software publishers and hardware manufacturers only support one Linux distribution.

Each hardware manufacturer should develop drivers directly with the appropriate Free Software project. Network card manufacturers should cooperate with the Linux kernel project, videocard manufacturers should collaborate with the XFree86 project, and so on. For example, when a network card module is included directly in the Linux kernel it becomes a de facto standard supported by all Linux distributions.

In the same spirit, all software publishers should certify their products for a given version of the LSB (Linux Standard Base), not for a particular brand of Linux. Therefore, that software would work equally well with any Linux distribution that is in conformity with the LSB.

This article has really increased by respect of Mandrake and shown that they really do understand the Open Source/Free Software methods.

Is it me or are the moderators taking FP now?

[systemaster]

I mean comments like "I use the best disto [debian link here]" or "I think...." my point is I thought the point of CmdrTaco and others modding the story clip are to place updates, corrections, or more links. NOT to claim FP!!! And yes I do see the irony in me saying this and being very offtopic at the same time. But before modding take a look at the story at the top of the page.

Another point about that is, I Belive on one of the recent BSD??? pages they noticed that the editors changed a link without placing a note of the change. And how a recent /. story people where bitching about other sites changing the stuff and not posting a note that stuff was changed. Think about it.

Is this really newsworthy?

[Uttles]

Look, everyone knows Mandrake doesn't want to join United Linux, and why? Because they want to make money, and not share it with anyone else. It would be nice to see Red Hat follow a strict Linux standard, and Mandrake to do so as well (since they tend to follow Red Hat) but that probably won't happen because they are constantly trying to include things that will make people buy their distro and sign up for their services rather than just the same old standard stuff. That's the reason, and everyone knows it, Mandrake is just blowing smoke.

Re:Is this really newsworthy?

[javahacker]

Yes, Red Hat and Mandrake are FOR PROFIT companies, and they will do things to attract people to buy their distribution. Duh! Many companies that "want to make money" are paying for people to contribute to Linux development full time. You make it sound like following a standard (anyone heard of LSB) means you must be part of United Linux.

United Linux is an attempt by several companies that don't have a large portion of the market to build name recognition for themselves, and to make more money. Don't make it sound like they are out to save the world, they want more people to buy their brands of Linux, just like Red Hat and Mandrake do.

New definition of spam

[The Cat]

Any e-mail I don't want = spam

I guess Mandrake is sending their newsletter to *@*.* now, right?

Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail with a specific commercial pitch or advertisement including a price. Introductory e-mails (especially sent to a specific address), newsletters and business correspondence is not spam.

Re:New definition of spam

[FreeUser]

Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail with a specific commercial pitch or advertisement including a price.

Wrong, and spoken like a true spammer. (I hope you are not a spammer, but your definition echos almost precisely that which is used by some Spammers to justify their bulk emails).

SPAM is Unsolicited Bulk Email. Period.

Whether it is promoting Salvation from the Lord Our God(tm), Senator Hollings Reelection Campaign, or the Latest Penis Extention scam, it is SPAM.

However, opt in mailing lists are NOT SPAM because the Opt In process itself is an act of solicitation.

Of course, if a vendor or web site changes your selection from 'not opting in' to 'opting in' then, of course it is SPAM, because in fact you never did opt in, and they have deliberately miscategorized their lists in order to decieve.

Any bulk email that arrives without your having asked to be included on a list (e.g. for notifications, etc.) is SPAM. Period.

All of that having been said, it is my understanding that Mandrake's Newsletter is opt in, which means by opting in you solicited it and it is therefor NOT SPAM.

Re:New definition of spam

[The Cat]

[i]I hope you are not a spammer[/i]

No. However there are times when I send "hello, our company is" e-mails to other web sites and news sites, one at a time. Is that spam? No.

Polite introductory correspondence is essential to business. Screeching SPAM!! SPAM!! SPAM!! every time an unfamiliar e-mail address appears in the From: field doesn't help solve the spam problem, and in fact, makes it worse.

That said, I'm glad to see Mandrake's newsletter is opt in. They don't seem like a spamming-type company (and they make an excellent Linux distribution).

Oh, and moderators: since the word SPAM appeared in the STORY, this is NOT offtopic.

Re:New definition of spam

[geekoid]

SPAM is Unsolicited Bulk Email. Period.
wrong.

In regards to email, the original poster is correct.
Feel free to look at the definition of SPAM in any anti-spam law.

Re:New definition of spam

[shepd]

>Is that spam?

Yes, and if I were a sysadmin that received your email, I'd simply firewall you off my subnet.

You have no right to advertise to me. If you want to send me an email, make sure it is ontopic for the email address you've found.

I really doubt any websites you've found had "send your advertising here" email addresses.

Next thing people will say that looking companies up in the yellow pages and dialing them by hand to advertise to them is not telemarketing.

Re:New definition of spam

[The Cat]

Yes, and if I were a sysadmin that received your email, I'd simply firewall you off my subnet.

What if our business wanted to buy something? By this definition, such an e-mail would be labeled spam.

So now every e-mail sent by a business is advertising, therefore it is spam. This is why screaming SPAM!! for *every* business e-mail is the wrong idea.

make sure it is ontopic for the email address you've found.

The topic being printed right next to the e-mail address no doubt...

The definition of spam is "unsolicited bulk e-mail." Sending a polite introductory e-mail to *one* address doesn't fit that definition.

The new definition is "if the e-mail didn't come from a familiar address, it is spam" and that is plainly ridiculous. I don't support mass random e-mail advertising by any means (I get about 50 such messages a week), but businesses have to communicate.

to advertise to them

I never said these e-mails were advertisements. We have a web site for advertising. E-mail is for communicating with people. Businesses may not have a right to advertise to you, but they do have the right to use e-mail like everyone else.

Re:New definition of spam

[Anonymous Coward]

What if our business wanted to buy something? By this definition, such an e-mail would be labeled spam.

Unsolicited, being the keyword in the definition. It'd be a rather unusual company that considered customer enquiries to be unsolicited.

Re:New definition of spam

[Per Abrahamsen]

> SPAM is Unsolicited Bulk Email. Period.

Correct.

> In regards to email, the original poster is correct.

He is correct that his definition of spam is new.

> Feel free to look at the definition of SPAM in any anti-spam law.

No law I have heard of define the term SPAM. Some laws outlow specific types of spam, and sometimes email that are not spam, but without defining a specific term for what they outlaw.

i am confused...

[BigBir3d]

...and i use mandrake 8.2!

how is mandrake a "de-facto standard" along with redhat, when mandrake is redhat with a different installer, and a screwed up directory architecture?

that being said, i hate RPM.

2nd tier?

[sammy baby]

UL is just the 2nd tier distros trying to get attention and ink away from the "evil forces" in North Carolina.

Yeah, because we all know what a second-tier outfit SuSE is.

Re:2nd tier?

[jonadab]

Second-tier is not a _bad_ thing. But yes, I'd say
Suse is a second-tier distro. (So is Mandrake, as
far as that goes.)

