Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?

Redmond by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 13:56 · Score: 0

Redmond seems a little close to RedHat.

They will never have the money.; Money == power. by RoundSparrow · 2002-08-26 13:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

They don't have the money that Microsoft has, and given that they aim for low prices... and not to "lock in customers" then

Can't you guys accept that RedHat might want to make money and still have _some ethics_?

MODS: We were ASKED what we thought!

No, no, no... by 1010011010 · 2002-08-26 13:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

RedHat pretty religiously releases its code under the GPL and works with third parties to make sure standards get implemented. They will be LSB compliant, for instance, in their next release.

Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.

--
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.

Re:No, no, no... by Libor+Vanek · 2002-08-26 14:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly - some people likes to hate popular things, no matter how good or evil are they (things, not people ;o)))
Re:No, no, no... by Josh · 2002-08-26 14:22 · Score: 1

Totally agree. RedHat ethics good, but I can't understand why the distro is so popular. It is surpassed by other distribution on every dimension except size of user base.
Re:No, no, no... by SN74S181 · 2002-08-26 14:30 · Score: 1

It's probably the same phenomenon that makes AOL the largest ISP.

As an aside: Does anybody else find an IBM VP referring to Microsoft 'dominance and attitude' a bit ironic? Any of us old enough to remember the old IBM sure do.
Re:No, no, no... by WhoCouldItBe · 2002-08-26 14:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

I can tell you why they're popular, at least in the corporate sector - support.

Where I work we're gradually moving some of our systems to Linux. Mostly just clients at this point, but some backend servers are being ported too.

But we need someone to point a finger at if something breaks. I've never actually used RedHat support, but at least they have some! There also needs to be some sort of indication that the company won't die tomorrow. And RedHat's doing better than most other Linux companies out there.

As for personal systems...I dunno. It's easy to install for newbies, and it's still customizable like any other distro. I've run pretty much every distro at one point or another, though at the moment I'm running RH, just because it's what I use at work.

And now that I have it set up the way I want, I don't want to change it. I'm lazy like that :)
Re:No, no, no... by Malc · 2002-08-26 14:47 · Score: 1

On top of that, they are the nearest Linux has to a company that big corporation recognises. Remember, some managers are not happy with software that isn't backed up with a telephone number and somebody they can blame.
Re:No, no, no... by PurpleFloyd · 2002-08-26 14:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Red Hat probably isn't the best distro, nor is it the worst. Still, there are a couple reasons why it is the largest:
They offer a version of Linux that works right out of the box. Remember that while much of the Slashdot crowd likes to customize everything to the limit, most people are happy with most defaults. Redhat isn't the most secure, or the most powerful. However, it can set things up without asking too many questions; which is often a feature for someone new to Linux. In fact, I point Linux beginners to Red Hat or Mandrake for this reason: They are probably best off learning by poking around on a system with reasonable defaults, not having to make random choices when they're asked a question over their head.
They're a fairly large company. They certainly don't have the cash of someone like Microsoft or even Apple, but they do have enough money to appear large and "stable". To many, especially in the business world, it's a big selling point to say that you'll be around in five or ten years.

--

That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Re:No, no, no... by byran+lei · 2002-08-26 14:52 · Score: 0

>Totally agree. RedHat ethics good, but I can't understand why the
>distro is so popular. It is surpassed by other distribution on every
>dimension except size of user base.
>
No it isn't. People like RedHat because they know RedHat won't do things like include journaling filesystems that aren't ready for primetime use just to appease someone like you. Quite frankly I think SuSE and Mandrake suck. They seem too Amiga-ish in their approach, and that I think is going come back and bite them in the ass just it did Commodore. Whatever RedHat does, I don't see them making the kinds of mistakes Commodore and Atari did. That may piss off people like you,but who really gives a shit?
Re:No, no, no... by Dwonis · 2002-08-26 15:20 · Score: 2

Which part of "Amigaish" do you mean?
Re:No, no, no... by banzai51 · 2002-08-26 15:31 · Score: 1

What do you mean the "old" IBM? They haven't changed. They still act like they're the 800 pound gorilla.
Re:No, no, no... by gr0ngb0t · 2002-08-26 15:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

In fact, I point Linux beginners to Red Hat or Mandrake for this reason

I used to point new linux users to Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSe but no longer... My younger brother wanted to install linux to "see what linux is like", and I pointed him to the new woody release - I've got a few years of debian experience under my belt, and installing woody on a new box was, to say the very least, significantly less painful than any prior install of it I've ever done.

If the beginner is even a little bit computer savvy, I wouldnt have any problem in recommending an install of Woody as it is a much easier install than previous ones.
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:51 · Score: 0

Talk like this only serves to divide this community by catering to one's fears. This is the beginnings of a potentially negative debate that shifts focus from the real efforts of the Open Source movement onto a meaningless topic while the real evil people take advantage of the disarray. Don't hate RedHat for being good at what they do. Talking about RedHat as some sort of "Next Redmond" in the making is like counting your chicken before they hatch.
Re:No, no, no... by dh003i · 2002-08-26 15:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

No it isn't. People like RedHat because they know RedHat won't do things like include journaling filesystems that aren't ready for primetime use just to appease someone like you. Quite frankly I think SuSE and Mandrake suck. They seem too Amiga-ish in their approach, and that I think is going come back and bite them in the ass just it did Commodore. Whatever RedHat does, I don't see them making the kinds of mistakes Commodore and Atari did. That may piss off people like you,but who really gives a shit?

Firstly, I think that insulting Amiga is not wise. Amiga was a great system -- revolutionary. It was the best consumer product at the time.

Secondly, RedHat certainly doesn't include features that aren't ready for prime-time as does SuSe and Mandrake. But it also isn't as much of a rock of stability and security as are distros like Debian and Slackware. So, that doesn't explain why its so popular.

I think its popular because of support.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Re:No, no, no... by iabervon · 2002-08-26 16:08 · Score: 2

My experience with Red Hat has been that it only works until you do something with it, at which point it starts behaving badly. Red Hat seems to me to go to extreme lengths to hide what's actually going on in your system, so you can't maintain it manually, and the automatic tools are not perfect. This is actually the way in which it reminds me of Microsoft: there are a number of arcane and totally unintuitive (but friendly) rituals you have to do in order to keep the whole thing from exploding when you touch it.

Not that I expect the business world to realize it, but being a company of any size is much less stable than being a community group. In ten years, Red Hat probably won't have gone out of business. But debian probably still won't have gone into business. MicroSoft may not have been liquidated by the government, but it doesn't matter because their customers will have had to replace everything 4 times anyway. Of course, there will be at least one maintained Red Hat-derived distribution in ten years, so the trust isn't entirely misplaced.
Re:No, no, no... by fireboy1919 · 2002-08-26 16:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah. They wouldn't want to appease me with something like a journaling file system.

Or, to use a better example, they wouldn't want to appease users by using something slightly unreliable, like linuxconf.

Be realistic. The system that makes sure everything is ready for primetime before it goes into the distro is Debian (and I speak as an impartial non-RH, non-Debian, non-Mandrake, non-Suse, non-Windows user). Redhat has something else going for it - probably the fact that they sell hardware AND offer support for it; I can think of a couple of companies who have an official policy of only buying from other companies who offer support.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:No, no, no... by decefett · 2002-08-26 16:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Examples please? I've been using Redhat since 5.2 and have never experienced anything like that.

All the config files are are in resonable enough locations, all you have to do is edit them and restart the relevant daemons.

--
Australian? Join EFA
Re:No, no, no... by jchristopher · 2002-08-26 16:36 · Score: 1

Perhaps because they have actually tried to make a distribution that is usable by a newbie? They have, in my opinion, the best Linux installer currently available. You can get the ISOs and 90% of the time you can boot off of the cd and end up with a working computer. That is much more than can be said for Debian, Slackware, etc.
Re:No, no, no... by whereiswaldo · 2002-08-26 16:58 · Score: 1

I agree with the parent. I really like Red Hat. Since 7.2 they've totally rocked. They fight some battles for freedom which is very admirable. Few companies will do that these days.

I think they can be (or at least have been) a little cocky, but I don't think that's reason enough to bury them. And that's far from calling them "evil" like another empire I know.

Red Hat is FAR from Microsoft, including resource-wise obviously. There are plenty of fine alternatives to Red Hat Linux. They've done a great job of bringing Linux to the masses. They've given corporate America something to rely on and bet their businesses on (read: stability). Without stability, Linux would not be catching on nearly as quickly. I believe Red Hat knows this and will maintain that stability in future versions.

Another way to look at what they do is, they are like a checkpoint for the state of Linux development. I also think it helps open source developers have something "tangible" to represent what they do and to showcase that hard work.
Re:No, no, no... by simm_s · 2002-08-26 17:03 · Score: 2

What you are really talking about is infrastructure not redhat hiding things from you. Redhat needs to keep a consistent interface for everything. Thus they make things a little bit harder to hand configure, by forcing you to configure things via their gui/console interface. You can remove this and set up everything yourself. Some people try to merge their changes in redhats infrastructure and it causes chaos. To make a long story short if you don't like this use slack or gentoo.
Re:No, no, no... by Tuross · 2002-08-26 18:22 · Score: 1, Troll

It's easy to be LSB compliant when the LSB is a Redhat standard - a watered-down, mediocre piece of rubbish designed solely to cause Redhat not to do any work to make their distribution compliant with this so-called "standard" while all the other distributions have to waste time making their distribution as bad as Redhat, destroying years of technically superior design and implementation.

Sound familiar? Yes, Redhat's favourite mentors Microsoft have been known to do the same thing.
Want more evidence? How about the recent attempt in their beta to water down both GNOME and KDE so they don't appear any different? They're looking at making one desktop (like their favourite, Microsoft Windows). Sure, there'll still be people in the community who run other things just like some people with Microsoft Windows run Litestep and other alternatives, but for business all that matters is what the majority do.

Oh, and they create and sell non-open-source software also, so I find their claim of being all for the open source community rather laughable.
Being part of the community means more than just releasing software under a community-accepted license like the GPL, it means accepting changes back that increase the quality of the base distribution, and Redhat are notorious for ignoring such things, just like their mentors Microsoft do.
--
Matt
1. Read Slashdot
2. ???
3. Profit
Re:No, no, no... by kasperd · 2002-08-26 18:40 · Score: 1

It was the best consumer product at the time.

I'd go even further and say, that in a few areas it is still the best. The audio and image sync you can do on the Amiga is not beaten by any other system, and few systems can actually match the Amiga in this area. Second the removable media handling is great. And I also like the mouse input hardware. But with no development in aproximately ten years, it is of course falling behind ind most other areas.

--

Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:46 · Score: 0

i'v been using rh since 4.x
it was my first contact with linux( before it was an amiga :)

i've used it for fw's,server,desktop and for video ..

it just works
Re:No, no, no... by rutherford · 2002-08-26 20:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Strange. If you are right why did SuSE, Mandrake, Debian all agree to the LSB specifications? You should read the facts. SuSE 8.0 is as LSB compatible as Redhat 7.3. So there is no problem here.
KDE/Gnome: Why can't you accapt that Free Software/Open Source means that EVERYONE is allowd to change something. If Red Hat wants to make the two desktop easier to use for new users wheres the problem? Will somebody be killed because of this?
You are perhaps right with the non-open source software they sell. But SuSE for example sells much more closed source. If this is a problem for you try Debian.
Re:No, no, no... by FooBarWidget · 2002-08-26 20:12 · Score: 3, Informative

LSB a RedHat standard? Read the LSB! The LSB makes sense for any Unix/Linux system. The LSB requires you to include an rpm command, but that's it: a command, not rpm itself. You may as well create a dummy script that does nothing and call it rpm.

Looking at making one desktop? They're just trying to make both desktops look consistent. All the apps are still there. Konqueror is still there. KMail is still there. And you can use both of them if you want to.

They sell non-open-source software? That may be true (although I don't know any of their proprietary programs; can you name one?), but most of their software are open source. That includes the installer and all the configuration tools. Those are all GPL'ed. And they release the source code of their patches, including the patches for BSD-like-licensed programs like XFree86.
Re:No, no, no... by fferreres · 2002-08-26 20:28 · Score: 2

I know, but they could become in a position to dictate new rules, if they increase market share. That is, they could be placed in a situation where they could abuse the concept a bit.

If you really trust them, I see no problem. If you are suspicious or conservative, no single distro should have too much market share.

It's anot about Red Hat bad, Reh Hat good. It's about how you think someone in a dominant position and a shareholders interest above all would behave.

The last alternative is to completely disregard the situation and believe no distribution (they are more than a distribution actually in reality!) will be able to abuse, no matter what market share they achieve.

All in all, I'd even preffer a "Red Hat bad" situation than what we have now. Because that way we'd have TWO bad guys (you know who the other is), and that would mean HUGE competition at least for a while.

--
unfinished: (adj.)
Re:No, no, no... by moZer · 2002-08-26 20:42 · Score: 1

How do they force you? Just find the config file, edit it in your favourite text editor, save it and restart whatever program you wanted to customize. You don't even have to install the gui tools.

--
Hello, my name is Robert Lerner, and I pronounce Lernux as "99% cpu"
Re:No, no, no... by hdparm · 2002-08-26 22:31 · Score: 1

I think its popular because of support.
Contrary, I think it's because it works and works well. Good support is important, of course, but why would anybody go with the product that has good support and is defunct.

Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
Re:No, no, no... by SWroclawski · 2002-08-26 22:57 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, this isn't completely true.

It used to be the case that Red Hat would GPL all its work. The installer, the RPM system, the tools like Control Panel and whatnot.

When RH bought other companies (like Cygnus), it suddenly stopped saying that, and the source code to those programs was never released.

LSB compliance is a step forward, but at the same time, Red Hat spends a lot of effort working with companies to be "exclusive" in thier "Linux" support. That is, when a company supports one GNU/Linux distribution, they will only support Red Hat.

Although with LSB compliance, this issue will be less important, it also has a serious effect on the rest of the distributions, both commercial and not.

Although you and I are free to use what we prefer at home, I've found a lot of resistance to straying from Red Hat at work.

Red Hat skims the line between being a bad company and not.

One thing is for sure, they've changed a great deal since before they were incorporated.

- Serge Wroclawski
Re:No, no, no... by Hard_Code · 2002-08-26 23:47 · Score: 2

Well, the Sys V init scripts are a really hairy mess. But that is probably a problem of Unix in general, and support for modern hardware in specific. Really, who anticipated that *nix would have to support things like hotplugged PCMCIA cards...

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:No, no, no... by opkool · 2002-08-26 23:50 · Score: 2

I would agree with you... if you were talking about SuSE.

RedHat configuration does not work this way. On RedHat, you edit config files with $EDITOR (or poking the hard disk with a needle if you wish), re-start the daemon (or service or...) and you are done.

It seems that you have never tried to configure RedHat this way, and you are talking about something that you don't know at all. Maybe you are repeating what other uninformed people said.
Re:No, no, no... by mgv · 2002-08-27 00:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.

Red Hat makes money from providing service to companies. They follow the underlying GPL philosophy that the software should be free as in speech, (and cheap as in beer).

You pay for what you get with Red Hat. The truth is, making a copy of a CD is cheap, for Red Hat, for Microsoft, for anyone. Microsoft has made billions selling $1 CD's for >$100 each. Its a great business model. If you actually use M$ support, you pay alot more (although this may actually be worth it, depending on your needs).

Ok, so now Red Hat is aiming right into M$ territory - the corporate desktop. Which is also pretty close to the home desktop for most people.

That means that their software is starting to look superficially like windows. Its time that the Linux command line zealots got over this. If you like your command prompt, thats fine by me (its a fantastic tool). But Linux is moving into corporate territory for people who don't do dos, or bash, or anything much else like that.

This is a GOOD thing. Linux has needed a good GUI user interface and powerful desktop apps for a while, and now they are starting to happen. (Obviously many of them come from outside of Red Hat - like Evolution, Mozilla, Open Office)

Just because Red Hat is supplying people that sort of stuff doesn't make them Microsoft. The more corporations Red Hat services, the better things will be for Linux. Their fundamental model is that of selling service, not software. And that is fair enough. If you want to have time on a phone getting help from someone, that really does cost money - its economically rational. If you want to get some software, it shouldn't cost a weeks wage for a bulk replicated disk that comes with an EULA denying any implied functionality.

And this is a key difference. With Red Hat, you pay for what you get. With microsoft, you pay an arbitrary amount which gets ratcheted up yearly to maintain a good EBIT on the microsoft balance sheet.

Michael

--
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Re:No, no, no... by tauntalum · 2002-08-27 00:11 · Score: 2, Funny

"...I've got a few years of debian experience under my belt, and installing woody on a new box was, to say the very least, significantly less painful than any prior install of it I've ever done."
Installing woody on a new box? Is that a euphemism for something?
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 01:24 · Score: 0

Redhat makes hardware? Maybe you ought to tell them, they are unaware of the hardware side of their own business. Maybe they will give us each one of those hot quad Opteron workstations for letting them know...
Re:No, no, no... by dh003i · 2002-08-27 01:29 · Score: 2

Contrary, I think it's because it works and works well. Good support is important, of course, but why would anybody go with the product that has good support and is defunct.

Yes, I agree it works and works well.

However, some people seem to be saying that it is one of the most stable distributions, which is not true. It is more stable and solid than other major commercial distributions like Caldera, SuSe, TurboLinux, and Corel Linux. It is not, however, more stable and solid than some traditional Linux distributions like Debian and Slackware.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 01:29 · Score: 0

You are obviously not old enough.
Re:No, no, no... by hatrisc · 2002-08-27 01:31 · Score: 0

i agree with people saying it's not the greatest nor the worst distribution. we use it where i work for a few reasons. #1 is the fact that it's friendly for new to linux people to install. linux installers have come along way, and mandrake and redhat seem to be the best (well, maybe suse as well). #2 much of our installations (about 70 computers) rely on scripts which assume that services are started on boot. if this doesn't happen then our scripts don't exactly make things easier. #3 the sys-admins here don't like to try different things. they like to stick with "standards"
i personally don't like redhat for a few reasons. rpm doesn't work worth a crap. it doesn't set up paths right, for where it puts stuff when it installs. which means you need to manually set it up. and a bunch of other nitpicky stuff.

--
I write code.
Re:No, no, no... by jonadab · 2002-08-27 02:06 · Score: 2

> Redhat has something else going for it -
> probably the fact that they sell hardware

Now, *that's* interesting. The article estimated that
RH would get into selling hardware "two days after never".

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Re:No, no, no... by Chris+Burke · 2002-08-27 02:38 · Score: 2

I wouldnt have any problem in recommending an install of Woody as it is a much easier install than previous ones.

Well, considering how the Potato install (the first to use meta-packages, if I'm not mistaken) was essentially BROKEN, I can't see how Woody couldn't be. Honestly, when I select every usage type from server to desktop to development, and the union of the packages covered by those types doesn't include less, I call that broken. Fscking less. I ended up just going through dselect, which works but is anything but 'easy'.

I installed woody -- wasn't much better. Sure, it installed less, but to really get what I wanted I still needed to use dselect.

Suse, however, was a breeze to install. Still using Debian, though. The Suse thing was just to see if the install really had gotten as easy as people said -- something you definitely can't tell by using Debian. :)

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:48 · Score: 0

Umm. Dselect is spawn of evil, wether you know what you want or not.

If you don't know, use 'apt-cache search' first.

Once you know, use 'apt-get install'.

Fast and convenient.
Re:No, no, no... by Chris+Burke · 2002-08-27 03:07 · Score: 1

Umm. Dselect is spawn of evil, wether you know what you want or not.

Yes. Yes it is.

If you don't know, use 'apt-cache search' first.

Thank you, Mr. AC. I can't believe I didn't know that. Now I'll stop having to go to the debian website and use the package search feature before apt-getting.

Well, I learned my new thing today! Time to go home! :)

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No, no, no... by ceswiedler · 2002-08-27 03:43 · Score: 2

I installed woody -- wasn't much better. Sure, it installed less, but to really get what I wanted I still needed to use dselect.

When you say woody installed less, do you mean it did not install more? Or do you mean it installed less (not more), i.e. more? When potato didn't install less, did it install more?
Re:No, no, no... by simm_s · 2002-08-27 03:52 · Score: 2

I use redhat in the workplace, but that is another story. You misunderstood what I was talking about.

In redhat you could configure the network yourself if your willing to spend the time to understand how the infrastructure works.

If you decide to do that your changes may cause chaos with that infrastructure or break programs such as netconfig if you decide to use it again.

In essence poking through the /etc/sysconfig directory to configure your system is alot more complicated hand editing /etc/rc.d in slackware.

This is not an anti-redhat argument.
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:51 · Score: 0

Thus (RedHat) make things a little bit harder to hand configure, by forcing you to configure things via their gui/console interface. (...) if you don't like this use slack or gentoo.
Hey, I'm a Slackware user and they've set it up so that everything is configured from their gui/console interface too.
It's called gVIM...
Re:No, no, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:53 · Score: 0

Redhat's advantages for me, joe linux user:

1) Alan Cox. Redhat's kernel *just works* on my machine. I don't know why Slackware or Peanut misread my partition table, but I don't have the inclination to patch my own kernel when Redhat works out of the box.

2) GNOME. Gnome is (or was) fast and appealing to the eye. SuSE's Gnome, by comparison, is incomplete. Other distros don't even provide or support Gnome.

3) RPMS. Maybe apt-get has some advantages, and sometimes you want to compile yourself, but rpm has its uses, and redhat rpms are widely available for popular programs like Mozilla. In a few areas like games Redhat has been slipping and Mandrake rpms are more plentiful, but in balance Redhat seems to have more ready-to-go software.

4) You said it yourself: Redhat's ethics. They're not Debian, but they're not Caldera either.

5) Widely avaible deadtree documentation. Your X server crashes. Did you forget those handy vi commands? Do you even know where to find XF86Config-4? Better have some reference books on your shelf.
Re:No, no, no... by Chris+Burke · 2002-08-27 06:56 · Score: 1

Potato didn't install less; it did install more. Woody installed less and also installed more. Debian -- the only distro that violates fundamental principles of logic!

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No, no, no... by fireboy1919 · 2002-08-27 07:55 · Score: 2

My bad. Other people sell hardware along with Redhat support.

Close to the same, but not quite.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:No, no, no... by iabervon · 2002-08-27 08:02 · Score: 2

A while ago I tried to figure out how to change my IP address, and couldn't find it anywhere. After looking in all the config files I could think of, I tried reading the init scripts to see how it actually got set, and couldn't follow them at all.

I'm actually typing this on a Red Hat box on which I installed my own XFree86 (because I needed a version that Red Hat didn't have yet). At some point one of my coworkers tried doing some updates on this machine and it replaced my 4.x binaries with 3.x binaries, but it didn't replace my config file, so the whole thing failed to work rather badly. (Fortunately, I had the binaries under the version number, so it only messed up a symlink.

Another coworker tried installing a kernel RPM, which replaced the kernel but didn't run lilo correctly.
Re:No, no, no... by iabervon · 2002-08-27 08:11 · Score: 2

Actually, I prefer not to use distributions. My home workstation I built from original packages and wrote the scripts (cribbing somewhat from Slackware). I actually know how everything got there and how the scripts work. But Slackware is pretty good for getting your initial installation in place without making it hard to take over maintenence yourself.
Re:No, no, no... by mike_edukonis · 2002-08-27 22:22 · Score: 1

And if you don't like it, write your own.
Re:No, no, no... by giantsfan89 · 2002-08-28 05:50 · Score: 1

With woody (or potato) you can install less and more at the same time! apt-get install more less Well... more or less

--
Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!

Loyalty is paper-thin by koreth · 2002-08-26 13:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

I like RedHat's Linux. It does what I need, it's organized sensibly, patches are usually released reasonably quickly, and I can look at the source code. If one of those things stops being true, I'll switch to another distro with minimal pain and keep using the same apps I was using before. That ability alone means RedHat will never be another Microsoft.

Re:Loyalty is paper-thin by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:32 · Score: 0

Many have posted that it is difficult for Red Hat to have control
over Linux. Others mention the GPL, and others mention
the ability of users to move to Debian. The reality
is that Red Hat can impose its weight
though intentional incompatability and thought market it dominance.
For many years they choose to do such things! And
of course, since having the source code means nothing
if you are not willing to invest your time and money to
change it. As for my ability to move to another
distro if Red Hat misbehaves is very limited. My
employer has Red Hat on most of our machines, and
that is the way it is going to stay. What I want
to do is irrelevant.
Although Red Hat does have some strenght
impose itself on Linux, for may years they choose
to be a (very) good citizen.
Similar concerns about Red Hat where posted in
slashdot for too many years. Did Red Hat behave
as a great citizen? YES!
Did Red Hat answer our concerns though action and
not just words? YES!
It is safe to say that so far our fears have
been proven wrong and Red Hat is not an enemy. Red Hat
is our friend.

what this really means.... by brad3378 · 2002-08-26 13:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Must be a slow news day!

--

Re:what this really means.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:04 · Score: 0

let it go already. i like RedHat and will continue to use RH. what is wrong with making money? i bet most of us need money to eat. find something else to complain about already!
Re:what this really means.... by Genrou · 2002-08-26 15:04 · Score: 1

In six hours, you will see... a groundbreaking article saying that RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux.

OMG! You're right! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 13:59 · Score: 1, Funny

I bet the man behind RedHat is none other than... BILL GATES! It's all part of his master to plan to control computing. It's like he's some sort of Emperor/Sith Lord, plotting sides against each other so that he winds up with all the power.

It's always been a bit strange the way the CEO of RedHat wore a hooded cloak... but it all makes sense now.

Dumbing it down by DrugCheese · 2002-08-26 14:01 · Score: 1

In my opinion, Red Hat tries to dumb everything down too much. Nothing wrong with making it easy, but the diaper days of he omputer industry are over.

--
*DrugCheese rants*

Re:Dumbing it down by chez69 · 2002-08-26 14:12 · Score: 0

So part of the linux experience means you need to fart around for hours? I Like linux like most of the folks around here, but I also like to get stuff done.

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:Dumbing it down by Not+The+Real+Me · 2002-08-26 14:25 · Score: 1

Define dumbing down.

I use RedHat because RPMs makes upgrades a hell of a lot easier than compiling the source from tarballs.

All I need to do is run a web server, samba networking, e-mail (SMTP, POP3), MySQL, Sybase, Oracle, Resin (JSP/servlets). I don't need to install/upgrade the kernel using tarballs. While spending days compiling the kernel with custom switches and tweaks might make some feel like Lord of the Dweebs, some of us need to spend our time creating real results. Yes, I run about two dozen pr0n sites on my servers, but that's besides the point.
Re:Dumbing it down by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:31 · Score: 0

Diaper days are over? Try again! The average DOS/Win3.1 user of 10 years ago was much more knowledgeable about their system than the user of today.
Re:Dumbing it down by DrugCheese · 2002-08-26 14:50 · Score: 1

I don't mean to offend anyone, and of course it's better to use RedHat for any server project then an MS server solution. My problems with RedHat are just that, mine. Im sure RedHat works perfectly for most people. It was the second distrobution I ever tried and the first to get my old video card running at a resolution besides 640x480. My main beef is remote administration. I recommend SuSE to all my customers because it is so easy to change things around remotely. I should say it WAS so easy before they switched from yast to yast2. Just seems that RedHat relies too much on X for most of the setup.
SuSE is an RPM based distrobution as well.

And far from what people believe SuSE is the leader in linux. RedHat just dominates the U.S. linux market. ... I think ...

--
*DrugCheese rants*
Re:Dumbing it down by z0om · 2002-08-26 14:59 · Score: 1

suse still has yast in addition to yast2.
Re:Dumbing it down by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:41 · Score: 0

wow.

as someone who is doing their best to teach myself, i make it a point to go cli as much as possible.

i have yet to find redhat forcing me to the gui.

installed/configured bind, apache, postfix, cyrus-imap, cyrus-sasl, network settings, ipchains all from the command line.

must be when i put the turbo charger in...i'm sure i'll be forced into the gui at that point.
Re:Dumbing it down by kitzilla · 2002-08-26 16:02 · Score: 1

...the diaper days of [t]he [c]omputer industry are over.

All users care about is running apps. Please repeat the following one million times until it bleeds away any latent OS fetishism:

It's about applications, not operating systems.

Anything Red Hat does to make it easier to install and run applications isn't "dumming it down." It's getting a clue.

--
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Re:Dumbing it down by Macgruder · 2002-08-26 16:11 · Score: 1

What's really scary is that the average intelligence of the computer user dropped from DOS to Windows, the number of users has skyrocketed. Sad statement of the world indeed.

--
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
Re:Dumbing it down by fireboy1919 · 2002-08-26 16:45 · Score: 2

No, RedHat completely dominates the entire linux market. Here's a poll.

While its not clear who is ahead between Debian, SuSE, and Slackware, it is clear that RedHat leads, followed by Mandrake. This population size is enough to know this rather conclusively despite statistical error.

Of course, you could argue that this is mostly the US market, but then again, the US has slightly less than three times the number of computers with Linux on it than the second largest (according to this poll), so its not really statistically insignificant enough to leave out when talking about who is the leader in Linux.

BTW, this poll rates SuSE as 4th among 102413 machines.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:Dumbing it down by RabidOverYou · 2002-08-26 16:53 · Score: 1

Lemme see if I have this right - you wish that, instead, first dumb folk had used computers, then computers got popular, then the smart folk started using them. Ah, tell me again - which group are you?
Re:Dumbing it down by Macgruder · 2002-08-26 17:17 · Score: 1

Noo....

In the days of DOS and earlier, to use a PC, one had to have a modicum of intelligence. With Windows 95 and it's brethern, a body temperature of 98.6 seems to be the only requirement...

One million users at an IQ of 100 is better than 100 million users with an IQ of 70.

--
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
Re:Dumbing it down by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:28 · Score: 0

No it's not. Just because someone isn't a genius doesn't mean that they're worthless.
Re:Dumbing it down by balloonhead · 2002-08-26 20:13 · Score: 1

The diaper days of the computer industry are over? That seems a little wrong; computers have been becoming more and more dumbed down since they were invented; consider the 'timeline' ->

big clunky room sized machines, require punch cards for data entry

big clunky desk sized machines, terminal based, bizarre data entry language, tape storage(if any), monochrome display

clunky machine the size of a portable TV, disk storage, colour display, window-based input and output; sound

Success of 'user-friendly' OS (MS)

Choose your size of computer from server to palmtop, billions of colours, 5.1 sound, DVD, MP3, all programs automatically install (even in Linux it only takes a configure/make/make install, most packages are available in a format to suit your OS so you don't have to play with the source, or you can even just use RPM / apt-get / red-carpet / autoupdater of various flavours); Wizards to set up email / WWW / whatever in 'under 15 minutes'

This timeline is still going in the same direction. Programs are easier and easier to use. User friendliness and eye candy are the norm. Programming is object oriented. The success of linux can be arguably attributed to the recent shift towards ease of use.

People have other things to do - if the computer doesn't work easily, they will do something else. All the snobs who say everyone should have xxxxx amount of understanding or they may as well not even have a computer are just being self-righteous; why should a secretary know what's under the hood to type her letters? Why should my gran configure her email from the command line? They don't have to, so they won't. They won't be worse people for it, and no one will care. It's as ridiculous a statement as to say that to own a car you should be able to fix it when it breaks down - there are some who can, some who can fix a minor problem, and a whole lot who just about know where the petrol cap is.

Things will continue to be dumbed down until they reach a point where they are almost instinctive to use. This is called market force, and is as much a part of western society as any other luxury (and to most, computers are a luxury, no matter how much they become the norm and their prices drop) like soft toilet paper, already grated cheese, food tins with an easily removable peel off top rather than use the can-opener (electric of course).

--
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
Re:Dumbing it down by rseuhs · 2002-08-26 21:29 · Score: 2

Success of 'user-friendly' OS (MS)
This delusion is amazing. You hear it so often people started to believe it.
Fact remains that Microsoft was very late on the GUI and literally slowed the industrie's adoption of GUIs. (Unix and Apple had it long before MS)
The same goes for the internet. Bill "Internet will never be popular" Gates fought the Internet for years and slowed its adoption while trying to put proprietary MSN down peoples throats.
Or what about PenWindows? A project which sole purpose was to kill a innovative company (Go). After Go was dead, PenWindows has fullfilled its purpose and was dropped, too. (Then Palm came along and picked up the ball.) The whole PenWindows thing threw back PDAs for years.
Microsoft was never an innovator, they are the biggest roadblock in computing
Re:Dumbing it down by ralphie98 · 2002-08-27 02:54 · Score: 1

"food tins with an easily removable peel off top rather than use the can-opener (electric of course)."

They need to have these on more products... my girlfriend still hasn't been able to open a can with our electric opener and I hate getting my quake game interrupted to open a can of corn for her.

--
I am a nobody. Since nobody is perfect, that means that I am perfect.
Re:Dumbing it down by balloonhead · 2002-08-27 04:55 · Score: 1

For all windows faults (and there are many) and all Microsoft's faults (and there are more), it is still easy to use. You don't have to satisfy dependencies (unless you count DirectX, which is likely to be on the same CD as anything that needs it), you click a few buttons to install pretty much any program, and it is geared towards people just wanting to click on a few obvious buttons to be able to do what they want to do.
I'm not disagreeing with your criticisms of Microsoft, but my point is about the dumbing down of computers still going on. I could have just as easily put MacOS or KDE/Gnome being added to linux and the direction which they are all taking (i.e. toward the mythical 'use-friendliness') and my comment would have been just as relevant; however, zealots like you might not then have had ammunition which remains, sadly, irrelevant to the point I was making.
Incidentally, you cite my comment 'user-friendly' OS (MS) as being a delusion. But you haven't disproved it - all you have said is that they are anticompetitive and stifle innovation - well known facts. It doesn't change things - their OS is still designed to be user-friendly and hold the users' hands. Whether or not their practices have meant that otherwise we could be further along this road is, still, irrelevant. The original point was, and remains, that computer dumbing down has not stopped.

--
This idea was invented by Shampoo.

Divide and conquer by John+Paul+Jones · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems to me that Gates must've read The Art of War.

--
Feh.

Re:Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:31 · Score: 0

I can see it...

- What are you reading, Gates?
- A book about divide and conquer.
- An algorithms book?
- No, the Art of War.
Re:Divide and conquer by Howzer · 2002-08-26 14:51 · Score: 2

Seems to me that Gates must've read The Art of War.
Perhaps you're right. It looks to me, though, that since the original (slightly oddball) comments came from IBM, that the old saying about them needs to be updated. Here it is for those who have forgotten:
IBM, we're in the computer industry, but that hasn't stopped us from bringing you the very very best in F.U.D. since 196x.
Re:Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:29 · Score: 0

Ya mean the one with Welsey Snipes?

AC

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 0

MODS: We were ASKED what we thought!

Mmmmm.... GTA: Vice City looks really nice..

Red Hat? Hah! by Devil's+BSD · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 1, Flamebait

If you think Red Hat is like Microsoft, look at Mandrake. For Christ's sake, their installer looks like Windows XP!!! But I guess it is a rather ingenious way to drag confused Windows-dependent newbies to the Linux world.

--
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.

Re:Red Hat? Hah! by ripewithdecay · 2002-08-26 14:21 · Score: 0

Yeah, too bad they had that installer before Windows XP was even released.
Re:Red Hat? Hah! by Vinum · 2002-08-26 14:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ya, someone at work told me the way KDE groups similar processes together in the taskbar was just like Windows XP. :)

And then someone at work also told me that the name of x-windows was a direct ripoff of microsoft windows.

But even funnier, I was using Mozilla and some guy was like.. wow, they ripped off Netscape!

I eventually quit that job, and went to work another place that was all bsd/linux/mac.. but my boss calls me bugs me on Sundays... gah, can't have it all.

But joking aside, Redhat rocks. They have innovated a lot of things for linux that is necessary for it to become wider spread. I don't even think we should be spending time with articles like this. Support everyTHING OPENsource despite where it comes from. I hate to say this, but everyone who deals in free software really needs to read the Communist Manifesto. (NO, I am not trying to spread communism here, nor do I support them.) Think of software being personal property and redhat trying to be the state that runs it all. It is cool because everyone benefits yet no one really owns anything.

Unfortuantly money talks and makes the world go around. Which is why capitalism (Microsoft) is a nearly impossible foe to deal with. Redhat is trying to make money though, but you have to admit it is very difficult for them to do.

I guess my point is...

It doesn't matter if you LIKE redhat or not, support them damnit. People like them are the few that might accomplish the goals we all really want. Hell... type emacs on a command prompt, and hit Ctrl-H then Ctrl-P
Re:Red Hat? Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:27 · Score: 0

"but my boss calls me bugs me on Sundays" ...

Lumberg: "Ummm yeah, I'm going to need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday ... thanks .... great"
Re:Red Hat? Hah! by magnwa · 2002-08-26 15:54 · Score: 1

You do know that every practical real world example of communism has failed, right? That it only works on paper, and that in the real world it's an abject failure.

GNU is more socialist than communist. If it's moving towards communist, then we've got major corruption issues on the way.
Re:Red Hat? Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:48 · Score: 0

um... yeah...
Re:Red Hat? Hah! by Vinum · 2002-08-26 17:35 · Score: 1

I defiently know it has failed. Money makes the world go round unfortuantly. :) But that does not mean it is not a good _IDEA_ and it apparently is working in the software world.

Owning property is easy.... step on my land and i'll shoot you!

I mean really, who owns a thought/program? How can you realistically say/write/think something and prevent anyone else from saying/writing/thinking the same thing? But we are starting to rehash tons of things said before and verge off-topic.
Re:Red Hat? Hah! by magnwa · 2002-08-27 02:03 · Score: 1

It's working right NOW. Communism worked initially too.. in fact, it worked so well that many other nations considered it. (And took it on.) It was only after a little bit of time that people started to notice it didn't work well in the long run.

Sensationalism by GreenPhreak · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 5, Funny

This is sensationalist journalism. Just because RedHat is in the OS business, and it happens to be somewhat successful does not automatically mean that it is becoming the next Microsoft. Journalists that have little idea of the architecture and licensing behind the two OS's are the only one that could propose this specious metaphor.

--
I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi

Redhat == Opensource by Psx29 · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 1

Since Redhat is opensource they can't hide anything...if they ever go closed source they will lose many many people

Re:Redhat == Opensource by DrugCheese · 2002-08-26 14:25 · Score: 1

I dont think Red Hat can go closed source. Not totally anyway. The day they do will be the day they write their own OS.

--
*DrugCheese rants*

depends on how you think of MS. by garcia · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 2

They are powerful in the distribution market, they are innovators, they use powerful marketing, and they run an EXTREMELY popular shop.

Do I believe that they try to inhibit freedom and choice? Do I believe that they are looking to corner the Linux market solely for themselves? Do I feel that they are ending my ability to use Linux as *I* see fit? Do I believe that they are going to create terribly expensive and prohibitive licensing?

No. I don't think that they are going to do anything of the sort. I believe that they are creating a positive spin on Linux and I believe they are doing it properly (at least for now).

Once they start pissing EVERYONE off, breaking the law, and breaking the GPL then I will think again. Until then I will happily stick w/Debian and let RedHat do their marketing thing with the "suits".

Re:depends on how you think of MS. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:42 · Score: 0

What he said. Redhat is a good company, the best of the commercial Linux distributors, and definitely on the side of light (unlike the UnitedLinux parasites..). I wouldn't be caught dead using it though. :)

-AnonymousDebianDeveloper

Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:02 · Score: 0

Toyota is the Daewoo of America
The BigMac is the taco of Norway
The computer is the wooden boat of Germany
The internet is the baseball of a football game
Ford is the GM of Spain
The ______ is the ______ of ________ because study __________ reseached by _______Inc. said so.

hard talk.. by L0gAn · 2002-08-26 14:03 · Score: 1

it comes down to me being able to download the new version for FREE and giving it to anyone I want and installing it on any number of computers I want and making any changes I want (to the GLP stuff at least) and and and and and.....how is this like M$??????

Microsoft of Linux????? by DecimalThree · 2002-08-26 14:03 · Score: 1

Last I checked RedHat was still free....

Surprise??? by KraZy-KaT · 2002-08-26 14:03 · Score: 1

Let's get some things together:

Red Hat Network
Red Hat recommended updates
Red Hat forcin..ahem, "recommending" you to use GNOME instead of KDE (I don't really like GNOME , it's too slow)

Doesn't that look familiar? Now don't say you weren't expecting it, because these signs were clear since many months ago. They provide a robust and reliable distribution, and it's not that hard to install it, even for a newbie, that's true. I'm not bashing Red Hat. But FEE FI FOE, I smell the scent of a monopoly rising. What do you guys think?

Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:08 · Score: 0

As long as rhnbc.com doesn't resolve to a news site we're ok.
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:26 · Score: 0

krazy kat, you must be out of your fu*kin' mind.
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:27 · Score: 0

I think you are a retard that has nothing worthwhile to talk about.
Re:Surprise??? by DAldredge · 2002-08-26 14:28 · Score: 1

Redhat doesn't force you to run Gnome. I run KDE just fine on my Redhat 7.2 install for Kylix work.

Oh NO! Redhat is breaking in and forcing me at penguin point to remove KDE and only use Gnome. Please save me, here they co#@!@#@

SIGNAL LOST
Re:Surprise??? by hpa · 2002-08-26 14:29 · Score: 2

Well, let's see, I'd be pretty darn disappointed if they didn't release bug-, security- and major functionality fixes. They're free for download; the RHN method is a bit more convenient if you paid for it, but there is no locking the stuff up.

As far as KDE versus GNOME, you can change the default either for the system (and it prompts you during installation!) or for an individual user. In fact, being able to set which desktop to use (as well as which language) right at the login prompt is very newbie friendly in my opinion.
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:41 · Score: 0

Please don't use nursery rhyme talk.
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:42 · Score: 0

wanker.
Re:Surprise??? by Disevidence · 2002-08-26 14:44 · Score: 1

Whatever you are smoking, pass it over.

Monopoly n.

1.Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service:

If i don't like Red Hat, there is Mandrake, SuSe, Gentoo, etc etc.

Red Hat has not got exclusive control of diddly squat, as they open up pretty much everything they code with the GPL.

Now get lost Troll.

--
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:47 · Score: 0

never ran gnome on redhat

never have never will.

so why don't you say something interesting.
Re:Surprise??? by rseuhs · 2002-08-26 21:48 · Score: 2

Redhat doesn't force you to run Gnome. I run KDE just fine on my Redhat 7.2 install for Kylix work.
The problem is that the first-time user is dropped into a GNOME desktop.
And that's the reason why Linux-desktop-marketshare in the US sucks (~1%) and in areas where RedHat isn't dominant isn't bad at all (for example in Germany about 5%)
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 23:15 · Score: 0

The problem is that the first-time user is dropped into a GNOME desktop.

That was a good thing when I first used Red Hat.

How was I supposed to know what desktop I'd prefer, never having used any?

And if you are knowledgeable enough to have a preference, changing should be relatively easy.
Re:Surprise??? by GauteL · 2002-08-27 01:42 · Score: 2

"as they open up pretty much everything they code with the GPL."

When it comes to the distribution, they open absolutely everything, not "pretty much" everything.I don't know if they have any other products that is not free software.

Otherwise you are spot on.
Re:Surprise??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 03:17 · Score: 0

What do I think? You're a troll or an idiot. Take you pick.

Quality issues by k8to · 2002-08-26 14:03 · Score: 2

The only common thread I've seen regarding Red Hat has been along quality lines.

I am not certain that arguing these particular points is relevant here, but they are generally of a high level decision making nature, more than a low level goof-up nature.

They have gotten minor kickback here and there for making decisions that some people feel are 'loose cannon' type things. Examples include early deployment of glibc 2.0, and the original rollout of "gcc 2.96".

None of this, however, paints them in the light of a controlling "Microsoft" position.

As a strong SuSE partisan, I would be very very happy if my favourite distribution engineers would take a page from Red Hat's book and GPL their extremely effective build system for the benefit of all.

--
-josh

Re:Quality issues by jrennie · 2002-08-26 15:34 · Score: 1

The fact that such issues have arisen is evidence that RH isn't MS. If MS did such things, cries would have fallen on deaf ears and there wouldn't have been discussion (except in the very core geek communities). RH made bad moves with glibc and gcc, but instead of pressing on and ignoring their mistakes, they listened. Worlds better than I can imagine MS ever being.

Jason
Re:Quality issues by FrozedSolid · 2002-08-26 18:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I disagree.

Take what I say with a grain of salt but..

I think RedHat released the broken gcc 2.96 for a reason. I think they feared that no one would be ready for the 3.x changeover, and by pushing 2.96, they would insure that most apps would be compatible and ready for the new gcc.

Also, since it's mildly broken, it gives developers an incentive to finish the real version fast and fix their mistakes, making software innovation faster... in a sort of sneaky underhanded way.

Then again, 2.95 had some bug with compiling bash on a certian arch or something, so that's probably the real reason... but still, it's fun to theorize.

Besides, look at apps like mplayer. They refused to code 2.96 workarounds. Their configure script won't even finish if it detects 2.96. That shows that no one is really locked into RedHat's 'Standards'

Just a thought.

--
When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom

Not Redhat != UnitedLinux by IRNI · 2002-08-26 14:05 · Score: 2

There are other Linux distributions that are built with the LSB in mind that are not made by the red machine. Why would going away from RedHat be a good thing for United Linux? I would run from RedHat right to Mandrake. :)

Priorities? by Kragg · 2002-08-26 14:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, despite the fact that the open source movement is a baby bird that can barely fly, already the infighting begins.
Why on earth are people criticising redhat (who have made many contributions to the stability and usability of Linux? Shouldn't they be working on getting something that 99% of the population don't freak out over??
Ah well, I guess it's inevitable. Someone smelt money in opensource and so the crappy politicking starts.
My opinion : This isn't news, it's pulp journo-jism. Slashdot editors - do you have to throw this rubbish in our faces?