Overall, there are probably only two first-tier Linux
distros (Debian and RH), as I estimate it. What makes
them first-tier is that they form the foundation for
other distributions that are based on them. So the
second-tier and third-tier distros fall into three
categories: those that are based on Debian, those
that are based on RH, and those that go their own way.
(These can be further subdivided, of course.)

I'm not a Suse user, but my understanding is that they
go their own way, not tracking closely with either
RH or Debian. Which is fine. But unlike RH or
Debian, I don't know of any distros that are based
on Suse.

United Linux seems to me to be several second-tier
distros getting together to form a third first-tier
distribution. Now there will be numerous distros
that can be classified as UL-based, as well as those
that are RH-based and those that are Debian-based,
and of course those that go their own way (e.g.
Gentoo -- and speaking of Gentoo, I ran across the
word "gentoo" in a book yesterday (_Endurance:
Shackleton's Incredible Voyage_), wherein it seems
to be a type of penguin.)

I don't have a problem with that. As the popularity
of Unix in general and Linux in particular continues
to grow (as has been happening nonstop since the
original development of Unix at Bell Labs), there
will be room for more first-tier distributions,
as well as more second-tier distributions, more
third-tier distros (yes, the line between second-tier
and third-tier is probably pretty blurry), and more
specialty distributions as well, to say nothing of
more bundled-with-hardware distributions.

For now there are few enough systems sold with
Linux-based distros preinstalled that they use
existing distros; when it really catches on, the
hardware vendors will put their own distros together,
just like the bizzarroid bundling they've been doing
all along with other kernels (both unices and other).

Like with all unices, they'll have more freedom
(than with, say, MS OSes) to make the branding
really pervasive, with their corporate logo not just
on the default wallpaper, but built into the web
browser (which has its start page set to their
corporate site), embedded in the panel background,
all over the GUI administrative apps (think:
"Compaq Control Center"), all over the bundled
office suite, the bundled email client, the
bundled music/video player, and so on and so
forth. Think of the Gnome foot or the KDE
gears being replaced with the hardware vendor's
logo. Think of the default signature in the
bundled email client advertising the vendor,
unless and until the user changes it.

There are huge opportunities for hardware vendors
here. When the software is a commodity, you can
brand it any way you want, and you don't have to
share your branding with another company. Sun
and Apple have been doing this for a while, with
more expensive hardware, but there's no reason
it can't be done with low-end hardware and by
other vendors.

Re:2nd tier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered _why_ there are no distributions out there based on SuSE?

Some might argue that's because you would be hard pressed to build something based on their product that's actually superior in any significant way.

Just my two cents..

Best Linux!

[Anonymous Coward]

The best linux can be found here .

mandrake/ musings

[Anonymous Coward]

--I bought a set of mandrake disks, 8.1 version. After one solid week of working on it at night I GAVE UP trying to get it to go online. It installed perfectly OK and was easy to use, had the standard 6,789 packages that no one single human knows off the top of their head what they do, but I couldn't get any of the various dialers to work on my modem, which is a serial port external US robotics. Computer= "internet" for 90% or better of the hoomans on the planet. It works fine under redhat. In addition their (mandrake's) version of "rpm" packages seems to not want to install cool on redhat. I'm sure there's a reason, but as joe average user I see "rpm" it should work like an rpm. For my loot, redhat invented it (I think) so anyone using it ought to have the courtesy to make sure it follows redhat's standards implicitly.

Just my two quacks worth.

Caveat, I am NOT a coder, I tried my best to RTFM, I tried posting on forums, etc, no dice, no dial, I ain't wasting my loot on them. I can build my own systems, repair them, go hunt down programs, sorta can find dependencies, but I really don't wanna. I know this is heresy here, but this is the difference between most slashdot readers and the bulk of the US, the thing has to work without dependency hell, lack of the "cooler" library, whatever. MOST people aren't coders. This should never be forgotten if linux is going to go mainstream and beat the evil empire, something I dearly would like to see. All I can do to help is ship cash to distro company and like drop some posts or the occassional bug report. If that ain't enough, oh well, mac and windows may not be perfect, but they work perfectly allright. I have several of each sitting right here.

Here's an extreme oddity, I have NEVER gotten a BSOD on windows, I have only heard of it. No idea what I did right or wrong, but it ain't happened. I have occassionaly gotten app freezes on mac, usually real audio while surfing. The three fingered salute always fixed it.

I'm interested in supporting with cash a linux distro that doesn't require you to be a software coder. I'll buy and support those company's disks, and thereby "them". I also pop for shareware. I think my time is worth it, I really dislike alpha beta ware, I'd rather have 1/5th the packages as long as they all work out of the box on normal PC hardware. I'm also interested in supporting any platform that doesn't forget that some folks have older hardware, have no desire to be 'bleeding edge" when the old stuff ain't broke and new stuff costs serious cash, and are on dialup, and aren't going to be massive corporate webservers on T-1 wireless satellite laser quantum broadband. Ya know, the bulk of the united states, no biggee.

First company does that gets my money. Less exotic stuff,more solid non beta ware geared towards the home user who might be just a smidgen above an aol user, but below a professional / amateur gamer web hoster software engineer. I work other jobs for a living, lot of technical aspects to it, if I wanted to be a coder I would have started learning that 40 years ago maybe, but I didn't. Hardware I like, typing is a chore and I get lot lotsa tuypos (---see, I'll leave this one in), not the thing to do coding I understand. That's reality. Joe normal pooter user. Money. Out there. Millions of people. Listening Linux distro folks? I know some of you are probably reading this. No more than ONE release a year, has to install OVER the previous release, has to be functional and stable as a 1,000 lb slate pool table sitting in a clubs billiard room, get it?. Keep it UNDER 50$. 25$ retail would be better, the profit is in getting more people to use it, rather than fewer people and then nailing them on "support". People don't want to have to use "support". Support is a serious pain in the rtushie. there aren't any hoomans who like support, so try to release something that don't need it much at all. KISS principle. Less buggy crap, but what is there works. Less gross number of packages, but what is there on default install works.

This is an obvious deal here. If people will pay cheapbytes or diskclone inc, they will go a few bucks more and support the distro company directly, especially if it's on the shelf at the pooter store and it's inexpensive enough.

got a buddy owns some gas stations. Only makes a few pennies a gallon. deal is if you sell millions of gallons....

The distro companies ain't learned that lesson yet it appears. You've winged the evil empire monster, it's bleeding now and howling in pain, but it will recover unless the attack continues with quality weapons and some thought to it. Don't shoot yourselves in the foot now by only selling expensive stuff that is buggy. We already have those "choices" out there and herte's a big hint, MOST PEOPLE are not gonna want to download their OS completely. Duh, you already got an OS or you wouldn't be on the puter. They will buy it off the shelf at the store so they can just stick the CD in, as long as it works and is much cheaper than MS or Apple.

Sometimes slower to release might mean "more stable and actually works". maybe, I don't know, could be wrong on that.

That's a huge market, no one seems to want it.

Oh ya, firewall, built in, has to work,, E-Z to setup, default install off the CD doesn't leave ya wide open as soon as you go online. Don't care what "license" it is as long as I own it and it ain't microapplesoftmonopoly.con.

Just a bit of random ramblings there, sort of a wishlist.