--
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.

Re:Priorities? by StormReaver · 2002-08-27 00:39 · Score: 1

Actually, it's not infighting in any way, shape, or form. This article is from eWeek, not from any Linux site. eWeek is a balanced site. It keeps an even mix of brain-damaged and not-brain-damaged stories. This story falls into the former category, so be on the lookout for its counterbalance.

Sick and tired of Red Hat bashing... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:05 · Score: 0

I am sick and tired of constant unsubstantiated Red Hat bashing. Without Red Hat, linux wouldn't be as far along as it is today. Not only are they one of the most generous distributions as far as always GPL'ing code, they pay for a good portion of development by employing people like Alan Cox, and paying him to continue developing for the community.

If you don't like the distribution, fine, don't use it... But at least recognize how much they are contributing to linux as a whole.

Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupid) by hagbard5235 · 2002-08-26 14:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

I switched from RedHat to Debian about 2 years ago, largely because of a series of technical decisions that RedHat made that I didn't want to have to put up with anymore ( gcc-2.96 anyone ).

I did not switch from RedHat because I question their ethics. To the best of my knowledge they have always opensourced anything they've done. They have eventually open sourced anything they've acquired. All under the GPL. I don't see how we can fault them for that.

RedHat has done things that I feel are stupid ( gcc-2.96, recent behavior towards KDE ). But NONE of these things are in anyway unethical. Some of them have been handled badly from a PR perspective. But I have yet to see RedHat do anything that even slighly had nefarious intent.

RedHat provides a very valuable service. They provide a familiar interface to the commercial world. Large companies want a standard distribution with support contracts to help them sleep well at night. Large commercial software producers who right rather overly rigid software NEED a platform to implement to ( because they can't implement to standards, or deal with minor variations ). RedHat provides all of these interests with what they need.

People should really leave RedHat alone on the Microsoft comparison front. Kick them around over some of the dumb technical decisions they make if you like. That's fair and decent criticism, but don't FUD them.

How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by VistaBoy · 2002-08-26 14:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Red Hat is a Linux distribution. It must follow the free software licenses that it is built on or it can easily be taken down for copyright infringement. Through the GPL and other licenses thereof, we have Red Hat by the horns. If it ever gets out of line, (not releasing source code, etc), we can slap them in the face with the GPL. Also, nobody is forcing you to use Red Hat. If you don't like what Red Hat has to offer, use Debian, Mandrake, Slackware, etc.

The main point, though, is that if Red Hat tries to become a closed-source deal, it will have thousands, if not millions of hours of code to rewrite.

Re:How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:45 · Score: 0

That isn't the main point. The main point is that RH isn't interested in being a monopoly regardless of its possibility.
Re:How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by magnwa · 2002-08-26 15:59 · Score: 1

Two problems:

1. The GPL has not been tested in court.

2. The GPL might not survive a court test. As a legal document, it is extremely restrictive, and courts tend to dislike legal documents with viral language.

So.. don't think about slapping them with the GPL. It might not be a really good or effective slap.
Re:How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by Monkelectric · 2002-08-26 17:19 · Score: 2

You are exactly wrong. You have *NO* right to use/distribute/sell code that isn't yours. The GPL *gives* you right to do that, which is quite different from a eula which restricts your rights.
If you dont like the GPL, you are *always* free to write the code yourself. No one was ever forced into the GPL, ever.

--
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

Debian by sharph · 2002-08-26 14:07 · Score: 1

Red Hat, bahhh...

UnitedLinux, bahhh...

As long as I have my non-commercially corrupt Debian, I'm fine.

Actually, I do have respect for Red Hat. They have by far the easiest distribution to set up, (my opinion, not a diss off) and I guess growing into a big company would worry people, and I think there should be some concern for making sure RedHat stays geeky and pure, but so far they have not forced you to use anything of theirs, for example you have choice between Tux and Apache.

Re:Debian by bratgrrl · 2002-08-26 14:28 · Score: 1

Do you carefully excise the Red Hat-funded code from your Debian? Perhaps you've forgotten who pays Alan Cox's salary, and who funds all manner of Linux development.

--

---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 22:57 · Score: 0

Debian non-commercially corrupt? bahhh...

Do you really think all the servers and bandwidth that Debian utilizes come entirely from non-commercial donations by individuals?
Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 15:15 · Score: 0

Hm, well, my employer (state funded university) is notoriously bad at any commercial activity, but they still pay my salary and allow me to upload Debian packages, and pay for a local mirror that includes a Debian archive.
None of these resources were signed over to Debian, so they won't show up on any accounting reports, but my annual salary alone is about 3x what Debian has in it's donations accounts, and my salary isn't good by industry standards. Donations of crappy old hardware and a few dollars just aren't where the really big monetary inputs to Debian are (it's the time of a thousand Debian developers and thousands of upstream authors). Many, if not most, of the developers are working for schools, governments, or businesses, and were in part hired because they were developers, and are often allowed or encouraged to continue doing Debian-and-job-related work on salaried time.
So yeah, Debian is pretty free of commercial corruption, because the developers choose (often at a sacrifice in pay) environments that permit them to be uncompromised developers.
Just because you are a commercially corrupt Anonymous Coward with no ethics doesn't mean all Anonymous Cowards or any Debian developers are. The typical Debian developer is a pretty fierce individualist, and not some nice little corporate drone. Obviously. :)

Uggghhh by bogie · 2002-08-26 14:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

1998 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
1991 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
2000 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
2001 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
2002 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?

How many times can you ask the same stupid question and how many more years can you be wrong?

Redhat continues to put out GPL software year after year and like it or not is the poster child for linux. Which commercial linux vendor from back in the day would you have rather have won out? Suse, Caldera, Turbolinux?

Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible. Now maybe they will be the leading commercial linux in the corporate world, but dam it they have earned it.

I know I like many other long time linux users have always wanted linux to make it big. World domination was always the joke, but really there is a bit truth in there. Why oh why did anyone think that all 450 linux distros would equally share in the fruits of commercial linux's success?

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Re:Uggghhh by Libor+Vanek · 2002-08-26 14:15 · Score: 1

.
.
.
2010 Microsoft is becoming like Redhat
Re:Uggghhh by garcia · 2002-08-26 14:16 · Score: 2

it IS possible and it IS happening. As you said, "in the corporate world, but damn, they have earned it".

While I agree that their marketing is exceptional (compared to other vendors) why are you letting it go? Why aren't you pushing for another vendor? Are you letting them slip in like MS did?

They went unnoticed as a bully.

(note: Check my previous post, I am not against RedHat, I am just against your particular comment about them).
Re:Uggghhh by DAldredge · 2002-08-26 14:26 · Score: 1

Well, this being /. and all, I expect this to be asked about 2/3 times in the next 60 days.
Re:Uggghhh by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't particularly like this Slashdot story, but I have to admit the editors here seem to have let up on a lot of their anti-Red Hat bias over the last year. I don't know if they ever ran a story bringing this question so much out into the open, but they have been rather nasty and insuinuating in the past, particularly on the old LSB stories and other stories from about that time.

Oddly enough, they've also let up on a lot of their anti-Microsoft bias... or at least they don't go around boasting about not having a Windows partition every other day.
Re:Uggghhh by nutbar · 2002-08-26 14:37 · Score: 1

1991 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
You need a new psychic.
Re:Uggghhh by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:50 · Score: 0

"Why are you letting it go."

Letting what go? They arn't MS, will never be MS.

Before we start having stupid debates like this perhaps we ought to consider that linux has something like 0.25% of the OS market, once this number improves 100 fold we might consider having this debate otherwise what a waste of time.
Re:Uggghhh by gimpboy · 2002-08-26 14:54 · Score: 1

They [microsoft] went unnoticed as a bully.

so are you implying that redhat is bullying people? can you give me an example? it's not that i dont believe you, i just that i have never seen a claim like this substantiated.

--
-- john
Re:Uggghhh by garcia · 2002-08-26 15:04 · Score: 2

hindsight.

10 or 15 years ago I didn't see MS bullying people, most didn't. I don't believe RedHat is now either but how much do we really know?

We only know what others want us to know.
Re:Uggghhh by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:27 · Score: 1, Funny

Damn someone found a good use for the time machine mentioned before. They went and brought linux (red hat at that) back to 1991. Although if there was linux in '91 Linus would have had no reason to write it when he did so would it have ever been written?
Re:Uggghhh by gimpboy · 2002-08-26 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

10 of 15 years ago we wern't nearly as connected as we are today. if redhat was bulling someone we would here more than the noise we are hearing now. i'm sorry, but i believe redhat is a standup company. they do alot for linux and free software. they are a part of the community, not a leach.

if you have any legitimate claims, that is fine. if not i'm sorry but i'm going to have to side with redhat on this one.

--
-- john
Re:Uggghhh by _Sprocket_ · 2002-08-26 15:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

10 or 15 years ago I didn't see MS bullying people, most didn't. I don't believe RedHat is now either but how much do we really know?

First off, I don't believe RedHat should get a carte blanc pass to avoid criticisms. If they do something worth being criticized, then by all means. But the key point here is if they DO something.

You have yet to point to a single action.

Microsoft is financially successful. Microsoft is in the IT industry. Microsoft is a monopolist and a bully.

RedHat is in the IT industry. RedHat is showing success. Thereforce RedHat must be a bully.

Oh please. How about some proof and substance?

If RedHat starts to use licensing terms as a method to lock out other operating system vendors, call me. When RedHat uses FUD and Vaporware to create confusion in the marketplace and defend their sales figures, spread the word. When RedHat begins to use hidden, proprietary technology as a method to lock in their customer base, raise a shout. The list goes on.

In short, when RedHat begins to act like Microsoft... then this name-calling might be valid. Until then, like all corporations in the IT market, they deserve observation and careful review. But not labels.
Re:Uggghhh by evilviper · 2002-08-26 16:16 · Score: 2

Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible.

How many times can you GIVE the same stupid ANSWER and how many more years can you be wrong?

The GPL does not say that you are forced to give away your balls. It's just as "not possible" (sic) for RedHat to become like Microsoft, as it is for SuSE...

What's that you say? SuSE doesn't release i386 ISOs, and have a restrictive license for their distro? But wait! That's "just not possible".

RedHat writes a lot of software. They can't keep people from using the same open source programs that they use, but they certainly can make plenty of propritary programs, and changes to GPLed programs that would effectively lock RedHat users in.

Don't you remember the big stink over their beta version of gcc which RedHat included in a distro, which built binaries that wouldn't work on other distros? That same kind of thing could quickly lock the less clueful users in to RedHat.

More than that, they could make closed-source kernel modules, or just modify OpenOffice.org to sve in a RedHat-only format. That's just a few off the top of my head. They've got plenty of options to lock users in.

Don't even try to argue that users won't stand for that. Just when we always think Microsoft has users as far over a barrel as they will go, M$ pushes them further, and they bend without hesitation. If there was any justice in the world, NetBSD would have 99.99% market-share (I'm not a NetBSD user BTW).

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Uggghhh by garcia · 2002-08-26 16:30 · Score: 2

you're putting words in my mouth. Do NOT do that.

I never said that they WERE being a bully. I said MS was. You are twisting words.

In fact, what I said was, at this time they don't seem like they are. Who the fuck knows what we are going to think in 10-15 years. That's what I said.

Connected or not we will NEVER know until the future what is going to happen. I am not unhappy w/their practices, nor do I think that they have even gotten close to breaking any laws. I just think that it is QUITE possible for them to be setting something up for the future.
Re:Uggghhh by FrostedChaos · 2002-08-26 16:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

What would possibly make you think they are "setting something up for the future"? Do you think that they would abandon the strategy that has brought them so far, and which is their main business plan?

The whole point of open source is to provide people with open standards that don't lock them into a particular vendor. Why would you think that would change in 10-15 years? The code that is GPL'ed now will still be GPL'ed then.

Seems to me the last thing anyone needs to worry about is stupid crap like this. Get some facts behind your argument, and then come back with your labels.

--
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
Re:Uggghhh by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:03 · Score: 0

Hmm, big stink 'about beta version of GCC. The C part was binary compatible, the C++ wasn't just as GCC 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 are not compatible while 3.2 seems to be the first version where the ABI should really stabilize. So would you please get your facts straight and not repeat some bullshit you randomly picked off the net? As a matter of fact, their GCC 2.96 was the most standards-compliant GNU C/C++ at the time and except for one or two releases that had minor problems with certain programs, it was rock solid compiler.

Have you even wondered how come that a lot of programs could be compiled with GCC 3.0 when it came out? Well, RedHat's GCC 2.96 played a big role in bringing the developers to fix their code to adhere to C++ standards.
Re:Uggghhh by droleary · 2002-08-26 17:21 · Score: 2

1998 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
.
.
.
How many times can you ask the same stupid question and how many more years can you be wrong?

Sorry, but absolutely nothing Redhat can do will get them to match the leader since 1984:

Apple is dead.
Re:Uggghhh by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 21:11 · Score: 0

Read this and crawl back under your bridge, troll.
Re:Uggghhh by _Sprocket_ · 2002-08-26 22:24 · Score: 2

OK. Maybe I misunderstood your point. Lets track the flow of conversation a bit. The origional post stated, in part:

Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible. Now maybe they will be the leading commercial linux in the corporate world, but dam it they have earned it.

To which you replied:

it IS possible and it IS happening.

And then we got in to the whole bit about Microsoft bullying and how people didn't notice at first.

This raises two questions in this thread. A Linux monopoly: IS it possible, and IS it happening?

The issue of "is it happening" should be pretty easy to figure out. Simply put: wheres the proof. And that has probably been the main thrust of this thread.

The second issue, is it possible, is probably really what you meant to point out judging from your statments of non-complaint against the current RedHat. The fear is that RedHat could be very different in the future.

Sure. Companies change - the leaders' names change and, if not the names, the people themselves change. RedHat might begin adopting entirely different strategies. But a major difference between themselves and Microsoft is the nature of their product. Simply put: they can't take the ball and go home. In fact, someone else can run with that ball (and already have - witness examples like Mandrake).

Like I said before, RedHat (like any business - especially a corporation) deserves close scrutiny. And if they adopt a policy that deserves criticism, then by all means... criticise. But I would be real clear about current criticisms vs. suggesting future possiblities.
Re:Uggghhh by Tony-A · 2002-08-27 00:07 · Score: 2

There doesn't seem to be any indication now that Red Hat is doing anything they shouldn't be doing. HOWEVER, it is to everybody's advantage (except maybe Microsoft's) that Red Hat be worthy of trust.
Re:Uggghhh by Tyreth · 2002-08-27 01:35 · Score: 1

Sounds eerily like the profiling we were discussing here. Just because they are becoming succesful now does not mean they will follow in the path of MS. Nor can we conclude now that they won't follow the path of MS. As far as I can tell we have nothing to base any assumption of future bullying except that they are the most succesful of a number of Linux companies.

If they release their code in GPL, who am I to judge?
Re:Uggghhh by evilviper · 2002-08-27 02:15 · Score: 2

the big stink over their beta version of gcc

For all those with issues about the above statement... QUIT READING MORE INTO MY STATEMENT. I did not say that RedHat was trying to lock users in, nor that the compilier was better or worse than previous versions. All I said was that there was a lot of controversy about it.

Of course, if you don't like what I have to say, you can always just call me a troll, rather than attempt to address the facts, and hope a few moderators will go along with it...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Uggghhh by N3WBI3 · 2002-08-27 03:35 · Score: 1

Probably because no other vendor provides the support and training that Redhat provides..

--

Red Hat gets a pretty bad rap. by Sheetrock · 2002-08-26 14:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

The deal with making Linux palatable to businesses is what makes Red Hat look so bad to people who aren't looking at Linux through corporate eyes. Red Hat, for better or worse, has become the Linux standard for business. Software companies that want to target applications to Linux are frightened by the type of support headaches that dealing with several distributions entails; so they target Red Hat instead. Hardware companies run with it because they've got proven support solutions that beat searching for a HOWTO anyday (provided you can afford them).

Basically, Red Hat is the perfect hybrid of commercial/open-source -- they can take advantage of the pool of free developers to get the bulk of their product developed, then work over the result in-house to make the various pieces work together seamlessly (well, mostly), and finally provide direct support to businesses implementing their solution. They are proof that the Microsoft strategy can be made even more effective with open source. Do they step on toes, as with the KDE/GNOME fiasco? Only where necessary to improve the user experience and to aim towards making a product better than Redmond.

--

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.

does this mean a new icon for RH on /.? by zentex · 2002-08-26 14:07 · Score: 1, Troll

like some borg'd out guy in a red hat? :-)

go ahead..mod me down..see if i care. Wait, my psycic powers tell me i'll get a troll rating..

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.

Even if Redhat did equal MS, so what? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:07 · Score: 0

I certainly don't agree with many of Microsoft's policies, but if Redhat was going to duplicate them so what?

How many Slashdot users rail against MS everyday, yet still use Windows or clamor for the latest Windows incarnation?

I know I don't like MS, but I still use it. Sometimes because customers force me, sometimes because of inertia. But the fact is that MS is the most powerful software company in the world. Perhaps THE most powerful company since they don't have to placate a union and they seem to have the DoJ on a tight leash. Now if Redhat acted the same way, but still use GPL, than whats the problem?

Re:Even if Redhat did equal MS, so what? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:00 · Score: 0

You were educated stupid and evil by evil word bastards.

Red hat denies 4-cornered cube creation principle. Red hat is "false god" for people. Evil red hat equate MS!

Open source means choice, every disto has a place by Longinus · 2002-08-26 14:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

As much as I personally dislike Redhat's distro (we all know Debian is The One True Distribution =P), I think Redhat holds an important place into open source world. The only way I would equate them to Microsoft is that they are the most business oriented distro, which is a good thing, and they have made many great contribution towards to acceptance of Linux in big business (many of these stemming from their relationship with Amazon and one of the best Linux migration sucess stories yet).

I really don't see how Redhat's attitude and dominance can be equated to Microsoft's. Somebody has to be number one, and Redhat's dominance is of a far smaller margin that Microsoft's. Microsoft is closed source, Redhat is not. Period, end of story.

If any distro approaches MS style arrogance, it's United Linux.

RedHat == Linux by mfago · 2002-08-26 14:08 · Score: 1

... or at least that is what many "uninformed" people think. Especially corporate types.

RedHat is also unfortunately the only distro supported at LLNL.

IMHO I think that they have too much dominance. I also don't like some of the things that they have done (gcc for example). So that's why I use something else when I can.

Good lord.. by mewsenews · 2002-08-26 14:09 · Score: 1

"Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?"

Is it possible to come up with a more inflammatory title for a story? Red Hat is not my distro of choice, but I have never seen any instances of the company acting anti-competitively, and I certainly have never seen them act bastardly when it comes to releasing their source code.

Hell, they still provide full ISOs of their distro, when SuSe releases a crappy "demo" iso, and OpenBSD copyrights the layout of their retail discs.

The only "evidence" this article presents is the fact that Red Hat's "advanced server" distro might possibly have some chance of becoming proprietary. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

And why did they repeatedly mention UnitedLinux? It makes one wonder..

Same shit, different day by bratgrrl · 2002-08-26 14:09 · Score: 1

Love the underdog until he becomes successful, then try to pull him down.

These same losers who bitch about Red Hat being successful lap up all the freebies they can get their hands on, but of course must themselves be paid handsomely for whatever vocation they practice.

Go away. You are annoying and useless. Get out of the way of the people doing useful work.

--

---

SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs

Re:Same shit, different day by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:44 · Score: 0

These same losers who bitch about Red Hat being successful lap up all
the freebies they can get their hands on, but of course must
themselves be paid handsomely for whatever vocation they practice.

A nice string of non-sequiters. Also, we don't bitch
about the success, we bitch about blocking
competition. There are programs that are rh only
and it's getting worse. Also, why do you think that
taking things at the best price ($0) is bad? That's
captitalism, my friend. Also, why is getting paid
more bad? That's capitalism, my friend.
Re:Same shit, different day by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 16:42 · Score: 0

Also, why do you think that
taking things at the best price ($0) is bad? That's
captitalism, my friend. Also, why is getting paid
more bad? That's capitalism, my friend.

No, it ain't capitalism, asshole. It's called a faulty grasp of basic economic theory. Simply put, nothing is really free in the marketplace. How is this a hard concept for troglodytes such as yourself to comprehend? Donations don't work.

Don't get me wrong, I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but I'm also willing to not be a dick and pay somebody fair compensation for a quality, open-source product. If you think your shit is so hot, start a company, market and sell your own distribution and let me see if it's worth two shits and a gum wrapper.
Jesus Christ, sometimes nuclear winter looks mighty damn appealing.

Third time's the charm by Citizen+of+Earth · 2002-08-26 14:09 · Score: 2

This must be about the third time this sort of story has appears on Slashdot. It's almost too bad that the GPL makes it impossible for any Linux distributor to be as evil as Microsoft. All GPLed code must remain open. As long as it is open, consumers always have the option to switch to a different but equivalent distribution or to make their own. This eliminates any possibility of the monopolization of Linux.

Redhat office by DavidLeblond · 2002-08-26 14:09 · Score: 1

Redhat's office is close to where I work (they're both on NCSU's Centinnial Campus) and its definately not as immense as the Redmond campus. I don't think we can call them the next Microsoft until they expand their offices some more.

Although, the fact that they have their own workout room (and we don't) means they do have a twinge if evil.

Do writers make accusations just to get attention? by back@slash · 2002-08-26 14:09 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess so. Not much back up in the article but the headline is sure catchy.

The situation remains that changing between Linux distributions is like changing your underwear while changing from Windows to Linux (depending on what services you are running) is like a sex change. I know this i've done both. Changed a small server farm between linux distros and changed over from windows to linux that is, not a sex change. I do change my underwear though. I'll just stop typing now....

--
This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas

My opinion by TheQuantumShift · 2002-08-26 14:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless they stop selling GPL'd Linux, and move to their own blend of proprietary Unix... In my opinion it seems that the GPL's main purpose is to keep software vendors from doing the MS shuffle. Just because RedHat is seen as the corporate Linux solution does not make them MS. MS got that way by being the only solution due to their marketing juggernaut. I just don't see this possible with open source products. RedHat sells services, and last I checked there was no monopoly on services... Not even MS can do that. But the business world can't seem to function without finger-pointing...

--

Shift happens. Fire it up.

Absolutely Not by aivic · 2002-08-26 14:10 · Score: 1

Red Hat still continues to deliver freely distributed distro's without any hassles at all (unlike some *cough* SuSe *cough*).

What I think is that over the next few years we will be seeing RedHat improving RPM and adapting Gentoo's way of thinking.