Re:mandrake/ musings

[Anonymous Coward]

if you need any help email me - user id redtuxxx

no...

[BrokenHalo]

A proper UNIX program will not spread itself all over your filesystem. However, an RPM of a proper UNIX program will.

Re:no...

[Isaac-Lew]

So I'm imagining things going into different directories (granted, most of the time under /usr/local but there are exceptions) when I compile/install from a tarball?

Power through diversity?

[stpap]

From the postings I have read in this forum, I think it becomes clear that GNU/Linux users like the diversity of the current distribution system. Some people like to compile things from source, others prefer pre-compiled binaries and everyone wants to do this in a structured way (with some semi-automated process maybe). There are distributions that serve all those needs; needs that by definition cannot be served by a single distribution. I do not see UnitedLinux as the be-all distro for the following reasons: 1) RedHat has established a set of practices, as far as filesystem hierarchy is concerned, largely reflected in the LSB (Linux Standard Base). I do not think there needs to be a second-guessing of those choices unless there is a serious technical reason for doing so. I assume here that UnitedLinux will be making some different choices in this. 2) (This is the important one) I would guess that the people reading this support Free (or Open Source) Software. I do not think that SuSE or TurboLinux will produce a free software version of their setup tools especially since SuSE is responsible in this area (for UnitedLinux) and it has been using the YaST (non-free) licence for all their configuration/installation tools thus far. 3) Debian is in fact the best distribution. (ok this one doesn't count) Well, just my two cents on the subject.

Re:Power through diversity?

[Anonymous Coward]

YaST may not be "completely free", but at least we have the source for it all.

Re: "evil forces"

[Night Goat]

Over the last few years of open source, why is it that when an open source company becomes successful financially (and by this, I mean is able to operate without going under), they become the source of evil-ness in the eyes of others?

I think it's more like how companies see their competitors as their antagonists. The other Linux distributors consider Red Hat to be an "evil force" because when a person buys a copy of Red Hat, they're not buying a copy of Suse or Slackware or whatever. I do see what you're saying with people criticizing Red Hat for doing well, but I don't think that's what CmdrTaco was implying by "evil forces."

Linux is not fragmented? That's news to me.

[brad-x]

While the Linux kernel itself isn't going to be forking any time soon, I take particular issue with Mandrake's claim that GNU/Linux is unfragmented. Their article seems to downplay 'badly thought out software' linking to libraries which are specific to the structure or filesystem layout of one distribution or another.

Especially in cases such as RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, one finds that common RPM's are not compatible across distributions. Often commercial software packages must be shipped for many different Linux distributions, and the LSB has been around for a long time. Let's not cop to the old 'well we're trying to form standards!'

UNIX tried copping to that, it got them nowhere. You Linux vendors should take a lesson from FreeBSD, just as Gentoo Linux has; form a filesystem standard, stick with it, and architect a build/installation mechanism that aids all software programs regardless of origin to be able to run.

FreeBSD Developers Handbook

It's more like this

[buchanmilne]

1) LSB is formed

2) SuSE claims to implements it, nobody else uses propoganda

2a)First official draft of LSB released

3)All of the sudden Mandrake likes the LSB.

3a)Official realease of LSB1.0

4) SuSE forms United Linux with Caldera and some others.

5)Official release of LSB test suite

6)Mandrake 9.0 released as the first certified LSB-compliant distro.

Re:It's more like this

[deno]

In fact, LSB has been seen as a "Good Thing" for ages at MandrakeSoft, but we didn't want to kill the idea by advertising LSB-compliance too early (ages-old buggy libs, "media" directory fiasco, no test suite, etc..).

For Mandrake 8.x, the goal was to make the distro "mostly LSB compliant", and that's what it is. First distro which is really supposed to be fully LSB-compliant is 9.0.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

With our Powers Combined

[WellHungYungWun]

I don't care much for the Linux/Windows Flamewar, but If we were to standardize some things we could achieve great feats with software. Imagine being able to download any file, be able to install it, and use it, no matter what your OS. This is what Lindows is Leaning towards I guess, interoperability. When all the time, we just need for Windows to Accept Linux, or vice versa and take the best from both worlds. So you end up paying for the new "Windux (Insert Flavor", it is rock solid and boasts tons of features. That would be worth paying for IMHO.

Profits have nothing to do with 'going under'

[mirnav]

A company's declared "profit" (or loss) is just an accounting number that suffers deduction of such non-cash expenses as depreciation. What decides whether the company lives or dies is its "cash flow", the net of its cash in and cash out. Red Hat has been cash flow positive a few quarters recently, and has USD 280 mn in cash and equivalents as at 31 May, and so it will probably not be going under anytime soon.

Debian UnitedLinux

[Chris Pimlott]

Look again. It's a joke. Ransom Love says he wants to find a way to include Debian in UnitedLinux and DWN is saying the only way that'll happen is if they make UnitedLinux based on Debian.

If you don't believe it, check out the UnitedLinux FAQ, which states:

Today, four development members - Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux - make up UnitedLinux, but the initiative is open for additional Linux companies to participate.

Re:"best distro"? (aarrrrggghhh!)

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are going to drag Debian down their experimenting-with-new-businessmodels-HELL, I'm going after them with the old pack of eggs I've been saving in the fridge for special occasions just like this.
WAR...

Feh.

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to make themselves out to be pretty hot stuff, especially considering that just a few months ago, their business model involved begging for donations.

I especially love the part where distributions are based on 'Debian, Red Hat and Mandrake'. Right. Slackware played no part, I guess? As for Mandrake, heh, I can't think of any sizeable distro that was based off of it.

Oh, and the part about distributions including a graphical server by way of XFree86. X is a security threat, and many wise admins keep it as far away from many types of servers as possible. *Every* Linux distribution uses the 'same basic ingredients'? Har de har har har har har. Jeebus, I'm glad other distributions don't take the word of Mandrake for the gospel.

I must say, I do agree with their competition is good bit, but that's about it.

Not surprising, I must say, considering these are the people who refer to a certain corporation as 'Micro$oft' yet expect to be taken seriously in the business world. ;)

Treat Base Distro's like XFree (or the kernel)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should treat the base Linux distro as a commodity and separate it from other components. We have a group working on XFree, one for the kernel, etc, so why not get a bunch of people together and release a base distro with the kernel, required libs, XFree, command line apps, etc. This base would hopefully be LSB compliant (FHS too!). This way, different companies would concentrate on installers, application choosers, and eye candy (KDE/Gnome/etc). Don't worry, there will still be lots to fight about ;)

UL as the "Linux Ultra-Lite/Total-Fluff" distro?

[dcavanaugh]

UL resistance is high in the current Linux community, so their customers will have to come from somewhere other than the existing Linux base.

The final frontier of Linux computing is the Windoze desktop. RH, Mandrake, and a few of the geekier distros have pretty much conquered the hardcore Linux community, but there has been minimal penetration of the desktop market.

What remains is the competition over whose Linux will be pre-installed on the next batch of lowball Walmart machines. Simplified installs, upgrades and desktop support will appeal to the "Linux for dummies" crowd, especially those who don't know or care about the GPL issues.

No matter who UL says their target market is, the only customers that would be interested in a "pay per seat" implementation of Linux are those who are trying to abandon a "pay per seat" implementation of something else. The UL product should have some appeal for PC manufacturers who want a cheaper Microsoft than Microsoft. I think UL will evolve into the "Linux Ultra Lite/Total Fluff" distro.

it's all about the benjamins

[1000101]

UnitedLinux is the linux community's only chance to compete (seriously) with MS in the desktop environment. Too many techies/programmers/geeks out there don't understand the business end of IT. Any linux distro that isn't a part of UnitedLinux will not only be competing with MS, but will watch their sales slip as corporations (who by the way need standards) choose UnitedLinux as their version.

Mandrake doesn't get UL, and neither do you.

[Opusthepenguin]

Mandrake is right on when they say "MandrakeSoft would gain nothing by joining United Linux, and doing so would damage our reputation." Mandrake's claim to fame is their ease of use and GUI utilities, which have been praised and touted in this thread. They are not limited to the desktop, but they do it very well and that is their core competency. The are traditionally not the hardend server Linux you would think of (yes, of course Mandrake makes a fine server, I'm talking about their focus and perception). The UL crew have been very specific on what their target market is; not the desktop, the enterprise server, even to the exclusion of the desktop. Why then would Mandrake be interested in joining such a server focused group? As state, they wouldn't. Joining UL would force them to compete in an area where they are neither the leader or have a competitive advantage. Sure, you can believe all the sanctimonious hoorah they spout if you want, but bottom line is it's bad business for a desktop focused distro to join a server focused organization.

The biggest missconception about UL is that it is some Borg like entity that once you join you must fall in line with. This is just not the case. Each participating member can do whatever they like outside the UL organization. SuSE has stated quite clearly that they will continue to offer a desktop version. This version will (probably) not have the UnitedLinux tag on it, but then for a desktop, who cares? What UL offers is the ability to have your OS certified on enterprise hardware without being lucky enough to have the "defacto Linux standard" in your title (that's RedHat incase you missed it). With that in mind, there's no reason Mandrake could't join UL and realse a UL version, fully certified on all major hardware, with the added value of it's GUI tools, etc. Then Mandrake could continue to sell their deskop/server versions that would appeal to a broader, more price sensitive, customer base.

The second biggest missconception about UL is that it limits competition. This is just the opposite of the truth. To date there is only One distro that enjoys certification across all major hardware line, RedHat. Now, either RedHat has been unwilling or unable to convince it's hardware partners to certify agains all Linux distro's or, say, a Kernel/libs version of Linux. Sure, their are hundres of distro's out there, but only one certified for your enterprise needs, nice if your RedHat. With UnitedLinux there will not be two distros certified on all major hardwere, but five. And, because of the open (gasp) whey UnitedLinux was founded that could grow into as many distro's who care to achieve that level of certification. So, while UL does nothing to prevent a distro from producing whatever they like (thus not hurting competition), they provide the avenue through wich all distro's, not just RedHat, can achieve hardware certifications and compete in the enterprise market.

UnitedLinux is not a bad thing. It is focused on what it wants to do, but ultimately it does what RedHat never cared to, bring the rest of Linux along into the enterprise space. . . if they want to come.

Opus

CPAN

[nullard]

I'd like to see a package management system somewhat like CPAN (more info). I like being able to use a ReadLine enabled interface and automatic dependancy checking. I like being able to break the install into parts: I gan get the module, tweak it as I see fit, then install it. It just seems like a better system then fink, apt-get, etc.

Re:CPAN

[crumley]

You can do this with apt-get now, though it could be a little cleaner.

1. apt-get source foo (grab the source)
2. tweak the source
3. apt-get -b source (builds the source - apt-get is smart enough not to re-grab the source)
4. dpkg -i foo.deb (install)

Build-depends don't work with all debs yet, but with the majority. And apt-get is readline enabled, unless your favorite shell isn't ;).

Taco

[Shwag]

"CmdrTaco: I'll just stick to the best distribution (debian) and watch the fun from afar ;) "

Hell yeah Taco! We need a little bit of distribution pride in these slow economic times. Maybe we can even start an old fashion distro war!

DEBIAN RULES!

Re:Taco

[Anonymous Coward]

SL4c|w4|2e |200LZ d00d

Re:Taco

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe CmdrTaco should learn to be a bit more modest, and not be so bloody in your face opinionated, one can only put up/ignore this sort of behaviour for so long.

and if he posted that as flamebait..gues what!?, it WORKED!!!!

heh.

Heres why

[clump]

UnitedLinux is clearly an attempt to raise the commercial value of compatible and LSB-compliant linux distributions.

Please keep in mind that UnitedLinux isn't the LSB. I fully agree with your later assertion of the goodness of the LSB but if your looking for LSB, UnitedLinux isn't the way to go. Its an entirely different goal.

An interesting observation re: MDK & Debian

[surfimp]

To quote from the newsletter reprint on MandrakeSoft's site:

"Joining United Linux could destroy many of the features that have made Mandrake Linux so widely popular, such as our "easy to install, easy to use" approach."

So if UnitedLinux is choosing to base themselves on Debian, and MandrakeSoft's joining UnitedLinux would destroy the "easy to install, easy to use" feature of MDK, then I guess we have to infer that Debian isn't easy to install & use?

That would jibe with what a Debian guy once told me at a LinuxWorld conference. I said "I use Mandrake as my primary desktop now but am interested in getting into Debian and/or Slackware, what should I do?". He said "Maybe you should stick with Mandrake.". LOL! I guess I should've been wearing a LoTR shirt or something :) :)

Re:An interesting observation re: MDK & Debian

[WetCat]

On my very IMHO, debian isn't easy to install... it's too cumbersome and not so user friendly as Mandrake.
Only my own IMHO.

Re:An interesting observation re: MDK & Debian

[insomaniac]

Yah I agree there, debian allways seemes just a little bit too chaotic for my tastes. But hell what can I say, I used slackware when I was still using linux. These days I just run *BSD, dunno suits me more than all the linux distro's I've tried...
To the debian people: the package system looks nice, but the system just needs a bit more ease of administration, especially if you like to do everything with vim like I do. Oh and maybe do something like a ports collection, cause theres nothing like freshly compiled bins... =)

Anyways I'll check linux every so often to see if it has changed to my liking, I'll allways check it on the desktop tho cause BSD has won the server battle imho.

Re:An interesting observation re: MDK & Debian

[13Echo]

Slackware is excellent. Just make sure that you understand how to use fdisk for partitioning your drives (cfdisk is also included), and know how to use xf86config (or edit the file manually).

Other than that, it is smooth sailing. It is fast, lean (but covers most of the essentials for most any desktop *or* server use), and very configurable with minimal proprietary tools. It will help you to really understand Linux. All it takes is a little basic knowledge of the OS.

I am a big Slackware fan. I found it easy to learn how to use Linux on Slackware once I understood the basics of partitions, permissions, and xf86config. That is pretty much all that you need aside from being able to learn compile programs from sources (very simple if you have never done it- just three simple commands). No RPM here, but slack also has a great package installer called "pkgtool". This lets you easily install precompiled packages, such as those from www.linuxpackages.net . I was hooked on Slack from the start, and have been using it ever since.