We need to improve upon the interface. This has been overlooked many times due to many "console" users out there.

KDE = Feels Like MacOS combined with Play School Software... I suppose we can customize it to an extent but still...
Gnome = Too Windows 95...
BlackBox/Fluxbox = We need more mods ;)
WindowMaker = Too Chunky...
Enlightenment = Too Buggy... Though, the animations are sweet...

Some ways to tell the difference by r_j_prahad · 2002-08-26 14:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

1. Is Redhat a convicted monopolist?

2. Is Redhat a convicted monopolist yet again, after ignoring the court the first time?

3. Has Redhat's license agreement recently morphed into legalized extortion?

4. If Dell and HP and Compaq stop pre-loading Redhat will Redhat be able to drive them out of business?

5. Does Redhat force end-users to agree to license audits as part of their EULA?

6. Has Redhat ever descended on an end-user demanding unnecessary and duplicative license payments the way the BSA has?

I could go on, but there is just no comparison, none at all, there is no similarity whatsoever, by any stretch of the imagination. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Microsoft is in a league by themselves here.

Re:Some ways to tell the difference by uberman · 2002-08-26 14:44 · Score: 1

7. Alan Cox hasn't quit yet.

I would be concerned if -ac resigned due to philosophical differences.

Besides any company who uses and defends the GPL as vigorously as Redhat can't be all bad.
Ex: RedHat never made a stink when early Mandrake installers were 98% based on RedHat's GPL'd installer.

uberman
Re:Some ways to tell the difference by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:48 · Score: 0

Just cling to that word (Monopoly) for all it's worth, because it's as much credibility as you're ever going to get.

The days of DOJ fishing expeditions against American Businesses are nearly over. They're playing attack-Enron but people are figuring out who the do-nothings are. Hopefully this coming election will excise a few more of them.
Re:Some ways to tell the difference by RedneckNinja · 2002-08-26 17:02 · Score: 1

To add to these points, I work for a small reseller that deals mostly with Sun products. We are considering Linux as a possible solution for some of our customer needs, especially now with the introduction of the LX-50 server. In the course of researching our options I signed up for a few Red Hat webinars, and mentioned in my information that we were not yet deploying Linux but were looking seriously in that direction.

A few days later I received a call from a Red Hat representative. He asked how I had liked the webinars (I liked them), what our current stance on Linux was, etc, and offered his help. Now, I realize this is just a standard sales call, but the advice given and the questions asked were the kinds of things people providing solutions for the enterprise want to hear! Red Hat seems to be doing a lot to help make Linux a viable solution for business.

Not only that but do you think an MS representative is going to call you after reading your comments on a webinar signup? Not that you'd want them to ;-) Red Hat is showing a desire for our business besides "we'll take your money".

RN
Re:Some ways to tell the difference by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 05:24 · Score: 0

1. Is microsoft a monopolist? (just because a crooked court says so doesn't mean its true!). Microsoft had no presence in Washington until they were slapped with the lawsuit (which is most likely why they were hit with it in the first place). Microsoft has competition everywhere, i.e. Linux. Its not like they own the water supply! If a consumer doesn't like Microsoft they can switch OSs. If Microsoft did a distribution of Linux do you think that the view of them would change at all???? I think they would still be hated because they are successful.

2. See above

3. Actually read their EULA and compare it to other propietary software companies EULA's

4. If Redhat becomes more popular than Windows Redhat would then be perceived as the evil empire gauranteed.

5. No but they force the GPL on you.

6. WTF?
Re:Some ways to tell the difference by r_j_prahad · 2002-08-27 14:13 · Score: 2

The days of DOJ fishing expeditions against American Businesses are nearly over.

And that would be because the days of American Business are nearly over, right?

Rediculous by diakka · 2002-08-26 14:11 · Score: 1

I have to say that this is one of the most rediculous ideas I have ever come across. Now granted, Redhat has a lot of momentum in the Linux market, but Look at the number of competing products and how similar they are to Redhat. Now how many products exist with that same level of similarity to Windows? ZERO.

--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley

Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 01:18 · Score: 0

I have to say that this is one of the most rediculous ideas I have ever come across.

(to be said in Ralf Wiggum's voice)
Rediculous a word?
That's unpossible!

Isn't it interesting.. by iONiUM · 2002-08-26 14:12 · Score: 1

That as soon as a company begins to become successful, every ally yells out slander.

I'm not flaming or anything, but Microsoft is quite successful, whether their business practices are "nice" or not is irrelevant. Now Redhat has begun to fall into the same success, for reasons I havn't really looked into, but I would assume better advertising because many people I know know of Redhat even when they aren't real "techies".

I think if they become successful they will still most certainly stand by open source (as they claimed), so perhaps the open source community should be supporting their success rather than making allegations.

I'm more of a Microsoft supporter myself (that doesn't mean I dislike open source -- I love it), but I would like to see some competition to them. A monopoly is never good.

Re:Isn't it interesting.. by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 15:40 · Score: 2

I'm not flaming or anything, but Microsoft is quite successful, whether their business practices are "nice" or not is irrelevant.
So you think that if a company is successful, then they should be put above the law? Why not let successful criminals be above the law?

Should a carjacker not be prosecuted if he successful steals my Corvette? Maybe I should only prosecute him if I catch him before he drives away. Or perhaps you say that only businesses should be above the law. Then perhaps if the auto dealer scams me for services that they didn't do, they should not be prosecuted. After all, they are successful, that's what their financial records show.

I get it. It's not were they are successful or not at all. It's whether they hurt you. People today look at guilt or innocence not in relation to laws, but to whether they were hurt. That's why OJ Simpson, Bill Clinton and Microsoft gets off the hook. People don't feel they have been personally hurt yet by them so it doesn't matter. That's why they man who kidnapped the little girl in the park gets the death penatly. He hit close to home.
-Brent
Re:Isn't it interesting.. by iONiUM · 2002-08-26 15:52 · Score: 1

They havn't done anything wrong. Honostly, what can you say that they've done wrong? They monopolized a market? Hah. Their product was just BETTER than everything else out there, not to mention they ADVERTISED it so much better. Hmm, when you get market share, you do well. It's not rocket science.

What I meant by "nice" was that they were fast in their business practices, they quickly made a good product, and marketed it ruthelessly. Is this against the law? Absolutely not.
Re:Isn't it interesting.. by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 16:01 · Score: 2

What I meant by "nice" was that they were fast in their business practices, they quickly made a good product, and marketed it ruthelessly. Is this against the law?
Ok, so we can agree that no person or company is bad 100% of the time. But what about the areas that Microsoft did break the law. Don't you agree that we should hold them accountable for those actions?
-Brent
Re:Isn't it interesting.. by iONiUM · 2002-08-26 16:10 · Score: 1

But what about the areas that Microsoft did break the law.

Tell me what areas these are. DOJ ruled they didn't break the law with IE, and that was pretty much the only "questionable" thing they've done, which in my opinion doesn't even matter -- it's their operating system, they can stick whatever they want in it.
Re:Isn't it interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:06 · Score: 0

They haven't done anything wrong? Are you out of your mind? Or simply not been paying attention for the last 7 years?

Microsoft has been successfully taken to court on a number of occasions, and are currently *still* in court over their illegal monopoly. The ruling wasn't overturned. Only the penalties. It has yet to be determined how MS will pay for their crime, but the fact that they have committed the crime has withdstood the court of appeals.
Re:Isn't it interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 21:20 · Score: 0

"Tell me what areas these are. DOJ ruled they didn't break the law with IE"

Oh? When did this happen?
Re:Isn't it interesting.. by Znork · 2002-08-26 21:52 · Score: 2

A) The DOJ doesnt 'rule'. B) The court ruled they did break the law, and C) The appeals court ruled they did break the law. Read the finding of facts.

The only thing in question was the punishment and that was mostly because the Microsoft representatives behaved so much like juvenile delinquents in court that judge Jackson eventually broke and exploded in the media in a not entirely acceptable way. Judges arent allowed to get irritated in public. After being subjected to several months of MS representatives lying and whining in his courtroom I can underand why tho.

This made me think.... by mallie_mcg · 2002-08-26 14:13 · Score: 1

"...said the kind of activities Red Hat could engage in are in no way equivalent to what Microsoft could pull off. "Things like Product Activation and more stringent end-user license agreements would drive Red Hat customers away in a heartbeat..."

Does any one here believe that if Microsoft get WPA to work, that within a few years people will begin to be driven to Linux based OSes? I say in a few years, when new apps no longer work on Win2K or similar scenarios?

I am slowing moving to linux for that reason (partialially), as I dont consider a Win32 to be a good value proposition, yet i enjoy gaming so I keep a Win2K partition around, which I admit, is what I generally use. But slowly I am booting into linux more and more, and using it for the every day things that I would use Win2K for. So when i read that line in the article, i wondered if people will eventually get fed up enough to like me start to make a switch, which could end up becoming permenant.

--

Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
--I'm not actually after an answer!

Re: When is the last time that you checked? by Xtraneous · 2002-08-26 14:14 · Score: 0, Troll

And where may I ask did you check? Seriously, if the redhat distro of Linux is available for free, tell me where!

--
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI

Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by pnelson · 2002-08-26 14:15 · Score: 5, Informative

When MS was sending out audit letters to schools in OR and WA the first phone call I got was from Red Hat to see if they could help. When Eric H. was having trouble hacking RH's install code to modify their distribution to make it easier for schools he called RH and got all the help he needed. I'd like to see what would happen with a call like that to Redmond! RH has helped send us to conferences and provides free support to schools using Linux.

Time will tell if other distributions will be as well managed and forward thinking but for now I don't think we should slam RH because they got off to a good start and hired some smart people. They are working hard to produce free software for us and just happen to be doing it very well.

At K12LTSP.org we base our distribution for schools on RH for all of the above and the fact that over time, it's been one of the easiest and most stable versions of Linux for us to use in schools. They have been 100% supportive of us hacking their distribution and redistributing it to schools. That's about as far from Redmond as you can get. There are some good folks there in NC! Let's give some credit where credit is due.

Re:Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by archen · 2002-08-26 14:39 · Score: 1

I'd like to see what would happen with a call like that to Redmond!

strange things happen when you have competition...
Re:Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by ArsPolitica.com · 2002-08-26 18:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I just came across a message on RedHat's OpenSourceNow linux advocacy in the classroom mailing list. In response to someone getting a job where they may have the oportunity to install Linux on a handful of systems, a Redhat employee responded:

"Anthony,

Good news on the job. Let me know if you need a boxed set or two when
the time comes to throw over NT.

--jeremy"

How many companies would sponsor such a list, let alone monitor it and assist people with boxed copies of their product. Redhat also offers free access to the Redhat network for schools.

I doubt we will see such gestures from Microsoft, other than to protect their monopoly and get a large write-off in the process.
Re:Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by slashhax0r · 2002-08-27 02:38 · Score: 1

It is great to hear of a RH for schools sort of distro. Our college only uses one RH server, that's serving our comp sci labs.. I'd love to see more linux in the post secondary world, paying the micrsoft tax is becoming more and more a problem in the academic budget slashing times in which we live. Long live RH :)

Can You Say FUD? by idiotnot · 2002-08-26 14:15 · Score: 2

I knew you could. RedHat, despite the upstarts around it, have succeeded. Mandrake aimed straight for the Desktop, and is in financial trouble, while RedHat went for the big bucks in the server market first, and will move to the desktop later. In no way has RedHat used the tactics that MS did to gain their position of dominance.

I use RedHat sometimes, but I prefer Debian. The only way that I could see that RedHat could be compared to Microsoft is that they aren't the best in everything, but they're decent in everything. If you want to set up a server, a RedHat CD works. If you want to show Linux off to a newbie, RedHat works.

You could probably say the same about SuSE....the only difference is that RedHat had a head start being based in the US. European software manufacturers have always been at a disadvantage in the US market (which is the majority of computer users, like it or not).

Re:Can You Say FUD? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:21 · Score: 0

The EU market is bigger than the US (more people in the EU). But the EU market is fargmented (different languages etc), so it is easyer to market for the US (only one language).
Re:Can You Say FUD? by leviramsey · 2002-08-26 18:37 · Score: 1

Actually, what got Mandrake into trouble was an idiotic scheme to get into the eLearning fad of a couple of years ago. Their numbers have improved to the point where they expect to show a profit this year.

I have always been happy with RedHat by Kiwi · 2002-08-26 14:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't much to say besides what the articles already went over. Basically, RedHat, unlike SuSE and Caldera (and some other distributions) is 100% free. There is no difference between the RedHat ISO images that anyone can download off of various FTP sites and the CDs for the core distribution which come from official RedHat. Unlike Mandrake, RedHat also makes official ISOs of the source. Mandrake only offers binary ISOs; people have to make their own ISO cd images from their source directory.

Unlike Debian, the stable release has recent libaries and binaries; they also have a much more formal SQA methodology than what Debian has (Debian testing works, of course, but it just takes longer for Debian to declare something stable). Unlike gentoo/sorcerer/etc., no one has to wait while all of the programs compile. While this is an excellent learning experience, a.k.a. Slackware (another great platform for learning the internals of Linux on a very intimate level), it is, in my opinion, not necessary for daily production usage.

I like knowing that I can buy (or download; the two are 100% identical) RedHat and not have to upgrade my system for a year or two; RedHat will "freeze" on a given release and release only critical bug fixes (mainly security updates) for a period of two years for a given release. This is very useful; it allows people to use systems without having to be on the constant upgrade treadmill.

I am very pleased to see RedHat merging KDE and Gnome; having different applications on the desktop having different user interfaces looks, IMHO, unprofessional and I am glad to see RedHat resolving this.

RedHat has always strongly belived in free software. They took a stand aginst the old Free/Qt licensing by strongly supporting Gnome; their actions undoubtably contributed to QT's decision to allow the free versions of their libraies be GPL'd.

If you don't like RedHat, you are free to make your own fork of RedHat which fixes the things you don't like. Mandrake did this because they wanted a RedHat with KDE five years ago; they are a RedHat fork which still exists today (knock on wood; I hope they get past their financial problems). I think the person at tummy.com is still selling RedHat-derived distributions (RedHat + whatever updates he feels are needed).

I have been using RedHat for over five years, since RedHat 4.2, and have been very happy with RedHat. I feel that they have made an excellent compromise between making the settings configurable with a GUI or with a text editor--I happyily use a text editor to configure my RedHat box (currently only one: A laptop with 7.2). Some old Sun greybeards (too lazy to learn a new tool) complain about Xinetd; I think RedHat is remarkably conservative about intorducing new things which force users to relearn; I think replacing the old, crufty inetd.conf with Xinetd is perfectly reasonable. Now, if only Microsoft were so reasonable about keeping the UI so consistant between releases.

Speaking of Microsoft, RedHat, as the articles pointed out, can not be the next Microsoft. The GPL protects us from that.

- Sam

--

The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by natefaerber · 2002-08-26 14:45 · Score: 1

When is the last time you downloaded a Red Hat Advanced Server ISO?

--
-- My HARDWARE, My CHOICE.
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by SN74S181 · 2002-08-26 14:52 · Score: 1

Mandrake only offers binary ISOs; people have to make their own ISO cd images from their source directory.

What's so terrible about that? Source directories can be downloaded as a tree, in fact you don't have to wonder what you're going to end up with the way you are when you download a big hideous .ISO of source code.

As an aside, I shudder every time I see source code held captive in an .RPM, because the source should be in a tarball, not someone's idea of 'one package system to rule them all.'
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by Kiwi · 2002-08-26 15:40 · Score: 1
As an aside, I shudder every time I see source code held captive in an .RPM, because the source should be in a tarball, not someone's idea of 'one package system to rule them all.'
I will not disagree with your "should", since subjective impression are, of course, always completely valid.
I actually prefer putting up source in RPM format because RPMs can have the following things that a tarball can not conveniently have:
- GPG signatures
- Patches
- A .spec file which tells RPM-based program how to compile the thing.
- Any other file I want to add
RPMs can be "broken open" easily enough:
rpm2cpio whatever-8.1.69.src.rpm | cpio -i
In the case of a source code RPM, this will give you the source code tarball, and any patches the packager wanted to include. With the RPMs I make, this will also give a stand-along GPG signature for the tarball.
RPM has supported bz2 tarballs for over two years, which makes my .src.rpm files smaller than my .gz tarballs. And, yes, I know that the UNIX world is not comfortable with RPMs the way they are with tarballs, so I make my code available in .gz tarballs, .bz2 tarballs, .src.rpm files, and in .i386.rpm files.
OK, time to get off the soap box.
- Sam
--
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by mauryisland · 2002-08-26 15:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

When was the last time that Red Hat prevented you from building your own Advanced Server from packages freely available on their servers?
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by BrookHarty · 2002-08-26 16:33 · Score: 2

Unlike gentoo/sorcerer/etc., no one has to wait while all of the programs compile. While this is an excellent learning experience, a.k.a. Slackware (another great platform for learning the internals of Linux on a very intimate level), it is, in my opinion, not necessary for daily production usage.

For production, you dont want to use a source distro, you want everything the same across your servers, its easier to maintain servers this way. (Wonder what an automated source install looks like, or if there is one.)

But for a workstation, a 386 distro or a source based, a source based will be many times faster. Now if Redhat came out with an AMD TB/XP and Intel P3/P4 builds, there wouldnt be a need for source based. (Other than wanting newer versions, which you could still compile)

BTW, I use gentoo and mandrake, but this RH Null build looks interesting with a standard look between apps. I'll be playing with null tomorrow. :)
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by nzhavok · 2002-08-26 20:58 · Score: 2

I agree with almost everything you have said here, with the exception of your comment of xinetd. Whilst I agree that xinetd is a worthwhile improvement upon inetd (and I use it myself), it does not natively support inetd configuration files. This causes a problem because inetd is used so widely that many programs actually alter the configuration file during installation, however these changes will not be propogated to xinetd.

--

He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by Znork · 2002-08-26 22:02 · Score: 2

An automated sourcebased install might end up looking like... a source RPM (or ports, or various other automated source installs). There's nothing stopping you from rebuilding many of the RPM's from source, which wont even break your package management system. rpm --rebuild is your friend :)
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by G�tz · 2002-08-26 22:48 · Score: 1

I totally agree with you. A source package keeps everything needed to build a program in one file.

There's another easy way for unpacking a rpm (or most other archive formats into it's own directory with unarc foobar.rpm
Get unarc, a simple perl script from http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~epa98/work/apps/unarc/
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by Cro+Magnon · 2002-08-27 02:14 · Score: 1

On my own PC I currently use Slackware, and I'd choose Debian over RedHat. However, if my boss told me we were going to Linux and asked me what distro to go with, I would probably pick RH. It upgrades easier than Slack, and 90% of the time, Debian Stable is just too old.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by juhaz · 2002-08-27 05:19 · Score: 1

"Many times faster" is NOT TRUE. For most apps, speed difference is maybe few percents. If even that, and unless you never update, even that very little amount of time the small speed difference may win is certainly more than lost in huge amount of time it takes for you to compile whole distribution.
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-28 07:47 · Score: 0

Debian's released new stable version recently.
It is as up2date as anything RedHat has.
Just apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade
Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-28 19:20 · Score: 0

RedHat will "freeze" on a given release and release only critical bug fixes (mainly security updates) for a period of two years for a given release. This is very useful; it allows people to use systems without having to be on the constant upgrade treadmill.

NT4 server shipped 1995 (that's almost 7 years ago) and Microsoft is still releasing security fixes for it.
IMHO anything below 5 years is pushing to "constant upgrade treadmill".

As a non RH user by nuggz · 2002-08-26 14:17 · Score: 2

Redhat has a strong market position, I don't think they have the best or strongest distribution. Their upgrades between major releases or dependancy tracking isn't best.
They are quite concerned with what the market wants, not what the best solution is.
They have a pretty strong market position and use it to expand into weaker areas.

But they don't limit interoperability. They release improvements. They don't really interfere with their competitors, just pretty much fair honsest competition.

So no, they aren't MS, they compete fairly and openly on the technical merit of their solution. Not artificial lock in.

Re:As a non RH user by archen · 2002-08-26 14:49 · Score: 1

They are quite concerned with what the market wants, not what the best solution is.

Okay, extreme flamebait here, but maybe if Linux did more of what regular people (the market) wanted, instead of what seemed like a good solution to those who hack and program, Linux would be much more popular than it is today. Red Hat makes things more palatable and reasonable to the average business. To me this is important in that I want Linux to make gains in the market. As a FreeBSD user I could care less about whether Linux ever "takes over", but as long as the penguin continues to poke microsoft in the eye I feel that there is some hope of a reasonable future in computing, where we're all not assimilated.

Burn karma burn! ho ho ho! :)
Re:As a non RH user by nuggz · 2002-08-26 22:13 · Score: 2

I didn't mean the joe user market.
I meant the considering a linux type server market

Re: When is the last time that you checked? by sharph · 2002-08-26 14:18 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html

nuff said

Morgoth protect us by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:18 · Score: 0

I bet the man behind RedHat is none other than... BILL GATES!

Yes, but who is the man behind Bill Gates?!

Hmm by viol2001 · 2002-08-26 14:18 · Score: 1

Red Hat may be the biggest player in the Linux market, but that doesn't make them like Microsoft. They have done very good business to get to the point they are, and this type of story seems to me like jealousy coming out. Red Hat's products are completely opensource, with none of the activation crap that MS pulls. As Mr. Hogan said, how can they become like MS when everything they have is wide open. They can't. Unless Red Hat takes a turn for the worse and starts closing up and hiding code (which they can't do, they'd ruin their customer base), all of this is nonsense. They have some great ideas ( here), and they have capitalized on them. Good for them.

Spin about spin by TheLastUser · 2002-08-26 14:19 · Score: 1

Sounds strange coming from IBM. Then Hogan's reply is even more spin, Sun == MS in his estimation. I guess he would love it we all started slagging Sun with the enthusiasm we have for MS.

I sure get sick of corps waving their flags and inciting the community towards one revolution or another.

Evidence is startling by konmaskisin · 2002-08-26 14:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Over the years Red Hat has stifled the competition so effectively that the number of Linux distributions has "declined" from 2 (Red Hat and Slackware) to 42 with new distributions arriving on the scene every week (Gentoo, Lycoris). Now they are actively sabotaging other projects by *gasp* changing their color schemes and graphics and paying developpers to work on projects that are used in dozens of their competitors products. ... Sheesh .... In other words: there is *no* evidence RH is "bad". They are an OSS company living by the GPL.

The only thing bad about RH is *.rpm (which is what's bad about SuSE and Mandrake etc. etc.). The weakness of RPM is why competitors like Gentoo, Debian and FreeBSD are so damn uhh ... competitive ...

The KDE project's leadership being all over the age of 25 and somewhat more mature don't to lose sleep over this: they distribute RPMs built for 7.3 and limbo: both official and "unofficial" builds.

Re:Evidence is startling by Papineau · 2002-08-26 14:41 · Score: 2

Could you be more specific about what's bad in *.rpm? File format (cpio archive)? Dependancy tracking? Name (RedHat Package Manager)?