Re:An interesting observation re: MDK & Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

As a supa dupa Linux Newbie, who has actually tried three different distrobutions (Red Hat, Mandrake and Slackware), I gots to say that I like Slackware the best. Simple reason, really, when I get shit working (my mouse wheel and sound, basically) gave me a super rad sense of actual accomplishment, because I had to read shit and figure it out for myself instead of having something else do it for me. And I like pkgtool (even making my own packages from the sources I compile, which is easy as poontang pie). And I even compiled my own bloomin' kernel, and it worked (which was fun, oddly enough).

I like Slackware, I like Mandrake, but I'd use Slackware for myself over Mandrake. But I'd recommend Mandrake to most people who want to just try linux and see what it's like, and Slackware to the people who'd want to have to set some stuff up on their own.

Re:An interesting observation re: MDK & Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

try gentoo... your future i see.. hmm..

Re:Post mdoerated +1 Flaimbait

[RKloti]

Why not .tar.bz2? Bzip2 compresses denser, and is GPLed.

air force

[Anonymous Coward]

The air force would be much better off when using MS windows systems, they would at least be occupied with administration and reboots then instead of killing innocent citizens world-wide.

Re:air force

[DesScorp]

"Anonymous Coward"....how richly that label fits you, whoever you are...along with "Troll", that is.

Very bad moderation today...

[Anonymous Coward]

To Moderators of this thread: Its sad when people are modded troll for having an opinion on Slashdot. Save the points for the real trolls or for modding up something that you agree with, but don't smack down people for having an honest opinion.

My reply to this post: That said, what is the best Linux often depends on what you as the user wants. That is the beauty of Linux, there is a tool for every job. Those who want (at least percieved) ease of use can go with Red Hat and Mandrake. Those who really like to tool around or really want to customize the system inside seem to prefer distros like slackware.

Debian will make you appreciate your knowledge

[kyoko21]

I think the subject speaks for itself. Yes, debian does have a pretty steep learning curve. That was the first thing he commented on about debian back in 1997 when he was running the IPv6 network on campus at Virginia Tech. (go hokies).

However, when you get to the bottom of it all, debian has a very clean and modular type install. The base install is truly a BASE install. Unlike RedHat's base install of roughly 800 megs. And like many of the individuals who have posted, not everyone uses x86. If you can install debian on x86, you can basically install it anywhere on any platform (with also learning some new stuff about OpenFirmware if you are going to install it on PPC and or Sparc since those machines I have running debian as well).

But the fact that the baseline install of Debian is truly small and compact, you can really tweak the install of NECESSARY packages/applications/libraries that you need.

I for one do not know much about the hype behind UnitedLinux and don't really care for much of it. But the bottom line is that learning Debian isn't just learning about Linux, but you really get to learn about several other things during the process of learning it.

As Bruce Lee once said: "Be Formless, shapeless like water. Now if you put water into a cup it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle, you put it into a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash, be water my friend."

And that is what Debian is: water. :-)

Core Linux Problems

[jtshaw]

I love linux, I have been running it for a few years now. However, there are some major core problems they need to fix that I think they are overlooking.

One, is the ever popular package management system debate. RPM is flawed, if you don't believe me then tell me why we need a different rpm install for each version of Redhat and Mandrake with a lot of programs.

What we need is a system that checks dependancies, does automatic upgrades, kind of like apt-get (which is arguable the best package format around). It should be robust, it shouldn't matter what you have version wise, it should always be able to upgrade a system from any state.

Another problem is configuration. The easy way to provide good graphical and non-graphical configuration is have everything use a strict mark-up language for for all config files. This way one gui program could configure everything and it is easy to read if you are logged in without graphics. Commericial Unixes like Solaris do this all ready.

Of course there are other problems as well.. but these two are a good example of problems United Linux isn't going to fix.

Re:Core Linux Problems

[rprata]

Gentoo does this.

# emerge mysql

will calculate ALL dependencies, download them one at a time, and compile them (from source, NO binaries) in the correct order, right before your eyes. Works every time.

And, updating a system is as easy as

# emerge --clean rsync
# emerge --update world

do this daily, and you've got a 100% up-to-date system.

The installer to end all installers...

[Anonymous Coward]

#!/bin/sh

(dependency checking)

tar xvf somefile.tgz

(post-install configuration)

#done!

UL ain't what you think it is.

[kikensei]

I suffer the same knee-jerk distaste when reading about UL. Further, reading the Mandrake press release, I get all misty and want to go out and drop $100+ on their full distro release.

The fact is though I don't like Mandrake's package or config tools. FUrther, I love SuSE's slick tool sets, and while Yast is not under a free license, its actually very open for those who take the time to actually read it.

As for UL, it is intended for the ENTERPRISE. The desktop distro's of the various UL members are unaffected. The entire point of UL is to provide a solid target for enterprise level developer's when creating software. Further, it gives a company thinking of moving to Linux a strong partnership to get support from.

Everyone running Linux on their home/work desktop can stick to their favorite and whether its under the UL umbrella or not you won't notice the difference. I strongly agree with many of the sentiments in the Mandrake letter vis a vis Linux. That's great for end user's and the public, but do you think the Linux servers installed by Big Blue aren't standardized? It makes it easier for companies like IBM or HP to offer Linux to high end
markets.

I'll stick to SuSE, with its cutting edge packages, ridiculous ease of use and it runs the gamut from total noob distro to hard core enterprise server. And the config tools make a joke of Mandrake's offerings.

Re:UL ain't what you think it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

SuSE is one of the best distributions for both servers and desktops. It's well laid out and includes just about anything you want. In addition to that, it's both easy to use, and easy to hack.

Oh, and YaST and friends make it a breeze to deal with those "pesky rpm packages" everyone seems to be bitching about.

MOD DOWN

[greymond]

I vote for modding down CmdrTaco as -1 Flamebait for his comment on debian being the best

Somebody mark this date...

[Charlie Bill]

UL is just the 2nd tier distros trying to get attention and ink away from the "evil forces" in North Carolina. I'll just stick to the best distribution and watch the fun from afar ;)

Someone please mark this date.

Inter-Linux FUD takes over any rational discussion of things.

Best Distro

[Glanz]

I'm with you on that one. #apt-get install peaceandtranquilityfarawayfromdependencyhell

Missing the point

[pix]

I think that the point of UL is being missed here. The biggest problem in getting major adoption of Linux servers in the commercial world is the lack of reliable commercial support. UL helps make this happen by ensuring that there is a single "certifiable" Linux base that a supprot organisation can guarantee support for. Whilst this is not important for most of the Linux world, it is important for corproate customers who want that level of insurance. Each of the UL vendors will then add their own customisations on to seperate CDs which will retain the current distribution uniques.

Note that this is only aimed at the server market, the current separate distributions from each of the UL vendors will remain available for "client" or "non-commercial support" use.

So Linux users have the choice of using what is available today, or no choosing to use a special package which can be certified as supportable by a commercial support organisation (this does not imply that normal Linux is not supportable!).

As Mandrake is mainly a client-orientated dist, I am not surprised that UL doesn't interest them.

BTW, UL is unlikely to have any special packages etc in it, it is the certifiable combination that is important.

Re:Missing the point

[pix]

PS - apologies for the finger trouble, my spelling isn't normally that bad!

Re:Missing the point

[BigBir3d]

I think that the point of UL is being missed here. The biggest problem in getting major adoption of Linux servers in the commercial world is the lack of reliable commercial support. UL helps make this happen by ensuring that there is a single "certifiable" Linux base that a supprot organisation can guarantee support for. Whilst this is not important for most of the Linux world, it is important for corproate customers who want that level of insurance. Each of the UL vendors will then add their own customisations on to seperate CDs which will retain the current distribution uniques

Which is all fine and good, as long as you ignore Redhat. Not to mention that number of customers that pay for Redhat will be higher than those of UL for quite some time. I think this is just bad timing; if this was 1999, I think they would be in a much better position.

We'll see I guess.

Re:Missing the point

[pix]

Not ignoring RedHat at all. They have announced their Advanced Server package which does exactly the same thing (for the same sort of money). It provides a fully commercially supportable environment for those customer who care about that sort of thing. So we already have two competitive offerings in the space - which is good! They both support LSB, so application compatibility is not really an issue any more.

Sure - this is about the UL disties working together to compete in the commercial space with Red Hat. There's room for both.

Re:Missing the point

[BigBir3d]

Sure - this is about the UL disties working together to compete in the commercial space with Red Hat. There's room for both.

I know that there is room. I just think UL is late enough to market to serioulsy harm their chances of being competitive.

might as well be called united has-been companies

[Anonymous Coward]

a bunch of bad distros in to one distro is one big
expensive shitty distro

OT: question mark

[IXI]

So I found the forward slash. It is the shifted 7. I tried to shift it once more using both shift keys but that didn't work.

Re:LINK CORRECTION

[Isaac-Lew]

After all, I could use the tools included in Slackware (gcc, vim, the source packages, etc) to make a new distro, but that wouldn't make it Slackware.

Nope...that would make it Red Hat :P.

(In case some of you don't know/remember, RH started out as a derivative of Slackware).

Face it - it's a merger

[psicE]

What do SuSE, Caldera, Conectiva, and TurboLinux have in common? Simple; those four distros are practically the only ones that continue to try to make a profit, and consistently fail. RedHat is profitable, and Mandrake is getting closer every day; Debian, Gentoo, and myriad others are noncommercial distros that have no profit incentive. But SuSE, Caldera, Conectiva, and TurboLinux all want to be the next RedHat, and outside of very small markets, they all failed.

SuSE is RedHat's biggest competitor in Europe, and has the greatest marketshare in Germany. Caldera was formerly RedHat's biggest competitor in the US (until Mandrake came along). Conectiva is RedHat's biggest competitor in Latin America. TurboLinux is RedHat's biggest competitor in Japan.

So, these four distros realized that in every market, there was generally three corporate competitors: RedHat, Mandrake, and one of them. They decided to merge, so that there would be a common distro with worldwide marketshare; but kept the companies separate, so that they could leverage their brand in each market - would Latin Americans suddenly buy a copy of SuSE? As it is, they might fully merge someday, if/when the UnitedLinux brand becomes stronger.

Mandrake knew that they were a strong competitor throughout a very large geographical area; as they said in this statement, their worldwide marketshare is larger than the four UnitedLinux companies combined. Mandrake would have nothing to gain if they had to pool their resources with four companies who are much weaker then they are, and declining all the time.

I wouldn't be surprised if UnitedLinux ends up in a full corporate merger, and later the whole thing goes bankrupt; after reading Mandrake's statement, I get the feeling that they wouldn't be either.

Re:Face it - it's a merger

[Jason Earl]

That's the only explanation I have heard that explains why SuSE would pick up the tab for helping Caldera develop a Linux distribution. SuSE wants access to the remnants of Caldera's ex-SCO distribution network, TurboLinux's Japanese market, and Connectiva's Latin markets, and they are willing to pay the developers to go after these markets.

I wish them luck, but RedHat has the momentum, and it has much better licensing terms. In my opinion the reason that SuSE and Caldera aren't in RedHat's spot is that they haven't been as free with their source code as RedHat and Mandrake have been. It might seem like a small thing, but part of the reason that many of us are switching to Linux is to get out from under the thumb of our software vendors. Caldera and SuSE want us to trade our old proprietary software vendors with a new one (that bases most of their work on Linux), and most people aren't falling for that. Both Caldera and SuSE have created distributions that were as good (or better in most cases) as RedHat's, but the Freedom issue has tripped them up.

first to use devfs.. ?

[Anonymous Coward]

afaik, and to my best knowledge,
ROCK Linux ( http://www2.rocklinux.org) was the first distribution to roll out with devfs enabled, the first distribution with devfs-only support, and the first distribution with devfs-only on more than [1,2,3] platforms.
ROCK Linux first deployed devfs when the devicenames where still "/dev/scsi/c0t0d0s0" style, with rock-linux 1.2.0 from 17th august 1999 - i don`t know whether any of the earlier releases already used it, but they have been supplying most current (kernel+devfs+glibc) for about three years now. you can check out the old sources at http:www2.rocklinux.org/releases/old/.

Incorrect yet again

[FreeUser]

In regards to email, the original poster is correct. Feel free to look at the definition of SPAM in any anti-spam law.

The definition of SPAM predates any legislation on the subject by years. The fact that our corrupt government has drafted legislation (or, in some cases, allowed mass marketers to draft legislation) that changes the definition for the convinience of the SPAMMERs themselves in fact does nothing to legitimize the incorrect definition you are defending. It does serve, however, to delegitize the government that is redefining the term ... the same government, perhaps, that defines the total destruction of a southeast Asian village as "liberation," fascist contra-revolutonaries as "freedom fighters," computer security crackers as "terrorists," and so forth.

From whatis:

Spam is unsolicited e-mail on the Internet. From the sender's point-of-view, it's a form of bulk mail, often to a list culled from subscribers to a Usenet discussion group or obtained by companies that specialize in creating e-mail distribution lists. To the receiver, it usually seems like junk e-mail. In general, it's not considered good netiquette to send spam. It's generally equivalent to unsolicited phone marketing calls except that the user pays for part of the message since everyone shares the cost of maintaining the Internet.

The most authoritative definitions are probably the following ones, offered by the Net Abuse FAQ (for USENET)

The term "spam" [...] means "the same article (or essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably high number of times to one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't mean "ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It doesn't mean "posts whose content I object to." Spam is a funky name for a phenomenon that can be measured pretty objectively: did that post appear X times?

and the email abuse FAQ (for email)

Unsolicited email is any email message received where the recipient did not specifically ask to receive it.

Taken by itself, unsolicited email does not constitute abuse; not all unsolicited email is also undesired email. For example, receiving "unsolicited" email from a long-lost friend or relative is certainly not abuse. The reason that it is defined separately is that email abuse takes several forms, all of which begin with the fact that the email received is unsolicited.

Bulk email is any group of messages sent via email, with substantially identical content, to a large number of addresses at once.