Personnally (but then I only used RH, since 4.2, circa 1998), I like that format. It's easy to download and install bugfixes or security updates from RH. It's easy to bundle something myself, if I need to. It's easy to upgrade the whole distribution (even though I usually don't do that the "recommended" way).

A little more precision would be helpful for me, to understand what you dislike in it, and maybe have a different look on the packaging system.
Re:Evidence is startling by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:53 · Score: 0

It's easy to download and install bugfixes or security updates from RH. It's easy to bundle something myself, if I need to. It's easy to upgrade the whole distribution

It's easy to completely hose your dependencies by installing the wrong .rpm .
Re:Evidence is startling by SN74S181 · 2002-08-26 14:55 · Score: 1

Wow.

You have a shockingly different version of history than the rest of us, if you ever think there was a time when the only Linux distributions were Red Hat and Slackware.

Even if you go way back in time to the beginning of Linux, when there were only a few distributions, it wasn't Red Hat and Slackware.
Re:Evidence is startling by nathanm · 2002-08-26 15:01 · Score: 2

Over the years Red Hat has stifled the competition so effectively that the number of Linux distributions has "declined" from 2 (Red Hat and Slackware) to 42 with new distributions arriving on the scene every week (Gentoo, Lycoris).
Good points, but on linux.org they list 184 different distributions. Also, RH & Slack were never the only distros.
Re:Evidence is startling by pjl5602 · 2002-08-26 15:26 · Score: 1

It's easy to completely hose your dependencies by installing the wrong .rpm.
That's totally false unless you're forcing the install (after RPM told you that dependencies were not satisfied -- duh!)
If you want to install anything other than the RPMs RedHat provided, then build the RPM yourself. If you can't figure that out, then perhaps you shouldn't be installing non-RedHat RPMs...
Re:Evidence is startling by billbaggins · 2002-08-26 15:32 · Score: 1

Name (RedHat Package Manager)?
Actually, I think that "RPM" has been officially retconned to now stand for RPM Package Manager. At least, in the file browser, last I saw, the icon for a .rpm was a little tachometer...

--
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
Re:Evidence is startling by byran+lei · 2002-08-26 15:36 · Score: 0

>It's easy to completely hose your dependencies by installing the wrong
>.rpm .
>
Just because *YOU* happen to be a moron doesn't mean everyone else is......
Re:Evidence is startling by konmaskisin · 2002-08-26 16:01 · Score: 2

The word bad should have been in scare quotes as: "bad". Some people love to hate RPM and I must admit BSD make/packages and Gentoo's emerge are easy to love by comparison. I still think RPM (which stands for RPM Package Manager - it's recursive) is superior to anything Windows has had and I don't mind it at all as a package system goes TTTT.

2 to 42 == for thee too ... i.e. Red Hat shares the wealth

Everyone has their own history of Linux. For a long time where I lived all you could find in the stores was Slackware and Red Hat (fewer end users downloaded for personal use unless they had a dorm high speed connection because CD burners didn't exist).

My point (obscurred by sarcasm, sorry) was that Red Hat has not done anything evil and compared to MS (and Sun and Apple) they are lovable saints.
Re:Evidence is startling by BrookHarty · 2002-08-26 16:43 · Score: 2

Over the years Red Hat has stifled the competition so effectively that the number of Linux distributions has "declined" from 2 (Red Hat and Slackware) to 42 with new distributions arriving on the scene every week (Gentoo, Lycoris).

Check out Distro Watch Very nice way to tell which version of software each distro is running, and current builds. (91 distros on page) Take a look at the newest Redhat vs Mandrake builds, and the software versions.

Quick glance, GLIBC is at 2.2.5 stable.
Mandrake is 2.2.5
Redhat is 2.2.90.

Is RedHat upto building a "off" distro again?
Re:Evidence is startling by Papineau · 2002-08-27 01:47 · Score: 1

I remember that symbol (the tachometer) from a couple years back (1998). It was (and still is) the logo of the RPM format. RH used it for the cover of their book "RPM Unleashed" or "Max RPM" (I don't recall the exact title, but it was along those lines). I didn't knew about the recursive acronym, though.

GPL should keep Red Hat in check by pbryan · 2002-08-26 14:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Make no mistake, Red Hat is a commerical organization, whose sole purpose is to make money and increase its value for its shareholders.

However, what could keep RH from devolving into another-business-that-has-achieved-market-dominanc e is the GNU General Public License. RH was founded on the GPL, which places significant constraints on distributors.

I'm sure if RH finds a dangerous loophole, it'll be quickly shored up by RMS, and unless RH decides to fork all of its packages and take on development itself, will be obliged to adhere to the terms of the software it distributes.

Finally, there is a bellweather I would watch to determine whether RH has become too powerful: Alan Cox. Cox seems a man of principle, and wouldn't stand for too much BS from his employer.

--

My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

Re:GPL should keep Red Hat in check by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-08-26 16:16 · Score: 2

Yeah, and... Redhat has made it clear that they believe they can increase their value most efficiently for their shareholders by operating both under the letter and the spirit of the GPL.

Their valuable intellectual property that you can only get from them is not in software. It's in their support personel. If they did what you describe, they would lose the ability to sell their product (support) because all their personel would... walk out the door. Not just Alan Cox.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Smaller distributions by paladin_tom · 2002-08-26 14:20 · Score: 1

I could see how some people using smaller distributions could be annoyed that a lot of popular commercial software is targeted to Red Hat.For example, back when I used Mandrake, I couldn't get Java to work, because Sun only offered it as a Red Hat RPM (which didn't work on Mandrake 8.0). Of course, Sun has gotten better now, offering the JDK in a distribution-independent format.

This doesn't make Red Hat evil, but I can see how many people could target their frustrations at Red Hat. They are the market leader, and the fact that they are well-supported makes people more likely to use thier distro.

--
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."

Re:Smaller distributions by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 15:27 · Score: 2

I could see how some people using smaller distributions could be annoyed that a lot of popular commercial software is targeted to Red Hat.
Intriguing.

Why not just use Red Hat for those applications then? Certainly a proposal for a new application would take into account what distribution it is supported on?
-Brent
Re:Smaller distributions by mark-t · 2002-08-26 16:15 · Score: 2

Why not just use redhat?
Er... isn't part of GPL freedom supposed to be freedom of choice? If you have to just use Redhat, how is this any different than being forced to use Windows because your favorite game or application is only available on that platform?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Smaller distributions by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 16:54 · Score: 2

If you have to just use Redhat, how is this any different than being forced to use Windows because your favorite game or application is only available on that platform?
What's wrong with using Windows if that's what your application requires? I don't see anything wrong with it. I usually take that into account when I look into choices for applications. But there is nothing wrong with an ISV choosing a specific platform to run their application on.
-Brent
Re:Smaller distributions by fferreres · 2002-08-26 21:08 · Score: 2

Then it's not wrong that mostly everything run under Windows and not undex *nix ...

After all, why should ANY company deal with *nix if they can get 95% market share by targeting Windows? This may happen with Red Hat or whoever in the future. It's not necesarilly Red Hat doing something wrong, it's kind of inevitable, even if they release the sources of everything.

Comercial software targets (supports) Red Hat, and if you don't like it, you have to either have to spent more resources to have the product working (and selfsupport yourself in the future) or use an unsupported Red Hat version (in which case, you are giving Red Hat more power, and thus more and more application will target redh Hat.

At some point, Red Hat may be THE distribution. They could grow to a scape where no other distro can keep the pace. That is, they can offer services and a lot of value added no other distro will be able to offer. That's good, but I could be bad in the long term.

So it's not their fault, it's how public goods work. And they will always have more incentives to do the right thing than if they owned all the code they distribute.

--
unfinished: (adj.)
Re:Smaller distributions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:55 · Score: 0

It's wrong b/c it leads to lock-in. Were you asleep
for the past decade? Lock-in == bad. That was the
whole point of the first post.

What a load of hoo-ey by coupland · 2002-08-26 14:20 · Score: 2

Of course RedHat wants to make money, everyone does. However this is sensationalism of the highest sort. RedHat is one of the *only* publicly traded companies that even feigns support for free software. Compare RedHat to IBM, Sun, and Oracle. All support free software and I think we appreciate their contributions, but only one seems to be in it to "keep the faith". And this while being a publicly-traded company, not easy! I think the guys deserve some credit. As does the GPL which would make any attempt to screw us out of our beloved OS utterly futile. Kudos to both...

"Mod Parent Down!" and related mumblings by sam31415 · 2002-08-26 14:20 · Score: 2, Informative

... I wish. Blasted flamebait.

First, is there actually any locking in being done by Red Hat? No, it's been discussed before: they're adhering to the GPL, so if they make a change, you can get the source and change it back.

Secondly, are they making money off the sales of Linux? Not really; if you want Red Hat 7.3, you can download it and burn it to 3 or 5 CDs for connect time/blank media. If you buy a boxed set, you're getting printed documentation and support in addition. I may be oversimplifing, but it seems that the product for sale must be the printed docs and support. Red Hat does, I suppose, have a virtual monopoly on selling Red Hat-specific information... but, at a guess, most of the information in the docs and obtainable from support staff are also availible somewhere on the net for those with clues.

I'm sure just about every entity that people think is good and wholesome has its detractors, but just because you're a detractor doesn't mean you have to call Red Hat a monopoly.

Re: When is the last time that you checked? by Xtraneous · 2002-08-26 14:21 · Score: 1

Ok, I was wrong. Sorry. Not the first time that i was wrong, nor will it be the last.

--
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI

Re: When is the last time that you checked? by Nighttime · 2002-08-26 14:21 · Score: 1

Go to www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html, select a mirror close to you, download the ISO images, burn them to CD-Rs and install to your heart's content.

--
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.

Re:Do writers make accusations just to get attenti by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:21 · Score: 0

changing between Linux distributions is like changing your underwear while changing from Windows to Linux (depending on what services you are running) is like a sex change. I know this i've done both.

Uh, would that be both changed your underwear and had a sex change?

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by wang33 · 2002-08-26 14:22 · Score: 1

How can you say that redhat aims for low prices? 79.95$ for personal and 200$ for professional, I may be biased towards suse but they are .5 the price for personal, and about .2 for professional. But maybe that extra cost is incurred by hacking at kde to make it look like the inferior gnome My $.02 which btw will buy me 2.5 times more of the newest suse. Ya know if everyone wants this linux thing to stick around quit leeching their ftp bandwidth and just buy the bloody distro preferably directly from the respective distro's web site, so they get all of the profit instead of best buy/other stores here taking 3/4 of the profit.

--
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com

Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by X · 2002-08-26 14:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, your whole critism about RedHat is why I love them, and why I love the fact that they GPL/LGPL their work. Personally, I was REALLY glad to have 2.96. It was the best, most stable g++ at the time. I'm not saying that people were wrong for hating it, I'm just saying that it suited me. And that's the great thing.... if you didn't like 2.96, you could do one of several things:

Install kgcc and just don't use 2.96 at all. Don't worry about the C++ issues.
Use another distribution... remember they have access to the same software
Build your own version of RedHat from the SRPM's and compiling it with gcc/g++ 2.95.x.
Do #3, but SELL your distribution.
- Much like what happened back in the day when RedHat didn't bundle KDE and Mandrake did, the open source nature means that when RedHat fucks up (or more accurately makes choices that don't suit your needs), you can go with something else. The switching costs are minimal. How can you NOT be happy as a RedHat customer?
  
  The day this stuff stops being true is the day I'll stay up at night worrying about RedHat taking over the world. In the mean time, I think the risk of say Gillette taking over the world is much more significant. ;-)

--
sigs are a waste of space

incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-26 14:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think the comparison is absolutely silly. Not only does RedHat sponsor a lot of GPL'ed projects, they actually make their ISO images and distribution available for download. I have seen no evidence that RedHat has done anything to threaten open source software.

Here are the companies I'd rather worry about:

SuSE does not make available their distribution as ISOs (do they make their installation and maintenance tools available under the GPL?), although at least you can download the FTP tree.
Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux based handhelds by replacing X11 with a framebuffer-based system (which is less efficient to boot). Authors of GPL'ed software using Troll Tech's system are OK, but other kinds of free software, or commercial developers, need to pay more than they would for GUI development on just about any other platform. If Qt/Embedded catches on widely, you can kiss handheld Linux as an affordable commercial platform goodbye. And if Qt catches on on the desktop, it will harm Linux as well.
Apple tries to move developers to a proprietary windowing system, incompatible with open source applications. At least, unlike Troll Tech, you can develop commercial GUI apps for Apple without paying anybody an arm and a leg. I doubt Apple will succeed with this--if they did, it would be bad for open source. More likely, however, they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot, until finally someone integrates X11 into OSX more smoothly than XDarwin.

But the solution is simple: if you don't like what a company is doing, promote and use something different. I wouldn't use Qt or Apple's proprietary windowing system even if I liked their design.

Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:58 · Score: 0

Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux based handhelds by replacing X11 with a framebuffer-based system (which is less efficient to boot).

It's pretty amazing that there could be anything more cumbersome and awkward to run on a handheld than X11. Are you sure it's 'less efficient to boot'?
Re:incomparable by jfunk · 2002-08-26 15:46 · Score: 3, Informative

SuSE does not make available their distribution as ISOs (do they make their installation and maintenance tools available under the GPL?), although at least you can download the FTP tree

So where in the GPL does it mention anything about ISOs? I find it scary how many people think a distro is required to be in ISO form. Some of us hate ISOs, actually. I can get a distro on my computer in a fraction of the time directly over FTP/NFS and they save on bandwidth costs.

As everybody around here has beaten to death, YaST is under the YaST license, which allows you to anything you want with the freely-available source, except profit when you make changes. (ie: no rebranding) What hasn't been pointed out though is that the installer is not just YaST. The first piece is Linuxrc, a nice little program written by Hubert Mantel of SuSE, which is GPLed and was used in DemoLinux. The hardware detection part, hwinfo and the libhd library, is very comprehensive, and even detects TV cards and braille terminals. It is also GPL. The base of the OS, a collection of programs and files contained in the aaa_base package, is also under the GPL. That includes SuSEconfig, fillup, and a bunch of other utilities.

You seem to be only concerned with installation/maintenance tools, though. That's good for me, because I don't want to be here all night listing software :-)

Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux based handhelds by replacing X11 with a framebuffer-based system (which is less efficient to boot). Authors of GPL'ed software using Troll Tech's system are OK, but other kinds of free software, or commercial developers, need to pay more than they would for GUI development on just about any other platform. If Qt/Embedded catches on widely, you can kiss handheld Linux as an affordable commercial platform goodbye. And if Qt catches on on the desktop, it will harm Linux as well.

These statements have no basis in reality. They're bad even for Slashdot. How do you come to the conclusion that simple framebuffer access is less efficient than X11? Do you even know how these things work? Your monopoly accusation is also preposterous. All of Trolltech's competitors are using the framebuffer as well. That's not what I call a monopoly.

Trolltech, in using the GPL, are encouraging more free software. If you do want to make commercial software, Trolltech's prices are very cheap, especially considering how quickly you can write apps in Qt. Ask any developer using Qt and they will tell you that it more than pays for itself. Also remember that there are no distribution licensing fees, so it will not increase the price of a device/piece of software, only decrease it.
Re:incomparable by drfreak · 2002-08-26 15:50 · Score: 1

And if Qt catches on on the desktop, it will harm Linux as well.

I doubt it will harm Linux if QT catches on on the desktop. It already has for me since KDE happens to be based on it.
Re:incomparable by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-08-26 16:26 · Score: 2

What do you mean integrate X11 more smoothly into OSX? Seems to me like it's about as smoothly integrated as you'd ever want. There's even an X Windows window manager that integrates with the Dock.

You "doubt Apple will succeed with this"? Do you say this because... no GPL apps work with the Quartz GUI? No GPL apps work with the Win32 GUI? Like, you know, Mozilla and Emacs? They'd *never* support a proprietary window scheme like that.

I guess I don't understand what you mean.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:incomparable by andrewski · 2002-08-26 16:29 · Score: 1

What do you mean by 'until finally someone integrates X11 into OSX more smoothly than XDarwin'? I can't quite figure that out. Also, Quartz / Aqua are NOT incompatible with open source applications. It's differrent than X11, but also, given the platform, WAY better. As much as graphic artists have lauded X11 (ahem), the PDF imaging system is light-years beyond it in many ways.
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-26 16:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

So where in the GPL does it mention anything about ISOs?
Where did I say that SuSE was "required" to distribute ISOs? I didn't accuse SuSE (or Apple or Troll Tech) of a GPL violation, I merely pointed out that I believe that their policies are bad for open source if they succeed.
How do you come to the conclusion that simple framebuffer access is less efficient than X11? Do you even know how these things work?
Yes, I do. More importantly, I have used X11 on platforms less powerful than what Qt/Embedded requires. There is no technical or efficiency reason for Qt/Embedded--X11 has a longer and better history of running efficiently on embedded devices than Qt/Embedded.
Your monopoly accusation is also preposterous. All of Trolltech's competitors are using the framebuffer as well.
iPaq Linux and most embedded UNIX GUI apps use X11.
That's not what I call a monopoly.
You need to read more carefully: I said Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux-based handhelds. They will probably not succeed in the long run because their strategy makes no sense for anybody than themselves: they don't offer anything lots of other toolkits don't offer as well, but Qt/Embedded is considerably more limiting than an X11-based solution. Unfortunately, Troll Tech will do a lot of damage in the process by making platforms like the Zaurus less attractive for commercial development.
Trolltech, in using the GPL, are encouraging more free software.
Linux has become successful because it is a reasonable platform for both free and commercial software and allows people to publish software for it under a wide variety of licenses. Without the ability to create commercial software for Linux without having to pay some sort of tax to one company, Linux would have been a flop. Just because something is, or forces something else to be, GPL doesn't make it good for open source software.
Troll Tech wants to be the gatekeeper and toll taker for commercial applications on Linux. Why should we give a single company that kind of control over GUI applications on Linux?
If you do want to make commercial software, Trolltech's prices are very cheap, especially considering how quickly you can write apps in Qt.
Yeah, right, that's what people say about Windows as well. And with Windows, people don't even have to pay Microsoft to develop commercial apps.
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-26 16:48 · Score: 1

I doubt it will harm Linux if QT catches on on the desktop.
It would, because it would relegate non-Qt applications to second-rate status: KDE and Qt really don't work as well with non-Qt applications as other X11 desktops. Also, a lot of the vociferous complaints about X11 performance are really the fault of Qt's X11 backend, not X11.
It already has for me since KDE happens to be based on it.
Sure, there are lots of KDE users because KDE is a good desktop. That doesn't mean that using it is good for open source in the long run.
In any case, the situation on the desktop isn't as grave as on handhelds. Qt and non-Qt applications can live side-by-side thanks to the careful design and maturity of X11, even if Qt and KDE make this work less than perfectly. But on handhelds, Qt/Embedded just takes over--there is no way of running X11 applications side-by-side with Qt/Embedded applications.
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-26 16:57 · Score: 2

Yes, I am sure. I have run X11 on 20MHz desktop machines with 4Mbytes of RAM and it worked fine. It runs fine on the Agenda VR. It runs fine on the iPaq using Handhelds Linux. There is even a pure Java implementation that weighs in at around 200kbytes of code.
There is nothing "cumbersome" or "awkward" about X11. It's a window system that keeps applications safe from one another and works with a large number of different toolkits and programming languages. It is highly scalable and can be implemented with almost no memory other than a screen buffer, up to workstations with gigabytes of memory to spare for graphics. Network transparency, pluggable input methods, and a host of other features are icing on the cake.
Qt/Embedded is a bulky and messy design in comparison, largely restricted to a single toolkit, defined in terms of APIs rather than protocols, much more limited in functionality, and more limited in the range of programming languages it can support.
There is plenty wrong with X11--after all, the design is nearly two decades old. But none of the current crop of competitors come even close to improving on it, and certainly not Qt/Embedded.
Re:incomparable by Arandir · 2002-08-26 17:00 · Score: 2, Flamebait

Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux based handhelds by replacing X11 with a framebuffer-based system (which is less efficient to boot).

Have you ever tried to fit X11 into a handheld then had it be responsive afterwards? Which of Trolltech's competitors does not use a framebuffer? What handheld had an X11 system to begin with so that Trolltech could "replace" it?

Authors of GPL'ed software using Troll Tech's system are OK, but other kinds of free software, or commercial developers, need to pay more than they would for GUI development on just about any other platform.

As a BSD developer, this annoys me. But so what.

To quote RMS: "we are now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL."

If Qt/Embedded catches on widely, you can kiss handheld Linux as an affordable commercial platform goodbye.

Why? If you are selling [sic] Free Software, then Qt/Embedded is Free. If you're selling proprietary software, then you have to treat Qt/Embeddedlike any other commercial toolkit, and pay for it.

Commercial Qt/Embedded may put a halt to penny-ante shareware coders trying to make a buck off their weekend hobby, but the licensing cost is actually quite reasonable for professional developers.

And if Qt catches on on the desktop, it will harm Linux as well.

Hate to break the news to you, but it already did catch on. It's called KDE. I understand it's wildly popular.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:05 · Score: 0

What the fuck are you talking about ?

Gatekeeper ?
They are fucking commercial company one of tens of thousands , the difference being that they makes software for Linux.
Have you seen the prices for cross-platform toolkits ( reals ones not unfinished crap like GTK that only works reasonably on Unix) ?
Trolls are cheap compared to other AND they make their excellent toolkit available under GPL license.
It is rare, believe me.

Sorry but you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:08 · Score: 0

Please, why would I want to use X11 on my Zaurus ?
Carefull design my ass.
This carefull design resulted in thousands of apps using hundred of different toolkits all of which would have to be installed on my Z if I wanted to use them.
Thanks, but no thanks.

PS.
Not to mention that there is not a single GUI toolkit availabe for Linux that even comes close to qt as far as technicall excellence is concerned.
Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:13 · Score: 0

"much more limited in functionality"
What ?
Are you on crack ?
Have you noticed how every fucking WM out there implements its own set of "hints" ( most often completely different than anything else )?
Do you know why ?
How about this - fucking X11 is NOT flexible enough to allow for many features modern WM need to implement and now we have apps that claim to support "full Gnome hint support","partial KDE hint support".

How about fucking fonts handling which is nothing short of a disaster.
Please, don't get me started ....

I can only conclude that you have never written a single line of code for X11.
Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 03:55 · Score: 1, Funny

They are fucking commercial company one of tens of thousands
Yup: that about sums it up. And you are bending over for them.
Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 03:58 · Score: 0

Have you noticed how every fucking WM out there implements its own set of "hints" ( most often completely different than anything else )?
So? X11 supports the mechanism for applications to communicate. If KDE or Gnome or anything else need particular conventions, they should get standardized.
How about fucking fonts handling which is nothing short of a disaster.
Font handling is fine: X11 has reasonable support for handling bitmap fonts, and the latest versions have support for antialiased glyphs.
Re:incomparable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:01 · Score: 0

This carefull design resulted in thousands of apps using hundred of different toolkits all of which would have to be installed on my Z if I wanted to use them.
You only have to install the toolkits for applications you want to use. If all you want is Qt applications, all you need to install is Qt toolkits.
Qt/Embedded doesn't help with this--it simply enforces that you can't use anything else. Why restrict yourself that way?
Not to mention that there is not a single GUI toolkit availabe for Linux that even comes close to qt as far as technicall excellence is concerned.
Qt is just another C++ toolkit--not bad, but not particularly distinguished either.
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-27 04:07 · Score: 2

What do you mean integrate X11 more smoothly into OSX?
X11 doesn't come preinstalled on OSX machines, making it difficult to distribute end-user applications. Also, the way X11 is implemented on OSX is unnecessarily inefficient, XDarwin is unnecessarily large, and window management has some rough edges.
You "doubt Apple will succeed with this"? Do you say this because... no GPL apps work with the Quartz GUI?
No. I just think that Quartz and Cocoa are dead in the long run as APIs: nobody needs another proprietary GUI, and Apple doesn't have the market share to force the issue. Most people will be creating Apple applications through Java, various X11 compatibility hacks, various Win32 compatibility hacks, or cross-platform toolkits.
Apple may, of course, still keep Quartz and Cocoa at the core of their system, but that's more of a liability than an advantage.
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-27 04:14 · Score: 2

Have you ever tried to fit X11 into a handheld then had it be responsive afterwards?
Yup. That's why I use on iPaq. In fact, I have used X11 on machines that are much less powerful than the iPaq.
Which of Trolltech's competitors does not use a framebuffer? What handheld had an X11 system to begin with so that Trolltech could "replace" it?
Troll Tech "replaced" the standard Linux windowing system, X11, with their system, excluding all other toolkits but theirs.
If you're selling proprietary software, then you have to treat Qt/Embeddedlike any other commercial toolkit, and pay for it.
People don't have to pay for developing for Win32, OSX, or Palm. They can use the native APIs freely, or they can use any of a number of cross-platform libraries. Qt is expensive.
But what's worse is that Qt/Embedded restricts choice--whether I want to pay for it or not, I already have applications using other toolkits that work perfectly fine on handhelds. Why would I want to pay off Troll Tech for the privilege of then having to spend even more money to port them?
Hate to break the news to you, but it already did catch on. It's called KDE. I understand it's wildly popular.
Qt still accounts for only a small fraction of Linux GUI applications.
Re:incomparable by Arandir · 2002-08-27 06:43 · Score: 2

Yup. That's why I use on iPaq. In fact, I have used X11 on machines that are much less powerful than the iPaq.

And you're saying your iPaq is more responsive with X11 than without?

Troll Tech "replaced" the standard Linux windowing system, X11, with their system, excluding all other toolkits but theirs.

Huh? What handheld does Trolltech sell that they would even be in a position to replace the "standard" Linux windowing system?

People don't have to pay for developing for Win32, OSX, or Palm. They can use the native APIs freely, or they can use any of a number of cross-platform libraries.

First, Qt is not an operating system. If you don't like Qt, you don't have to use it. You've already stated that your iPaq has X11, so why don't you use straight Xlib?

Second, go try programming a Win32 GUI application without spending any money. If you find a way, please let me know, because I can't think of any.

Qt is expensive.

Go price out competitive crossplatform application frameworks of equal quality. Still not convinced. Go check out what the standard tools for any other trade cost. See what a hardware engineer's tools cost. See what an auto mechanic's tools cost. See what a carpenter's tools cost.

Qt still accounts for only a small fraction of Linux GUI applications.

It still accounts for a very significant fraction. Like it or not, KDE has caught on. It is not going to go away. Neither will Qt.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-27 12:21 · Score: 2

And you're saying your iPaq is more responsive with X11 than without?
The iPaq with X11 is more responsive than PocketPC on the identical hardware, and it is also more responsive than the Zaurus running on comparable hardare.
Huh? What handheld does Trolltech sell that they would even be in a position to replace the "standard" Linux windowing system?
Troll Tech has managed to get Qt/Embedded onto the Sharp Zaurus. I'm sure that involved loss leaders, just like getting Qt into KDE.
Second, go try programming a Win32 GUI application without spending any money. If you find a way, please let me know, because I can't think of any.
Well, then you can't have looked very hard. wxWindows, FLTK, and Tcl/Tk are free, and I have used all of them porting applications to Windows. You can use gcc or several other free compilers for programming. There is, of course, also Java and a number of other languages and non-C++-based toolkits.
Go price out competitive crossplatform application frameworks of equal quality.
I have, since before Qt was around. Qt's price and license would have been justified in the 1980's. Today, it isn't--if it weren't for the initial QPL gimmick and the KDE licensing confusion, Qt would never have made it.
It still accounts for a very significant fraction. Like it or not, KDE has caught on.
KDE mostly duplicates what other desktops provide as well. There are no KDE applications that are essential to anything.
Re:incomparable by Arandir · 2002-08-27 15:40 · Score: 2

We really got off topic here. Let me get back to your orginal claims (paraphrased):

1) Trolltech is trying to, or has to ability to, create a monopoly through its dual licensing scheme.

The fact that one of these licenses is the GPL means that such a situation cannot happen. The GPL may lock out proprietary developers, but it does not lock out Free Software developers.

Am I going to sympathize with pay-for proprietary developer who has to pay for Qt/Embedded? Hell no!

2) If Qt catches on in the desktop it will harm Linux.

It already did catch on. So I guess Linux is harmed, and it will only be a matter of time before it joins *BSD in Dying.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:incomparable by g4dget · 2002-08-29 16:29 · Score: 2

Am I going to sympathize with pay-for proprietary developer who has to pay for Qt/Embedded? Hell no!
The problem isn't having to pay for Qt, the problem is that Troll Tech is using various strategies to try and limit competition, from other commercial toolkits as well as free tollkits. Being forced to use Qt is no better than being forced to use MFC.
It already did catch on. So I guess Linux is harmed, and it will only be a matter of time before it joins *BSD in Dying.
Qt is not essential for Linux because we have Gtk+ and lots of other toolkits. If KDE and Qt ever were to win the competition for the Linux desktop, then Linux would be in trouble. As long as they are a sideshow, they don't matter much either way.

Recent behavior towards KDE??? by DAldredge · 2002-08-26 14:23 · Score: 2

If you are talking about the GUI changes that Redhat will ship with Redhat V8.x then you should know they made the same kind of changes to Gnome 2.x.

RedHat is a simple install, period. by toupsie · 2002-08-26 14:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

RedHat's default install is not the one I use, ever. However, if I want to install GNU/Linux on a computer, I use RedHat. Reason? I can pop in a Net Install floppy, boot the box, and choose a mirror site for Redhat. About an hour later, I have the basic building block on the server I need. I do this both for x86 and Alpha -- never need to remember to bring software. A couple of trips to RPMFind.Net, a tweek of rc3.d and an update -u...that's it. You have a functional, decent performance server for your need...NFS, Samba, AppleTalkIP, HTTPD, WebDAV, FTP, POP3, SMTP, RTSP, X11, etc. Just go nuts tightning down the default install and you have a box that can stay up 365+, no problem.

RedHat has good name recognition for a reason, they make getting Linux on your box simple. I am sure you can on and on again about your favorite distro and you will have valid points. I just love quick and simple net installs--free of charge--Microsoft ain't never gonna do that for me!!!

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:RedHat is a simple install, period. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:48 · Score: 0

Microsoft installs are quite easy, probably easier than any Linux distro I've used. And I don't know about you, but I've never paid for a piece of Microsoft software.
Re:RedHat is a simple install, period. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 13:56 · Score: 0

Microsoft still has the easiest install process. It isn't necessarily the best considering some of it's defaults you can't adjust until after the installation is complete (w/o resorting the the OEM setup scripting tools).

However, I still would pick Mandrake over RedHat as the overall winner in the easy-to-install distro -- not that RH is hard to install by any stretch of the imagination.

What Red Hat Says by T-Kir · 2002-08-26 14:24 · Score: 1

'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.'

And M$ might say:

'Our commitment to proprietary code remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.'

Anyhow, if people see Red Hat as becoming like M$, then I must be in unhappy camp since I use both M$ software (or crashware), and Red Hat Linux.

I guess there is no satisfying some people...

--
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!

Re:What Red Hat Says by blackula · 2002-08-26 14:56 · Score: 0

Hahaha! It's funny because he spelled "MS" with a dollar sign!!! Get it?!?

Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:24 · Score: 0

The man behind Bill Gates is not a man, it's a space alien.

Slashdot dictionary:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:25 · Score: 0

"Rediculous", noun.
Common Slashdot term for "ridiculous".
Often used in place of correct spelling for comedic effect.

Re:Slashdot dictionary:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:25 · Score: 0

"noun", noun
Common Slashdot term for "adjective"
Often used when AC poster is trying to be funny, but is in fact just a moron.
Re:Slashdot dictionary:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 01:11 · Score: 0

"moron", preposition
Common Slashdot term for "humorless twit".
Often used by people with anal fixation.

Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by BoomerSooner · 2002-08-26 14:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

you're stuck with their OS. If you don't like RedHat there are 5-10 other good vendors OR you can make your own distribution.

Personally I think Apple is more like MS than RedHat. Seriously, look at the financials (for example):
MSFT 40billion in cash 90% of market
AAPL 4billion in cash 4-5% of market
RHAT 0billion in cash 1% of market

Apple is just a smaller scale monopoly than micosoft. Don't think for a minute if Apple were in the drivers seat that you could tell the difference between Microsoft of today. That being said, Linux is the true O/S with choice. And that is what makes RedHat NOT Redmond of linux.

BTW I love Linux, Apple (OS X), and Windows (not a fan of solaris however).

Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by MaxVlast · 2002-08-26 14:46 · Score: 2

That's all blatant speculation and assertions with no supporting facts. Why not think that Apple wouldn't be like MS? Apple is a monopoly over what?

And what do cash reserves have to do with behaving properly?

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple is a monopoly over anyone who wants to use the Mac OS. Look at price vs. performance. Look at how they put tons of anti-upgrade features in their machines (they've already forced XLR8 out of business). No more iTools, but $100/year for .Mac. Treating 10.2 like a full OS upgrade (bug fixes and speed improvements? Not worth $100 to me).

Unless you want to be stuck with buggy Windows, or Linux/BSD (neither of them are worth a damn on the desktop), you have no choice but to buy a Mac. And Apple will ream you for every penny they can.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by mla_anderson · 2002-08-26 15:11 · Score: 1

Windows isn't worth a damn in the server either.
However, Linux on the desktop works great, I use it every day.

--
Sig is on vacation
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by boomer_rehfield · 2002-08-26 15:21 · Score: 1

nice stats. Now explain why those stats mean that I'm stuck with MS's OS. Please? Cause I'm not...really... I'm on Linux right now... honest... I'm not lying... ping me....

--
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by SomeGuyFromCA · 2002-08-26 15:43 · Score: 1

Apple gets to be a monopoly, since they make the hardware as well as the software.

Or are you going to claim next that TI holds a monopoly over TI calculators?

--
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 15:45 · Score: 2

Don't think for a minute if Apple were in the drivers seat that you could tell the difference between Microsoft of today.
Let's see. Apple licensed AOL's instant messaging service, MS tried to steal it. Apple lets Terra Soft preload Yellowdog and OS X, MS prevents OEM's from offering Linux, BeOS, OS/2 to customers that want it.
Microsoft broke the law. Apple hasn't. There's a lot to tell apart, so I don't see how you could claim otherwise. Don't forget, Microsoft has been violating the law ever since DOS days. The way a company is run when it's small is the way it's run when it's large.
-Brent
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Drakino · 2002-08-26 16:30 · Score: 2

Apple licensed AOL's instant messaging service, MS tried to steal it.

Hmm, lets spin this another way:

Apple begged AOL to allow iChat to exist without the problems of the protocal changes that killed Trillian for a while, while MS tried to use the same AIM protocal to help unify IM as ordered by the US government when AOL merged with Time Warner. Also, MS has been the only company to actually alert Trillian's creators ahead of time about a server change that might break Trillian.

Oh, and don't forget that iChat and future AIM clients are incompatible with Trillian and other thrid party clients.

Apple has done just about as many nasty things as MS. They just don't have the market share for many people to notice and take action. I love OS X, but I feel it was only born out of competitive necessity.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by drsmithy · 2002-08-26 17:08 · Score: 1

Why not think that Apple wouldn't be like MS?
Because they already are *now*, they just affect a smaller group of people.
Apple is a monopoly over what?
The desktop PPC market.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 17:15 · Score: 2

while MS tried to use the same AIM protocal to help unify IM as ordered by the US government when AOL merged with Time Warner.
No, MS used the merger as a scapegoat to excuse their theft of AOL's service.
Also, MS has been the only company to actually alert Trillian's creators ahead of time about a server change that might break Trillian.
Everyone can play with their product was they wish. If Microsoft wants to use Trillian, that's their prorogative. However, if Trillian refuses to properly license AOL's service like Apple did, then I think that Trillian is at fault. Why doesn't Trillian sell their client, and then step up to the plate and sign a licensing agreement with AOL. Seems to me that would accomplish a lot more then whining about how AOL won't let them play, er, um steal.

I've tested out the Trillian client, so I can't say that I'm totally out of the loop as to what they are doing. I just think that they should do the right thing.
Apple has done just about as many nasty things as MS.
I'm sorry, but if Apple's done anything nasty, they must have done a good job keeping it a secret. I'd have thought that slashdot at least would have been all over it.
but I feel it was only born out of competitive necessity.
Most things are, but that's a good thing in my book.
-Brent
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by PotPieMan · 2002-08-26 17:21 · Score: 2

Oh, and don't forget that iChat and future AIM clients are incompatible with Trillian and other thrid party clients.

What about this is Apple's fault? Apple wrote the client, and AOL made the server changes. Clearly, AOL is not going to care what happens to unauthorized clients.

Trillian is great--I use it if I'm forced to use Windows. I use Gaim otherwise. There's very little ground for either client to stand on when AOL starts making changes.

Oh, and if you actually read the requirements for the AOL Time Warner merger, there is nothing that requires a compatible IM network in the current forms. The interoperation is required for future IM networks that use video, for example.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by CrackerJackz · 2002-08-26 17:59 · Score: 1

Reply from 192.168.1.61: bytes=32 time10ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.61: bytes=32 time10ms TTL=128
Request Timed Out
Request Timed Out
Reply from 192.168.1.61: bytes=32 time10ms TTL=128

Hmmm nope you appear to be running Windows ME :)
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by CableModemSniper · 2002-08-26 19:10 · Score: 1

Everyone can play with their product was they wish. If Microsoft wants to use Trillian, that's their prorogative. However, if Trillian refuses to properly license AOL's service like Apple did, then I think that Trillian is at fault. Why doesn't Trillian sell their client, and then step up to the plate and sign a licensing agreement with AOL. Seems to me that would accomplish a lot more then whining about how AOL won't let them play, er, um steal.
What precisely has Trillian stolen? They merely provide an alternative client for people to use AOL's service with. People still have to sign up with AOL to use th AIM service. I'm not saying AOL has to alert Trillian of protocol changes or anything like that, but this is like complaining people acess /. with IE instead of Mozilla.

--
Why not fork?
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by boomer_rehfield · 2002-08-26 22:25 · Score: 1

Hmmm...nope... I appear to be running linux. Nice IP address. Hope you didn't pay money to learn that.

--
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · 2002-08-27 00:02 · Score: 2

but this is like complaining people acess /. with IE instead of Mozilla.
No, it's more like complaining that people access their online bank which is broken in non-IE browsers with non-IE browsers. Better example would be accessing a hiwire stream with a non-hiwire plugin.

AOL chooses to limit which clients access their service. AOL doesn't want alternative clients, so to try and force alternative clients on AOL is wrong. It steals something that belongs to AOL.

That's why I said, Trillian should sign a contract with AOL to be an official client and then sell their client. If they don't, then I have a problem with them.
-Brent
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by CableModemSniper · 2002-08-27 00:22 · Score: 1

What exactly are they stealing from AOL?
And as for your bank example, I'm sure that the users who chose to use a non-IE browser, going against the bank's recommendation, realize they can't expect it to work properly, or at all, and that they certainly can't complain about issues with the alternative browser.
It is the same with Trillian. Users of the software recognize they are taking a risk by using non-sanctioned software, and are aware that they can't really complain if it fails to work. Unless the Trillian users harm the network or other users experience in some way I don't see any reason to not allow Trillian to continue to exist. Of course AOL can change their protocol willy-nilly if they want, after all it is there protocol and their client.
I don't know what hiwire is so I can't comment on that.
IBM chooses to limit which companies make PC's. IBM doesn't want alternative PC manufacturers, so to try and force alternative manufacturers on IBM is wrong. It steals something that belongs to IBM.

--
Why not fork?
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · 2002-08-27 02:10 · Score: 2

What exactly are they stealing from AOL?
AOL's resources
I don't know what hiwire is so I can't comment on that.
Sorry, I was refering to this story.
IBM doesn't want alternative PC manufacturers, so to try and force alternative manufacturers on IBM is wrong. It steals something that belongs to IBM.
Try replacing IBM with Apple and you've got the analogy in the bag! At one time Apple allowed clones. When companies got a license to clone the Mac from Apple they were OK. When Apple canceled 3rd party hardware, it was no longer OK. Same thing with different PC parts. For instance, I'm sure that if I wanted to make a n Geforce 4 card I couldn't just buy a box of GPU's off the black market. I'd probably have to sign a licensing agreement with NVIDIA to use their chips, and their intellectual property.
-Brent
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by thk · 2002-08-27 03:34 · Score: 1

Hop on over to (random example) ESRI's web site (www.esri.com) and then tell me that I have a choice of linux distributions if I want to run ESRI software. Is Red Hat encouraging them to release LSB compliant packages. I highly doubt it. Unless you can fulfill all your computing needs with source-available software, binary compatibility does matter. Linux _is_ fragmented at the binary-compatible level and I don't see Red Hat actively fighting that.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Jason+Earl · 2002-08-27 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Why in the world should RedHat encourage ESRI to create packages for their competitors? RedHat has done their part by becoming LSB certified (they didn't have to do that, and if they hadn't become certified the LSB would be deader than a doornail).
RedHat has gained their lead by writing cool software and giving it away. Most of their erstwhile competition (ie Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux) tried to lock their customers into proprietary software that they layered on top of Linux. RedHat, on the other hand, gave their tools away. RedHat's tools, and the RedHat distribution, became the most popular despite the fact that Caldera, SuSE, and others often had better tools. The difference was that RedHat's tools were Free.
Personally, I use Debian Linux, but I am tired of all of the bellyaching by the other commercial distributions.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by CrackerJackz · 2002-08-27 05:49 · Score: 1

*sigh* the humor value in relation to ME's stability was obviously lost here.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by thk · 2002-08-27 05:54 · Score: 1

Clearly its in Red Hat's interest to get software companies to release only for Red Hat. They're perfectly in their right to do so. Its also my right to say that down that path lies balkanization, fragmentation and general unpleasantness for Linux users. I use Debian too, and your point is?...
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by jdreed1024 · 2002-08-27 05:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hop on over to (random example) ESRI's web site (www.esri.com) and then tell me that I have a choice of linux distributions if I want to run ESRI software.
Where do you see Linux products on ESRI's website? Talk about monopolies - ESRI does what it wants, since it has a monopoly on the GIS market - you couldn't have chosen a worse example had you tried. ESRI has a history of only offering support for Windows, Solaris, and the other Unicies (IRIX, DUX, etc). And now they've even punted that. The current version of ArcView is only available for Windows, and they punted their scripting language in favor of Visual Basic.
ESRI, like any monopoly, will offer the bare minimum necessary to get the largest number of people to STFU. If they offer RedHat support, it's only because it's the most popular distro, not because there's some zekr1t n1nj@ conspiracy going on. RedHat couldn't possibly convince them to offer LSB compliant packages, whether it wanted to or not. They could drop RedHat support in a second, and they really wouldn't lose any customers.
Yes, this was OT, but I had to set the record straight.

--
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Jason+Earl · 2002-08-27 06:18 · Score: 2

My point is that as long as RedHat releases the source to any of their custom libraries we can easily run software that is "RedHat" specific on the distribution of our choice. It might require a little extra work, but not really that much extra work.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by boomer_rehfield · 2002-08-27 06:32 · Score: 1

sorry...was early...hehe

--
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by thk · 2002-08-27 06:39 · Score: 1

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. And yes, you are probably right -- its probably unfair to blame Red Hat for ESRI thinking linux = red hat (search for 'linux' on their web site and you'll see they're beginning to release for linux, um Red Hat). I still fault Red Hat for not taking more of an early leadership role in LSB and binary compatibility in general. Actually, I think RH has the most to lose. LSB wont hurt them; they have great brand recognition and that's not going away. Binary compatibility will only make Linux more appealing in general.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 19:54 · Score: 0

while there's linux in existance, there can't be a redmond for it either , I 've no objection to RH making money , as I get the pink tie versions , or copy the RH disks anyway :-)
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by CableModemSniper · 2002-08-29 03:40 · Score: 1

Trillian isn't analogous to apple clones really. Nor is your GPU example. I was speaking of the reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS which resulted in the PC clone market. No you could just buy black market GF4 GPUs, but you _could_ reverse engineer them and sell GF4 compatible cards. Its the same thing with Trillian.

--
Why not fork?
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · 2002-08-29 06:05 · Score: 2

I was speaking of the reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS which resulted in the PC clone market. [...] Its the same thing with Trillian.
I have no problem with Trillian reverse engineering AOL protocol. I would even like to see a protocol compatible server that I could use on my internal network as a private instant messaging service. This is analogious to reverse engineering the IBM bios.

However, as soon as Trillian connects to AOL's servers without AOL's approval, it is stealing AOL's server. It has gone much beyond just reverse engineering.
-Brent
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by CableModemSniper · 2002-08-29 11:46 · Score: 1

I really do not see how. It is after all being used by AIM subscribers. It isn't like Trillian is using AOL's resources to run its own "pirate" IM network.

--
Why not fork?
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · 2002-08-29 13:10 · Score: 2

It is after all being used by AIM subscribers.
AOL only lets AIM subscribers use official clients. And if they do it's their choice. For you to use an unlicensed client anyways is to steal from them.
-Brent

Red Hat is ok by me by cpex · 2002-08-26 14:26 · Score: 1

I personally use redhat 7.3 I think its fine, if you don't like the version of gcc that comes with it replace it with what you want. You dont like the way the stock kernel is built, build your own. I see a distro as a starting point. A collection of apps that I get to choose and pick from. I heard ppl call red hat bloat ware, sure it has a ton of needless apps but you can always not-install or remove what you dont want. And if you need a tool that doesnt come with the distro go download it. Red hat is doing nothing nor can it to stop this.

Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by X · 2002-08-26 14:27 · Score: 1

Apologies for screwing up the HTML and not using preview mode.

--
sigs are a waste of space

Pull the other one.. it plays "Jingle Bells" by marcushnk · 2002-08-26 14:27 · Score: 1

GPL, which RedHat has always been a VERY strong supporter of, is pertly designed to STOP Monopolies.

Even if they wanted to.. they'ed find it VERY dificult to do a MS on us..

--
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far

Whoa, Cool by Adhoc · 2002-08-26 14:27 · Score: 1

From the article

...said Jamin Gray, a programmer in St. Louis and a contributor to the GNU Network Object Model Environment Project.

Wow. that sounds like a neat new project!! About time we had some innovation in the Linux desktop space. That ought to give a kick in the pants to KDE and GNO... oh, wait.

Stupid reporters.

Re:Whoa, Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:03 · Score: 0

Lets see let me put the first letters of those words (- project) together to get GNOME.. Wait does that mean they just used the long name for the project...

Stupid ./ posters....

A space alien... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:28 · Score: 0

named... BILL GATES!!!!

Re: When is the last time that you checked? by brunson · 2002-08-26 14:28 · Score: 1

Hmmmm...

Googling for "redhat mirror iso" yields this as the first result:

http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html

But then, why bother looking for yourself when you can post drivel on slashdot and someone else will do it for you?

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Jesus loves you, I think you suck

Sigh... by AELinuxGuy · 2002-08-26 14:29 · Score: 1

I was going to write up a post pointing out all of the reasons why RedHat could never become a Microsoft (or why there will never be another Microsoft for that matter), but what is the point? This shit is getting old. Even if RedHat is the top Linux certification program, they become the top Linux consulting outfit, and conqueror the commercial distro market they will never be the predatory monopolist that Microsoft has become because of the GPL.

Re:Sigh... by kaoshin · 2002-08-26 16:59 · Score: 1

Unfortunately their certification program is (or was, I decided against it a while back), as undesirable as microsoft's. When I looked into it, you had to pay too much money (kind of like the costs on expensive ergonomic devices -like they expect companies pay it instead of individuals), you had to go out of town just to attend the courses, and when its all said and done you have a redhat specific certification that may not even be neccessary if an employer is looking for someone with just general *nix qualifications. This may have all changed, but that is at least the way it was before I decided to take the cheap route and get LPI certified without taking courses and stuff I don't need anyway. I never liked the idea of getting my education or certs from a corporation like that to begin with. Microsoft has certainly shown how they can screw people over with that, and it must be a conflict of interest.
Apart from that, I have heard superb things about redhat as a company, and I learned on it myself before I switched to another distro, which is why I recommend it to newbies. You are right about the GPL, regardless of wether it has been tested in court, it is surely a good safeguard against that. Leave it to slashdot to try and spread paranoia and start up rants from all the *I've been victimized by microsoft* weenies, and holier than thou linux converts. Can we get a Jon Katz article please? His are a lot funnier.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:30 · Score: 1

well. I've been using redhat for a while now, and I have never paid for it, and never will. i'm not really sure why redhat, I guess it was the first to have a decent installer, and after using linux for a while I kind of just want to use it, not install and configure it all the time. I'll never pay for support, no matter how much they fuck with the os config files, and I'll bet most you losers arent't going to pay them either, so they probably don't give a shit what any of us think about their attitude, except that maybe some of you will promote using linux in your job.

to say they're the microsoft of linux, is really trying to glorify linux a little too much. I just can't wait until some dickhead uses the 800 lb gorilla metaphore again.

slashdot really does suck.

jake

a thought by sstory · 2002-08-26 14:31 · Score: 1

Open Source contains two peoples. One is for freedom in computing. The other, which also wears the mantle of the first, is anti-business. Red-Hat bashing has nothing to do with freedom. It is just anti-business sentiment. Geek chic is another, smaller, element...there's little esoteric-wizard status to be held when many people start to become familiar with the tech. If linux ever becomes successful among hoi polloi, expect the geek-status seekers to have migrated elsewhere by that time. They'll all be developing embeddedBSD, or making networks of STAMP chips run perl, or some other ego-inflating arcana.

Yeah right... by WhoCouldItBe · 2002-08-26 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

*sigh*

MS has money. MS has marketshare. MS is an established name. Regardless of how you feel about Microsoft, how can anyone POSSIBLY relate RedHat and Microsoft this way?

Quite simply RedHat just doesn't have the power to be a Microsoft-like company. They don't have the money, they don't have the resources, and they sure as hell don't have the marketshare. Maybe they're the leader of the commercial Linux pack, but so what? Don't get me wrong - I like Linux. I use Linux. But don't expect me to believe that RedHat is going to be able to force computer companies to bundle Linux with them. Last I heard, the PC companies we're cutting back on bundled Linux!

Maybe RedHat is adding some proprietary stuff, or plans to in the future for whatever reason (clusters etc - I don't know). Well all I can say about that is 'DUH!' News flash folks - their business model revolves around a free OS, they've got to pay the bills somehow. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't work for free.

But anyway if RedHat is able to become successful, then more power to them. And if you don't like it, give your money to someone else.

Re:Yeah right... by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 15:21 · Score: 2

Last I heard, the PC companies we're cutting back on bundled Linux!
Wasn't this because Microsoft was again choosing for the customer what they should buy?
-Brent

RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by ukryule · 2002-08-26 14:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

From Jeremy Hogan's reply in Newsforge:

It seems like a week can't go by where someone doesn't fling the "Microsoft of Linux" accusation at Red Hat. ... Why not "The Starbucks of Linux?"

Now *that* is a much nicer analogy:

They have a recognisable brand
You can buy from them almost anywhere nowadays
The cost of the ingredients is a tiny part of the overall price
It isn't much better than the competition, but it's nicely packaged
If you know what you're doing you can make a much better version yourself
I can stop using them anytime I want (hah! At least I tell myself that ...)

Re:RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by the+way,+what're+you · 2002-08-26 16:11 · Score: 1

You forgot:
Like Starbucks, there are 3 or 4 new installations every day ;)

--
example.org - powered by Linux!
Re:RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by Sabalon · 2002-08-26 16:50 · Score: 2

good lord.

open a starbucks franchise just made my list of things to do if I ever lose my mind.

I read a few years back out McDonalds franchise owners complaining about the competition between the various mcdonalds - hell...they have it easy compared to this.
Re:RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by hey! · 2002-08-27 02:56 · Score: 2

Hmmm. Does this mean I can walk into the Red Hat offices, plug in my laptop and use them as my alternate office?

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by Inthewire · 2002-08-27 17:33 · Score: 1

Good thinking, but there's a snag.
All Starbucks locations are owned by the corporation.
They do not franchise.

Of course, that may not be the case in the '30s, which is when you are scheduled to lose your mind.

--

Writers imply. Readers infer.

Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by da3dAlus · 2002-08-26 14:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Gather 'round and listen kiddies, I'm putting up some karma points on this one. Seeing as how this SEEMS to be an article to generate FUD about RedHat, I'm putting my neck out here and saying "get over the distro wars". Now listen...

I'd like to tell a short story about a conversation I had with a fellow linux enthusiast at one of the ALS conferences years ago. (This was back when it was still the ATLANTA Linux Showcase, but I digress). Anyway, I was speaking to someone at the Debian booth, as I had told him that I was curious about switching to Debian. He asked, "why do you want to switch?", to which my best reply was, everyone else on Slashdot is doing it, why not I? Given that there seems to be the fairly LARGE camps of Debian users vs RedHat users I wanted to see what was so great about the other side (btw, other distro users, please don't flame me that I left you out). This fella (sorry, forgot his name) asked me what I currently used, and how well I knew it. I said I've been using RedHat since roughly a year after I started with Slackware linux, and I had gotten to know RedHat pretty well. He then told me that there's no reason to switch if I'm comfortable with what I'm using.

That's actually the bulk of the story. I never ended up trying Debian, but I did think about what he said, usually whenever these discussions arise about who's got the better distro. The point I think I'm trying to make here, is that it doesn't matter what other people think of the distro, as long as it's what you feel comfortable with. If Debian (or whatever) works for you, then keep using it. Don't go switch because so-and-so says theirs is better. At least you're running Linux--you've shed the shackles of Redmond, so why keep bitching about what's better on this side of the fence? Honestly, RedHat still seems to listen to it's user base, and that's what matters. The day that any distro developers stop listening, is the day they trully become like Microsoft.

I can say more, but I'll see what kind of response this generates first.

--

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Re:Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by tacocat · 2002-08-26 14:51 · Score: 1

Good point. But Marketing types insist that everyone convert to their version of the Truth.

To be honest. While I have not personally seen much about RedHat that would implicate them as being anything Evil, what does bother me is that the general thinking in Corporate America is the RedHat is the One True Linux distrobution and that all the others (including Debian, Slackware - my two personal favorites) are all a bunch of unprofessional butt-heads who are unreliable and generally lame.

Now, none of this has anything to do with the truth. But it says volumes about the impression that Corporate PHB's are left with regarding the Linux Distribution Community.

Does this mean that RedHat has Evil Marketing types? I don't know. I've hardly ever seen an advertisement from them. But I don't think that they are Bad.

But what this does mean is that the IT Community will preferentially decide upon One Solution and rally around that single Icon forsaking all others. You want proof? Look at Apple. No one rallies around Apple these days (not much) even though they have a remarkable product and have somehow managed to survived all these years.

But if you mention using something that is outside of the Accepted Standards, and there can be only one, then you are considered a renegade. And why do IT Types think that RedHat == Linux? Because RedHat markets their ability to provide Service Agreements where Debian can not, and Slackware, Mandrake, Suse, don't (at least not in the US).

It is not enough that there may be a hundred companies that are willing to support something like Debian, it's not Debian directly. And for a Corporate Mentality where everything must be subcontracted out in tidy packages -- this is too confusing and too much potential for problems. There is risk for finger pointing and what's worse is this. If something goes wrong with the software, you really can't sue something like gentoo or Debian as they are non-profit companies without a single corporal entity that can be legally raped when the sacrifices are called for.

RedHat isn't evil. They are just smart. I do wish they would get a better package management tool though. I've seen too many posts about rebuilding rpm libraries to even consider using it.
Re:Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by da3dAlus · 2002-08-26 16:00 · Score: 2

You hit right on the idea that I've had all along. I started using RedHat a LONG time ago, and I've just stuck with it. Does that make me mindless follower or a zealot for RedHat? I don't think so. Just because it became a popular distro is no reason to bash the company or even the users. If RedHat completely screws the pooch on any of their upcomming releases, will I or even others switch? Probably. I've just never understood the mentallity that when something becomes and icon, as you say, that it suddenly becomes the root of all that's evil (or maybe that's just the nature of this Slashdot crowd). Just because a bunch of people like a distro, doesn't mean that it should be the one and only. Like I said, if you like it, and it works, why change? When people or companies have had their fill of any product that does not meet their expectations, they will search for a better alternative (or at least that's the way it has worked with every Linux shop I've been a part of).

--

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Re:Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:55 · Score: 0

You ramble. I quit reading after your campy into. Frankly, this is a bunch of meaningless shit. Please quit wasting our time.
Re:Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by zangdesign · 2002-08-27 03:16 · Score: 2

He then told me that there's no reason to switch if I'm comfortable with what I'm using.

The same thing can apply to the use of another OS, you know. When you start throwing reason around here on /., your gonna get slapped at some point.

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.

I-don't-get-it by mgeneral · 2002-08-26 14:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is it with the bashing of successful companies???
Ok, so at one time, Microsoft was a little startup...without much technical inguinuity...albeit...but they were the underdog against the bohemeth IBM. Now they are they enemy.
So another underdog comes to the table, and they are becoming enormesly successful in their industry. And we have to bash them? Calling them the "microsoft" of their industry?
This is riduculous.
Redhat is a great company. They adhere to standards. They continue to release GPL code. They have introduced more people to Linux than probably all other players combined. In fact, in my industry (systems integration), 3 or 4 years ago, my customers wouldn't touch Linux. Now, when I tell them I'm installing RedHat, they can put a name behind the product and somehow they feel better about it. Today, in certian situations, I can bring Linux in-house to organizations that would have otherwise balked at my proposals a few years ago. In fact, I attribute this to the success of Redhat for creating a solid organization that backs the very code so many of you are working on. A company that the "C" people (ceo's, cfo's, etc) can identify with and trust.
Just because they are successful doesn't mean that they are evil.

--

Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses.

Actually.... Yes, they are by tacocat · 2002-08-26 14:33 · Score: 1

I ran into a comment from a PHB who several times called Linux, "RedHat" even with the numerous corrections given him in the room. So, in a sense, RedHat has become the next Windows. It is synonymous with the concept of Linux.

After all, how many PHB's out there really know that their is something besides Windows or what an Operation System is?

Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by mgeneral · 2002-08-26 14:42 · Score: 1

Ignorance plays the chief part among men, and the multitude of words; but opportunity will prevail.
-Diogenes Laërtius

--

Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses.
Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by tacocat · 2002-08-26 14:55 · Score: 1

No it won't. People are simple about things that they don't want to understand that much about.

How much do you know about the detail operations of your Car? How about your Computer? Different strokes for different folks.

If I want a car, I look for something with four wheels, engine, seats, and a good radio. If I want a Computer, I have a six page list of detailed specifications. Different Strokes for Different Folks.

PHB's are not going to ever be concerned with which Distribution they are using. It's enough of a bother that they have to decide between MSFT, SUN, and RedHat.
Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by bmetzler · 2002-08-26 15:19 · Score: 2

So, in a sense, RedHat has become the next Windows. It is synonymous with the concept of Linux.
Are you implying that Windows is bad? I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad. If Microsoft would sell Windows on it's own virtues, instead of selling it by preventing consumers from buying what they want, Microsoft would not have it's anti-trust troubles.

Red Hat may be the front and center trademark in the Linux field. But they are selling it on it's own virtues, not by prevents other distributions a place in the market.
-Brent
Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by Alien+Being · 2002-08-26 21:44 · Score: 2

"I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad."

Why is Windows bad?

Windows is designed to enable MS's predatory practices. In that sense, it's very bad.

From a tech pov, Windows represents a huge step backwards in computing.

Multitasking/multiuser OSes go back to the sixties (maybe even earlier). The pdp8 we had in high school in the seventies even had virtual machine capabilites. These are fundamentals of a general purpose OS, yet versions of Windows as recent as ME don't have true multitasking. Multiuser is an add-on to the NT line.

Throughout MS's history in the OS business, competirors have offered superior products. Digital research had a better DOS than MS. Several companies had better GUI-over-DOS solutions than the early versions of Windows. OS/2 was better than Windows. MS themselves had a good OS back in the mid-80s with XENIX, but they didn't own all the rights to it, so they abandoned it.

Anyone who's too young to remember what computing was like before the mushrooming of wintel won't get to see how really bad Windows is until it's forced to compete on a level playing field.
Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by Inthewire · 2002-08-27 17:49 · Score: 1

Yeah. Guess what? As much as I enjoy Unixy environments (this is posted from a FreeBSD machine), most people aren't in need of a multiuser environment. Most people have one box per concurrent user.
People aren't hitting servers from terminals. They're using full-fledged computers, machines capable of doing the one-three tasks that the average user runs at any given time. Most devices are not networked (excluding potential net access, but that's not the same - net acces is email and web browsing, not remote X sessions).
One computer, one user, one session.
That isn't to say that multitasking isn't useful - it is. It just isn't required by most people. Mom doesn't need a machine with a root and a user - she needs her box to be simple. Not everyone is willing to be a sysadmin.

--

Writers imply. Readers infer.
Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by Alien+Being · 2002-08-27 18:14 · Score: 1

and nobody will ever need more than 640k, right?

"One computer, one user, one session." /* increase profit margins */
#define max_users 1

"That isn't to say that multitasking isn't useful - it is. It just isn't required by most people. "
But 4 out of 5 dancing paperclips surveyed demand it.

"Mom doesn't need a machine with a root and a user "
That's what McAfee is for, right?

This hurts my ears. by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-08-26 14:35 · Score: 1

When I first entered the Linux community, I began with RedHat (in retrospect, Mandrake would have been better, but oh well). People bash RedHat for mixing KDE and GNOME. First of all, the two standards should be mixed by a distribution (after all, GNOME and KDE stay seperate entities outside of the RH installation) for a variety of reasons which I will not discuss here (basically new users know what checking their email is, but think Evolution is, well, evolution, and Konqueror sounds like the title to a Conan novel). People fail to realize how much RH has contributed to both projects.

RH has GPLed every speck of code it has ever written (if someone more knowledgeable can verify this for me, please do). They remain steadfast in their commitment to our community. AND they encrourage new users to join with their desktop that makes sense (to someone who has never heard of "Linux" and is installing RH, who cannot comprehend a "war" between two groups that are making what would appear to them to be the same thing for free, the new desktop makes a lot of sense).

Some argue that this "watered down" distro will make the community full of know-nothings and therefore "Linux" will no longer meet their needs. Once GPL'ed, always GPL'ed -- no one can take free software away from you. Ever. Debian and others will remain strong forever, because you hackers will never switch back, will you?

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.

Red Hat at work, Debian at home.... by dzogchen · 2002-08-26 14:37 · Score: 1

You could also think of Red Hat as a "gateway drug", a corporate-friendly, safe Linux choice.

This alone opens alot of doors for the Debian, Slack and Gentoos of the world. Eventually

I use Red Hat at work cause that's the most "corporate" and visible and hence the easist choice for the People who Sign the Checks. Plus other vendors we use recommend it.

I use Debian at home and would love to use it at work.

The fact that the applications I run will work on any distro is what will keep Red Hat from turning into an actual Microsoft

Re:Red Hat at work, Debian at home.... by WhoCouldItBe · 2002-08-26 14:57 · Score: 1

Exactly. The corporate types and PHBs need to feel safe with Linux. If RedHat can help them do that, great. How can having a corporate-friendly Linux hurt?

There are still plenty of other distros for the rest of us, and there always will be.

redhat is cool by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:40 · Score: 0

--I'm a this year linux n00b. If it wasn't for redhat, tell ya, I wouldn't even have tried linux. I got disks, slapped them in, installed, wiping out some windoze jazz on a used box I bought cheap, really, just for fun, to try something new. It works. I am free to use GUI I can handle, and learn CL at my leisure and as the situation warrants.

Exactly what is so wrong with that? Redhat does automagical updates and patches, my cost is zilch, it costs them bandwith at a minimum. They have received direct cash once, and once I got a cloned set of disks. Their OS runs on my antique machines. I'm an old apple guy, used to click and do, this is sorta fun, sometimes it's not, sometimes linux is a lot like work, heh, but no one ever had their heads explode from too much stuff stuffed in there from learning. I still switch back and forth, and am happy with things. Looking forward to the full release of 8.0 after the ubergeeks get done beta-ing it. Maybe someday I'll get adventurous and like try LFS or something like that, but I know how to push myself. Redhat has done a LOT of the pushing for people already, near as I can see, it's just as a professional piece of work as anything from microsoft or apple.

There's millions of people out there who think similar, and redhat makes using linux "doable" for us, and for businesses. They are providing work for linux gurus. Joe businessman might be waffling on making the big switch from the borg, but he HAS heard of redhat, notices they've been around for years, decides "maybe this linux stuff will work for my widget company". They provide a platform for hobbyist software guys to get their creations out to the people-and not just other geek gurus, but "the people", the non coders who just want to use their boxes, which is the bulk of computer-dom.

This is called a "good thing" in my book. I say support redhat, OR, the distro of your choice, and occassionaly pop for the full price disks. this is true "investing", investing in your own computing enjoyment and learning, and support the company that provides it, and by doing it voluntarily, you can show that it's possible for a company to be successful without being gougers or liars, like the borg empire has proven to be, time after time.

And to play devil's advocate, what else can they do? They are in the linux biz, they design and build what they strive for, easy to use powerful OS software. Ain't that the point, or is the point of linux to remain some very obscure hardly used except for a few people OS? Which is it?

I think they are doing what they should be doing, and as such, you can see they are either the most successful linux distro, or right close there. If they weren't good, no one would use it, redhat don't come bundled with every PC out there like windows, so they must be doing something good.

Predictions by bdaehlie · 2002-08-26 14:40 · Score: 0

If Linux were a person, and I could see the future in a crystal ball, I'd tell Mr. Penguin this: You fear those that have brought you far. Paranoia will be your downfall. You can't take over the world from "underground".

Re:Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:50 · Score: 0

*gasp!*

A /. user posting sense?!? Who let him past the security checkpoint?

Someone mod this dude up...

Speaking of bad technical decisions... by alue · 2002-08-26 14:41 · Score: 1

Right, I don't think there's anything wrong with Red Hat, and I think this is just poor journalism because this story is more sensational than it is important.

You could make a comparison b/w Red Hat and Microsoft by citing how both companies tend to make decisions against the grain and force them through the door--gcc 2.96, for instance. Among its strange decision, Red Hat decided some time to change the order files and directories get listed when you invoke `ls'; starting with version 7 (I think?), capitalized names no longer came before lower-cased names, and dot-files have been mixed in with the non-dot files. Any clue why they did this?

Re:Speaking of bad technical decisions... by foonf · 2002-08-26 16:10 · Score: 2

Any clue why they did this?

Hop on over to a windows box sometime, open a command prompt window, and see what the output of the "dir" command looks like.

--

"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Re:Speaking of bad technical decisions... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 03:29 · Score: 0

Among its strange decision, Red Hat decided some time to change the order files and directories get listed when you invoke `ls'; starting with version 7 (I think?), capitalized names no longer came before lower-cased names, and dot-files have been mixed in with the non-dot files. Any clue why they did this?

Yeah. The ls command now supports standard locales for internationalization (i18n) when it alphabetizes. On a Red Hat Linux 7.x box, $LANG is set to en_US by default at install time (if you pick "US English"). You can change alphabetization order back to the old behaviour by setting $LC_COLLATE to C.

This is a Good Thing; Red Hat is playing nice with users of their distribution that want support for non-US languages and standards.

as long as they GPL, who cares by pyite69 · 2002-08-26 14:41 · Score: 1

this is ridiculous! You have to have monopoly
control of the OEM market before you can be the
next Microsoft. Currently, Microsoft still has
that market locked up.

Re:Do writers make accusations just to get attenti by jsse · 2002-08-26 14:42 · Score: 0, Troll

You really made a good analogy. No matter what underwear I wear I'll have sex the same way; but if I change my sex I'll have to learn a whole new set of body positions and probably need to learn a couple of new oral technique I wouldn't be able to do before....

Never by hawkbug · 2002-08-26 14:42 · Score: 1

I don't think RedHat is anything like Microsoft. How could they be? I have 7.3 installed on 15 computers now, and I paid for one professional copy. They don't care. There's the difference right there. I always hear about people hating RedHat, but show me a single person who has been harassed by them over licensing terms, or forced to use their distro over any other OS on this planet. That's what I thought, they have never done anything like that. They are just popular. Is that so wrong? I personally use RedHat because I'm familar with the OS, and I like the support I can find on their website.