First, a short lesson on the term "SPAM". Spam describes a particular kind of Usenet posting (and canned spiced ham), but is now often used to describe many kinds of inappropriate activities, including some email-related events. It is technically incorrect to use "spam" to describe email abuse, although attempting to correct the practice would amount to tilting at windmills. For more on the history of the term, look for "2.4) Where did the term 'Spam' come from?" in http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.htm l

UBE: Unsolicited Bulk Email
UCE: Unsolicited Commercial Email
MMF: Make Money Fast
MLM: Multi-Level Marketing

[ are all forms of abuse, commonly referred to as 'spam' ]

The only people who are defining SPAM in the self-serving, restricted manner as you are are the SPAMMERs themselves and the legislators they have bought (and, indeed, not even all of them).

Type-o in comment

[X-Nc]

Hey CT, you mistyped the URL for the best distribution.

Ok, ok... mod this down to flame bait. I would myself but you can't mod your own posts. The only reason I even write this is because I haven't let the zealot mode out in almost two years.

RPM isn't the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

RPM's purpose is to package and install applications and let you know when dependencies in the RPM database don't meet the requirements of a package. Sure it does more, but that's the crux of it. If more distributions than Debian used .debs you'd see the same problems--it's not the packaging system.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice though how you politely neglected the differences between terrorism and linux.

What's even nicer is that YOU couldn't come up with any.

I feel sorry for you (was: Re:debian rocks :)

[iotasmall]

> Yes, but Woody shows no sign of being released
> in my lifetime...

Sadly, sometimes, something could be long, the others could be otherwise.

Many people who are on the bright side have already been using Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 "Woody" for some time by now. Having said that, I have made yet another installation of Woody with an fsn.hu (20020702) 4.3GB DVD. Haven't you try that out? Who need to wait until release.

Cheers

Iota Small

Re:I feel sorry for you (was: Re:debian rocks :)

[BrokenHalo]

I wasn't bashing Woody in my parent post; Not long ago, when I was changing distros (as I do from time to time) I tried to get hold of Woody on CDs, as I don't have the bandwidth to download the ISOs. Nobody here in Australia was willing to take the time to answer my enquiries, so I gave up and went back to Slackware.

Re:I feel sorry for you (was: Re:debian rocks :)

[iotasmall]

> I was changing distros (as I do from time to time)

On the contrast, I have tried only one distribution and have no desire to look any further.

A few questions for you:

(1) Why bother to download iso images when mail order CD-ROMs/DVDs are so cheap?

(2) Why ask only you Aussies when we have the Usenet? I find uk.comp.os.linux is among the highest s/n ratio.

If you really, really can't find a vendor, I can burn you a "fsn.hu pre-release (20020702)" DVD+RW at cost. I don't do CD-Rs.

Cheers

Iota Small

Re:I feel sorry for you (was: Re:debian rocks :)

[sir99]

That was a sex joke I posted, silly. =P Maybe not a very good one, but oh well.

Anyway, I'm happily running sid on one computer, and woody on another, so no Debian problems here :)

Of course, they are french right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, how often do you see french people/organizations going along with anything, especially things of american origin (caldera). May God bless the french ;).

Respectfully disagree

[vanyel]

I think the whole UnitedLinux thing is lame- the distros that want to be compatible already are.

Being a FreeBSD user, and thus to some extent part of the problem ;-), I'm only peripherally aware of what's going on here, but an attempt to unify the operating environment of the various Unices can only help. Unifying Linux would be a great start. The inability to do this in the late 80's, combined with a refusal to make a user interface the mere mortals could use, handed the PC market to Microsoft in the first place. Unix was going gangbusters back then and was on the verge of standardizing, but everyone had to do their own thing, and Billy jumped in. And it's taken another 10-15 years for Apple to put a pretty face on Unix. The Open Source version still has a long ways to go yet to match it.

legojenn found DEAD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Earlier today, legojenn was found DEAD. Most will remember this user as an avid and active troll sucker, responding to hundreds of trolls per day. When once asked how much time it takes per day, legojenn responded "About 8 to 16 hours, but that's OK because I don't work or shower. Some might even call me a lazy slacker, but those people are trolls and I handle them well." R.I.P legojenn, your razor sharp wit and cunning will be sorely missed.

legojenn, a true Slashdot icon.

The Problem with Uniting Linux

[tlambert]

I have great respect for the Mandrake Linux, or any other Linux distribution, for that matter. Making a distribution of any software is hard, and an OS is more complex than most.

But Mandrake is missing the boat... and so is United Linux.

In Mandrake's FAQ entry, explaining why they have decided not to participate in United Linux, they state:

"Since all distributors use the same base
components, there are relatively few binary
incompatibility issues. And even when a
binary compatibility problem arises, it's
easy to recompile an application for a given
Linux distribution."

and they claim:

"It is extremely hard for us to understand
why some software publishers and hardware
manufacturers only support one Linux
distribution."

To me, the answer is obvious: a third party developer would have to not only internally certify their software for support purposes, but it would have to also maintain seperate SKUs (Stock Keeping Units) for each of the Linux versions on which it runs. For commercial applications, "recompile" is not as easy as the act itself. It's clear, these people have never produced a third party shrink-wrapped packaged software product intended to run on a UNIX system.

The intent of United Linux is to try and make it possible for a manufacturer to build shrink-wrapped product that they can know will run on any United Linux labelled platform.

But here, United Linux must fail, as the LSB has failed.

In the original UNIX Wars (of which I am a battle-scarred veteran), the problem was that each distribution of UNIX, even for the same processor family, was "standard plus extensions". Each vendor tried to provide "value add"... and, in doing that, they introduced incompatability between nominally standards compliant platforms.

So paying lip-service to a standard gets you nowhere. The LSB gets you nowhere, and POSIX gets you nowhere. You may be able to compile the same source code on each of these platforms, and, if you are lucky, and did not need to use any platform proprietary information to build your product, it may run without errors. But all you've achieved with this is source compatability.

The LSB doesn't give you binary compatability, and neither does United Linux. And it won't, even if they specify the ABI, even to the point of install tools and other minutia, like IBCS2 did (and neither BSD nor Linux has *full* IBCS2 compliance, until the IBCS2 installation and packaging tools also work -- it's not *just* the ABI, it's the environment).

Why will United Linux fail, since that's what I'm leading up to?

United Linux will fail because it's not possible to *turn off* the vendor "value add".

This seems counter-intuitive at first, but it's a fact. It's the same reason the LSB has failed to deliver on the same promise. And it's the same reason UNIX was never able to be defragmented, when everyone started using Intel processors and commodity PC hardware. Here is the reason:

Standard plus extensions is inherently non-standard.

Let me repeat that:

Standard plus extensions is inherently non-standard.

Until it's possible to turn off *everything* that isn't covered by a standard, it will be impossible for a third party developer to build something that they *know* will run on all platforms that conform to the standard.

Linux vendors: if you want to become the #1 developement platform for United Linux, then strip out everything that isn't covered by the definition of United Linux.

That -- and only that! -- will guarantee that any program that runs on your platform will run on any United Linux platform.

It will guarantee that there is no possibility of a third party developer accidently using a vendor specific extension (OK: "enhancement", but we know that it's really there for vendor lock-in).

It will also make you a commodity.

*This* is what the vendors in the UNIX Wars feared, and refused to let happen. And, in doing that, they lost all the third party development resources to Windows, which *was* a commodity, even if it was one only because of the Microsoft Monopoly.

Will this happen? Will the Linux Vendors wake up to the fact that they nust agree to *commoditize themselves*? Probably not. It's a lot easier for Caldera or Mandrake or Red Hat to compete among themselves, and try and beat each other down, than it is for them to try and take on Microsoft.

So Mandrake... you're avoiding doing the wrong thing by not participating in United Linux, given it's current vender differentiation model permitting vendor lock-in of third party developers.

*But*... you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and as long as you stick to your guns, you aren't going to be doing the right thing for the right reasons, either.

-- Terry

Linux is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of propaganda on both sides! The truth is Linux is dying. It was a ripoff of BSD which was never as good as the BSD distributions freely available today. It's no wonder more and more people are swiching to FreeBSD.

Mandrake? I think not

[Anonymous Coward]

Used RedHat,
Used Mandrake,
even checked out Corel Linux :)

But none of them, IMHO, can top slackware...

sure it's a one-time big job of configuring everything but atleast YOU have control over your system and not the distribution alone.

Slackware?

[sparkeyjames]

One problem your best distribution link should have pointed at slackware.com.

Re:Why Should Lusr == evil forces?

[Anonymous Coward]

So pad're, what are you really saying? That RedHat should NOT have responded to the market? That the customer ISN'T always right? That "standards" ought to be applied though end-Lusr functionality is lost?
From this Lusrs POV, scr*w all that religious crappola and the weenie_cycle it rode in on.

The Best distro?

[Bladerunner2037]

The Beast is the Best.

Package formats and dependencies are not the probl

[Secure42]

Package formats: RPM, DEB, there were a slashdot discussion last month about both package formats and i draw the conclusion that the problem it is not package format, but in the way you package your software.
If you want an unbiased comparison between them check out: www.kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/

Dependencies: Now there are solutions to solve dependecies in both package formats. RPMS solutions are pretty new but it is the right way.
- apt-get: for deb packages and for rpm packages, adopted and developed by Conectiva and Mandrake.
- urpmi: adopted and developed by Mandrake
- up2date: adopted and developed by RedHat, you have to register to use it so it is not the right way, not my favourite.

So that is not the real problem but the way Linux distro package the software.

sure...what about Xandros?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Have not even seen it yet, yet it is excluded from the possible?

That will not get you anywhere.

If it did, everyone would still be running Microsoft crap.

shut up CmdrTaco

[Anonymous Coward]

this is to the people who run /., shut your bloody heavily opinioned biased yapps!!!

ok, im just sick and tired of seeing at the end of almost EVERY news post what you ppls think..no-one cares! ok, if you care so much about other people hearing your opinion, go join sone support group for shit's sakes.

wrong!

[martin-boundary]

Writing program installers like those on Windows is definitely not the way to go on Linux. That's because Linux is intrinsically a multiuser system, so apps need to be installed generically in the system directories first, and then each user who wants to use the software should run a user installation and configuration program. Usually, that's as simple as firing your text editor and editing a dot file. Package management handles generic system installs just fine.

If you took the Windows installation wizard approach, you'd have to decide at the time of the install for the user what the likely options for all your users would be. And if you get a new user who wants an extra feature, you're screwed because you have to modify the install to add the missing module.

As I said, much better to have a system install (handled by package mgmt) and then a user install (as easy as writing a dot file in the user's home directory)

Re:wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please.... READ the post before responding... you are telling me that Loki's installer fails... and it cant work..

Wow it does work and it works better than ANYTHING out there.

so how about just agreeing.. and say "Yes you're right, programmers need to get off their lazy asses and use the loki installer... those that don't are stupid-morons."

Otherwise, dont put your app on sourceforge, or even offer it up.. the linux world is better without a ton of un-installable crud called apps that tantlize but only serve to piss off users.

Why introduce a new definition of spam?

[Per Abrahamsen]

Why do you think we need a new definition of spam?

> Any e-mail I don't want = spam

Wrong, although it is undertsandable why many new users believe so. Most unwanted email they get is spam, so when more experienced users call that spam, they believe it cover all unwanted email.

> I guess Mandrake is sending their newsletter to *@*.* now, right?

Not as far as I know.

> Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail

Yes. Of course, spam is more than that. We used the term for mass-posted messages to Usenet before junk email became a problem on email. And before the term reached Usenet, it was used for the practice of flooding online text games with messages, preventing other players their turn.

> with a specific commercial pitch or advertisement including a price.

No such requirement have ever been part of the definition of spam. While most email spam have a commercial twist, there are a low that doesn't (Jesus loves you, learn about the supresseed ethnics, help this worthy cause).

The "includes a price" clause is plain stupid, the majority of spam doesn't include spam, it just refers to a web site.

> Introductory e-mails (especially sent to a
> specific address), newsletters and business
> correspondence is not spam.

Depend on whether it is bulk and unsolicited. It need to be both to be spam.

FUD?

[Clansman]

I think you're a bit off base here - one or too of your statements feel a bit, well, fuddy ...

You are very keen to suggest that Suse, for eg, is a *proprietary* distribution, implying somehow that it is not free. This is fluffy - you are free to download suse from their website. All the software is gpled, you can do what you like with it.

You mention Caldera's per seat thing. Sure, a tricky one for the gpl to cope with, but Suse have said that they will be selling their UL distribution on the same basis as now. Anyone can join in with UL and can sell their particular offering (binaries, install, support, additional tools) as they see fit.

The whole thing is gpl for source (if not for binaries.) You can build a UL box for free and distribute that. What you can't do is then brand it UL. But so what. If thats what you wanted to do then it will always be better for you to actually join the association.

You seem to have missed the whole *support and services* part of how enterprises decide on key platforms. They don't just run things on test distributions!

Re:FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to be pedantic, but..

If you knew much about SuSE you would know that YaST and friends are _not_ GPL'd. The source is all there, but the license is not GPL. Not only that but they also include proprietary, binary only software (such as Acrobat Reader, etc).

YAST licence.

[deno]

SuSE Yast is not closed source, but it isn't "Open Source" either. It's a propriatery licence which gives you somewhat more freedom than usual propriatery licences, but leaves SuSE in control.

This is a fact. Now you may argue that "this isn't a problem" for you, and someone else may argue that "this is a problem" for him...

Re:What? (Oh piss off)

[sg_oneill]

Oh piss off you abusive wanker. Theres no point in abusing someone just because you don't agree. Maybe when you graduate from high school you'll learn that. Remember kidstuff that that sort of language in the real world will likely get your nose punched in.
Fuck off.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux geeks senselessly and randomly bash a huge group of people (windows users), calling them a variety of offensive and demeaning terms and attempting to slump them in the same category as computer-illiterates.
Sci-fi fanatics are also scary folk... many are obese, socially inept folk who spend their free time masturbating and sweating on chairs watching Star Trek. They have other scary practices as well.