Ridiculous by Bytal · 2002-08-26 14:43 · Score: 1

It is exactly this kind of fighting that is keeping Linux from focusing on its move towards acceptance. The fact is that a few of the supporters of Linux are also arrogant technocrats who are anti big business, anti big government and anti big anything. They choose Linux exactly for the anarchy and pseudo-intellectual bragging rights that not being a fully commercialized and accepted OS affords. We should, in fact, expect them to throw these kinds of childish accusations around, as anything above Linux From Scratch or Debian will be accused of being monopolistic and evil. These are not the people who are lauding Linux for its actual merits and achievements but are instead talking about it because it makes them feel superior to think that only they can use a highly complex and advanced Operating System. Instead of letting these trolls trick us into bickering with each other and starting flame wars we should instead be focusing on the important thing. Extending and expanding Linux into the best and most accepted OS that it could be if we all just concentrated.

Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:28 · Score: 0

Don't evangelize RedHat until you've used it--especially to compile their kernels. They're even worse about that than the 2.4 branch of the Linux development tree.
Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 05:50 · Score: 0

I have used it and I have compiled kernels with it and with FreeBSD (unfortuntely or fortunately I haven't done so with any other distro so I can't compare)...and it is bad but that has nothing to do with them being the next Microsoft. That is about business practices.

Oh and I realize that I may not be a "real" linux user becuase I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a need where I was required to compile a new kernel (mostly USB or becuase I wanted to know how in my case) but why should I have to compile the damn kernel anyway??? It's that kind of attitude that makes regular users run for the hills.

BTW, I'm a Windows, J2EE, MS/.NET, and PHP developer by trade so factor in those biases as you will. I haven't done any desktop apps on linux due to lack of demand in the business world, but I have used it for a dev workstation and as a J2EE (Orion, Tomcat/Apache, and BEA), PHP, Oracle and MySQL server.

Here's some of the opposition articles by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:43 · Score: 0

Closing the Door on Choices by Jessica Davis
California Scheming by Joel Bucher

Red Hat's position seems more believable by SoftwareJanitor · 2002-08-26 14:44 · Score: 2

After reading both articles, I think that Red Hat's arguments make more sense. Given that both points of view are obviously biased, and both are stated fairly well, my opinion is based on the points as presented. And FWIW, I use Mandrake on most of my boxes and have used SuSE and Caldera fairly extensively in the past. While I like a lot of things about SuSE, and liked Caldera's distro in the days I was using it (Network Desktop 1.0 to 1.3 distros), Red Hat certainly has had more of a history in allowing free downloads of their software and releasing their software as open source than either of those two. I've also not seen any credible allegations of anti-competitive or other illegal or unethical actions on Red Hat's part, so until I see otherwise I think it a bit unfair to compare them to Microsoft.

Stocks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:46 · Score: 0

Is RedHat the Microsoft of Linux?

I would think one look at RHAT should answer that. (No, for those of you who don't follow the stock market.)

Hello? by Hilleh · 2002-08-26 14:51 · Score: 1

One of the many beauties of OSS is choice. You don't have to use Red Hat if you don't like it. This is really a non-issue. Besides, it's good to have actual, profit-making companies to lend Linux some legitimacy. But that still doesn't mean you can't go with a non-profit distro, or roll your own. Leave Red Hat with their business model, and get on with your life.

Of Course by young+jedi · 2002-08-26 14:51 · Score: 1

Of course!!!

immaturity? by vvikram · 2002-08-26 14:51 · Score: 1

why is it that nobody can do well and become a little better? if they do , god forbid, they immediately become evil.

should everyone be grovelling without work or give back everything they got. when we [includes me] _dont have_ , its easy to vilify the people who do have.

what is really more mature is to have some sort of history , some sort of loyalty towards a cause. it might be "cool" to be based on technical merit, but you know its really "cheap" to not give leeway [and] pronounce foul the moment you think it is.

redhat has done a lot of stuff in the community, will do so. i never use redhat but i can just see thousands and thousands of manhours not be "acknowledged" when people just blast them

i have always seen this problem with people in opensource. if its good its bad because good is not happening for you.

small scale, cheapness, immaturity, lack of exposure, less human feelings ? i dont know but i feel disgusted many times by it

i am not a troll. i just thought i should point this out. please be human. thanks.

vv

A Star Trek Look by VEGETA_GT · 2002-08-26 14:52 · Score: 1

In a late episode of Deepspace 9, Worf kills the leader of the empire of the empire. Worf is then considered the Leader of the Klingon Empire, but he passes the leadership to Martok,
who says.

"Worf, I do not seek Leadership"

worf replies

"Kahless said, great men do not seek power, great men have power thrust upon them"

Now lets take this way of thinking in a operating system. If a operating system is not great, then it well not be popular. Now when windows hit with 95 and 3.1, basically there was no
real other os on the computer shelves that had the same gui for pc, or was as easy to get a hold of. So the masses well buy it.

Now that multiple operating systems are easily avaible, anyone who realizes what a good operating system is well use it. The more who use it the more popular the operating system gets.
And we as the users (the smart ones anyway) thrust the power upon RedHat.

Now Microsoft was given power by base line consumers who where given few other opportunities hence they put power on it. As microsoft promised much. But when the day is over,
most have seen that Linux has proven to be the greater of the systems, and RedHat one of the best of the distributions. So we thrust power upon RedHat.

As long as redhat uses the power responsibility, then RedHad well be here for a long time, but can not be compared to the daemon of microsoft who have abused power.

my 2 cents plus 2 more

Wait...How Is SuSE Open??? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:53 · Score: 0

SuSE is NOT open at ALL they have a::

YaST and SuSE Linux licence terms

YaST - Copyright (c) 1995-2001 SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg (Germany)
YaST - Copyright (c) 2002 SuSE Linux AG, Nuernberg (Germany)

The object of this licence is the YaST (Yet another Setup Tool) program, the name YaST, together with SuSE Linux, the Linux Distribution of SuSE Linux AG, all programme derived from YaST and all works or names derived in full or in part thereof together with the use, application, archiving, reproduction and passing on of YaST, all programs derived from YaST and all works derived in full or in part thereof. The YaST program and all sources is the intellectual property of SuSE Linux AG within the meaning of the Copyright Law. The name YaST is a registered trademark of SuSE Linux AG. In the following SuSE Linux AG is the licensor and every user or processor of YaST or works derived in full or in part thereof, together with every person who reproduces, distributes or archives YaST or SuSE Linux, is the licensee of SuSE Linux AG.

The following licence terms are recognised as a result of the processing, use, application, archiving reproduction and dissemination of YaST.

Only this licence gives the Licensee the right to use reproduce, to distribute or to amend YaST or works derived from it. These actions are forbidden by the copyright act, if this licence is not recognised. If this licence is recognised and complied with in full, it is also valid even without the written consent of the Licensee.

1.

Usage

YaST and SuSE Linux may be used for personal and commercial purposes if the copyright and licence terms of the installed packages and programmes are observed. The use of YaST, even if a modified version is used, does NOT exempt in particular the Licensee from the duty to take due care with regard to the licence terms of the packages or programmes installed through YaST or works based on it.
2.

Processing

All programmes derived from YaST and all works derived from it in full or parts thereof are to be filled on the opening screen with the clear information "Modified Version". Moreover the operator give his name on the opening screen, stating that SuSE Linux AG is not providing any support for the "Modified Version" and is excluded from any liability whatsoever. Every amendment to the sources which are not conducted by SuSE Linux AG are deemed to be a "Modified Version". The Licensee is entitled to change his copy from the sources of YaST, whereby a work based on the YaST programme is created, provided that the following conditions are satisfied.
1. Every amendment must have a note in the source with date and operator. The amended sources must be made available for the user in accordance with section 3) together with the unamended licence.
2. The Licensee is obliged to make all work distributed by him which is derived as a whole or in part from YaST or parts of YaST to third parties as a whole under the terms of this licence without royalties.
3. The amendment of this licence by a Licensee, even in part, is forbidden.

SuSE Linux AG reserves the right to accept parts or all amendments of a modified version of YaST into the official version of YaST free of charge. The Licensee has no bearing on this.
3.

Dissemination

It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux. Distribution of the YaST programme, its sources, whether amended or unamended in full or in part thereof, and the works derived thereof for a charge require the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG.

All programmes derived from YaST, and all works derived thereof as a whole or parts thereof may only be disseminated with the amended sources and this licence in accordance with 2b). Making YaST or works derived thereof available free of charge together with SuSE Linux on FTP Servers and mailboxes is permitted if the licences on the software are observed.
4.

Guarantee

No guarantee whatsoever is given for YaST or for works derived from it and SuSE Linux. The SuSE Linux AG guarantee only covers fault-free data carriers.

SuSE Linux AG will provide YaST and SuSE Linux "AS IT IS" without any guarantee whatever that it is fit for a specific purpose or use. In particular SuSE is not liable for lost profit, savings not made, or damages from the claims lodged by third parties against the Licensee. SuSE Linux AG is not liable either for other direct or indirect consequential losses, in particular not for the loss or production of recorded data.

The observance of the respective licences and copyrights of the installed software is incumbent solely upon the user of YaST and SuSE Linux.
5.

Rights

No other rights to YaST or to SuSE Linux are granted other than those negotiated in this licence. An infringement against this licence automatically terminates the rights of the Licensee. However the right of third parties who have received copies or rights under this licence from the Licensee, are not terminated as long as all parts of his licence are recognised and observed. If the Licensee is subject to conditions, or obligations as a result of a court judgement, patent terms, licence terms, or another reason, and these conditions or obligations contradict this licence as a whole or in part, the Licensee shall only be exempted in full or in part from this licence and its terms with the express prior written consent of SuSE, SuSE is entitled to withhold its consent without giving reasons.
6.

Additional restrictions

If the distribution or use of YaST and SuSE Linux or parts of SuSE Linux is restricted in a state either by patents or by interfaces protected by copyright, SuSE Linux AG can specify an explicit geographic restriction of the distribution of YaST and SuSE Linux or parts of SuSE Linux, in which these states are fully or partially excluded from distribution. In such a case this licence includes the whole or partial restriction as if it was written down in this licence.

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
This server is powered by NPS 4.
Page created: 08/08/2002 webmaster@suse.com

Re:Wait...How Is SuSE Open??? by MobyTurbo · 2002-08-26 15:29 · Score: 2

YaST, SuSE's setup, configuration, and hardware detection tool, may not be GPL, but it includes source code; on the condition that you don't derive monetary gain from it.
Considering what SuSE has done for the community in supporting KDE developers, the -aa VM, and the Reiser file system, among other things, painting a picture of them being, in Stallmanist terms, "a parasite of the free software world" is unfair. It's noteworthy that when they were having financial difficulties before IBM's investment in them that during the layoffs they refused to lay off one developer.

I don't use Red Hat, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:54 · Score: 0

I do appreciate what they give back. They hire some of the hackers that help make Linux what it is, and keeping the hackers fed is important. Personally, I don't like the "feel" of the RH distro, but I'm glad a *lot* of people do - it keeps them in business so they can pay the coders who write the stuff I do use. When RH starts closing up sources, adding per-seat licensing, and forcing other distros to sell out to them, then I'll get worried. Until then, I'll wish them well while I keep on Slackin'.

This is sooo lame by twistedcubic · 2002-08-26 14:54 · Score: 1

It just occured to me that interesting topics used to be posted on this forum. I guess the editors have real jobs...whatever. Anyway, RedHat is cool. I got free (email) tech support once for simply emailing them a question-- very quick responses (5 minutes or less). Although I use Gentoo now, and I don't think I'll ever pay for a commercial OS ever again (if I have a choice), I regret that I never bought a RedHat boxed set (I bought the SuSE and Mandrake sets, and didn't like the loss of control). Too bad the price went up. Anyway, there is absolutely no point in comparing an almost broke company to MS. What? KDE no longer looks like a desktop for 13 y/o girls anymore? Oh yeah, I feel your pain!

You Forgot by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:55 · Score: 0

7. Has Redhat ever made a profit?

huh? THis rumour usually is forHP and SUN! by linuxislandsucks · 2002-08-26 14:56 · Score: 1

Are you sure the IBM vice President got his spin rumours correct?

They usually repaet this with in offices of HP and SUN customers attributing it to both SUN and HP..

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

Oh come on... by JustinHoMi · 2002-08-26 14:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Gimme a break! Redhat is competing primary against MICROSOFT, not other linux vendors. They're doing what they're doing for the best of the linux and open source communities. If we have division b/n these communities, then it's only going to hurt ourselves.

Justin

The fruit... by sterno · 2002-08-26 14:58 · Score: 2

From the newsforge commentary:
Microsoft tried, and was forced to become criminal in its activities to do so. Who would willingly do that again? What true long term gain is there in feeding your own girth without advancing your product line or its merits? What fruit is there in eating at your own customers?
Um, let's try huge piles of cash. You can criticize the morality and legality of what they've done but it's hard to argue the fact that nobody's going to jail and all the big players have made immense fortunes. And do they have trouble sleeping at night? No, I guarantee you that they all feel that having a unifying unquestioned platform for all people to run on their computers is a wonderful service for humanity (and that point does have merit).

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:The fruit... by foonf · 2002-08-26 16:20 · Score: 2

No, I guarantee you that they all feel that having a unifying unquestioned platform for all people to run on their computers is a wonderful service for humanity (and that point does have merit).

Maybe they'll say this now, but I think a look at Microsoft's pre-1995 history suggests that this has not been their primary motivation. They began selling development tools for multiple, incompatible environments in the 1970s, sold/supported multiple operating systems in the 1980s (DOS/Windows, Xenix and OS2) and ported their software to others including the Macintosh. They were ready to support multiple, non-binary compatible processor architectures with Windows NT (x86, MIPS, PPC and Alpha), but the open hardware needed to run the MIPS and PPC versions never took off and the Alpha didn't ever achieve significant market share. To this day they support Macintosh versions of most of their core office software. Microsoft wants to make money, period, and they will do what they have to.

--

"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre

Those dirty rotten bastards! by jpl · 2002-08-26 14:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Let's show those evil (evil I say!) bastards at RH. Everyone post an ISO image of their software on the internet! Make copies or said ISOs and sell them for profit! Ha!

Then, use their software on *all* your machines at work, and don't pay them a red cent! Ha!

Oh, wait a minute...

Is Microsoft "the Microsoft of Windows"? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 14:59 · Score: 0

The comparison "Is RedHat becoming the Microsoft of Linux?" doesn't make sense. Microsoft is microsoft because its monopoly affects not only the Windows world, but all of the software world, including Linux. So no, Redhat is not the Microsoft of Linux, Microsoft is the Microsoft of Linux. Or something like that, I guess.

RedHat's CCM is as good as closed by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:02 · Score: 0

RedHat has what appears to be an Open Source license for their CCM (the ACSJ product they acquired from ArsDigita), but you can't get CCM unless you hire their service arm, and if you do, the license prohibits your redistributing the software you get. RedHat will eventually provide a version of CCM that is freely available, but they also promise that folks who buy the CCM through the service arm will have later code (which will remain encumbered by the distribution license). That sounds to me like the version of CCM available from services is closed source

Not as bad as the real MS, but yes, they are by Panoramix · 2002-08-26 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comparing RH to Microsoft sounds to me a bit harsh for the hats, but...

My company has recently been involved in several projects using Linux -- some from quite unlikely customers, such as the long-time Microsoft buddy that has The Way Out... but that's another story. Anyway, their consultors were pretty much learning to use Linux on the fly, and they have zero Unix background. They of course use RedHat, and they did succeed in installing a couple of Linux systems, which ended up being, well... somewhat imperfect.

Alright, yes, they were ugly and insecure and just crap overall. But then again, they were learning, so I don't blame them. I just think that they shouldn't be able to install such systems. Or at least believe that the machines were tip-top and running smoothly.

To rant even further, the thing that bothers me most about Microsoft is the idiotizing effect that has on their users. I'm sick of people mailing me 2MB worth of word documents every other day, given that my net link is rather small and I don't use Windows -- but they don't even know what they're doing. They just pressed a colourful and friendly button and poof, off it went. I just stopped trying to explain that I don't even run Windows, which makes reading their docs a pita for me.

It's like the people that just double-click on executable attachments in their mail, to get the cute sheep on their desktop (and the nasty trojan on their disk). Filtering content and babysitting software for such users is, imho, a battle lost before it starts. Fighting this requires only common sense and a bit of computer knowledge --surely no more that the bit of training you need for operating a car. If using a computer required even a small bit of computer knowledge, most of these things wouldn't happen.

But anyway, I don't blame computer-illiterate users for this state of things. I do blame companies such as Microsoft that actually encourage this ignorance by struggling to build software that even an idiot can use.

And on that account, yes, I do consider RedHat as the Microsoft of Linux, and I do hold a certain amount of disgust and resentment for their practices.

Er... by Sj0 · 2002-08-26 15:07 · Score: 2

It's almost like a "MS Scare". Just like mcarthyism, if anyone even expresses the ideas of MS, they are pointed at and singled out.
My philosophy: I like Red Hat Linux 7.3 because it's a solid piece of software. I got Red Hat Linux for free, from ftp.redhat.com. Nobody at Red Hat has attempted to take away my rights, and indeed, they have fought for them.

I believe the common phrase is "bitch, whine, moan complain. That's all I ever hear from you!"

--
It's been a long time.

Apple is by News+for+nerds · 2002-08-26 15:08 · Score: 2, Funny

the Redmond of Macinthosh.

In a way, yes. by eric_ste · 2002-08-26 15:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

If we have to install a Linux production server, we are foten asked by our managers to use RedHat because they provide support. Not too long ago the same manager would not let us use linux at all because of that support issue. So in the corporate world, if you want support, you pretty much need to go with redhat.

Corporations want to pay for an OS. They don't want anything free, it makes them insucure. They also need a corporation behind the distribution and this corporation is RedHat. So, instead of using Gentoo like I use at home and on my laptop at work, I use redhat on the servers. I don't complain too much because at least we're more and more linux.

On the other side, sysadmins should always try to have their managers to BUY their distributions. It injects money in the opensource community, no matter which distro. Note that donations are often better but it's harder to convince your boss to donate 150$ than to buy a 150$ distro.
I think that Redhat contributed a lot to the Linux community and, in that way, cannot possibly be compared to MS. They pay people to develop opensource code. They contributed in making linux easier to install for people who, for some reason, would never install linux if they had to go through the gentoo way of installing it.

redhat is real ultimate power by Adler · 2002-08-26 15:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

i've tried mandrake, debian, slackware, Suse, Nomad, turbolinux, and a few more and i always come back to redhat, its IMHO more focused on what they have to do. They release one version and rather than switch to making the next release they support the current release for a year or 2 trying to make it better rather than the "it will be fixed in the next release."

i gave it to a MS only tech who had been trying many other distros most of which he was unable to get to even install, he didn't use redhat because he heard it was bloated, insecure and unstable. and it installed perfectly the first time and he's stuck with it.

its only flaw is (again my opinion) if you dont do a custom package selection install you get too much of the same thing, a couple different image viewers, email clients, mp3 players, image editors and so on. so if you wanna claim they're like MS the only way you'll win that argument is that they bundle software with their OS.

--

Everybody denies I am a genius--but nobody ever called me one!

Red Hat is NOT Microsoft by kubusja · 2002-08-26 15:12 · Score: 1

There is huge difference. Red Hat respects and uses GPL. The whole basic Red Hat Linux 7.3 is availaible with source code. You can legally download it for free, you can modify it. There is no way Red Hat can be a monopoly if everybody can take the source and make one's own: Red Flag Linux, Mandrake, Sun Linux and a lot of other which are or were based on Red Hat. Can you imagine Microsoft giving away the source code and allowing IBM release of IBM Mindows XP ? Also bugfixes are MUCH faster.

Some leverage by rhysweatherley · 2002-08-26 15:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

RedHat does have some leverage here. For example, giving preferential positioning to icons for their own applications in RedHat 27.2. MS got slapped for that just recently.

But there is a difference. MS used contracts and stand-over tactics with OEM's to prevent the icons from being changed. In RedHat's case, the GPL acts as a counter-balancing force.

While they continue to GPL everything they do, the license makes it legal for an OEM to apply a "mod kit RPM" that modifies the RedHat distro however they want.

Also, unlike MS, RedHat cannot say "fine, we will withdraw your license". The minute they tried that, the OEM's would fork the code and tell RedHat to get lost.

RedHat will only survive so long as they provide a useful service. They are dead the moment they stop.

UnitedLinux would be better off copying RedHat than trying to re-invent the glory days of proprietry Unix where vendors lorded it over users and _all_ Unix distributions sucked.

Re:Some leverage by Lxy · 2002-08-27 04:04 · Score: 2

For example, giving preferential positioning to icons for their own applications in RedHat 27.2

More proof that they're Microsoft. Just after I got 7.3 downloaded, 27.2 is available. Sheesh.

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq

Arr. by psicE · 2002-08-26 15:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Arr.

There's a fundamental difference between RedHat and Microsoft. It has nothing to with the relative size, or position in the market. It has nothing to do with the current employees at RedHat. It has nothing to do with the business model. It doesn't even have anything to do with the GPL.

No, the fundamental difference between RedHat and Microsoft is that RedHat is standards-compliant. Compile one piece of software on RedHat, and you can run it on most any Linux distro. If you can't, you can get compatibility libraries so you can. All for free.

This means that vendor dependence is no more. Anyone can use RedHat for a while, then if Mandrake offers a better deal, they can switch on the spot. No buying new applications, or hardware, or support contracts; everything stays the same, except the distributor.

This means that RedHat can't do "embrace and extend." If they do, people can switch distros instantly, and RedHat's dominance will be gone. RedHat only remains dominant because they offer a good product; and as Mandrake's offering gets better, its marketshare rises on the charts. If RedHat's tops, it's because it's good software. Period.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by boomer_rehfield · 2002-08-26 15:17 · Score: 1

Microsoft didn't make thier money selling Windows 95 or 98 from a website bro.... Red Hat is going to need to keep selling thier product from retail stores at "competitive" prices to even remain "competitive" at any level. The great thing about linux is that if you don't want to pay that, you may download it for free. Get over it.

--
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog

Re:First post? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Thank you for being a friend
Travel down the road and back again
your heart is true, you're a pal and a confidante
And if you threw a party,
Invited everyone you knew,
You would see the biggest gift would be from me and the card attached would say,
Thank you for being a friend.

don't like the article? phone the editor! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:18 · Score: 0

Peter Galli Senior Editor (415) 547-8495

From Nietzsche by kilimangaro · 2002-08-26 15:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. - Friedrich Nietzsche

--
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche

Re:Do writers make accusations just to get attenti by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:19 · Score: 0

I tried changing my underwear once ... very over-rated

From a Debian Advocates POV, NO! by dh003i · 2002-08-26 15:20 · Score: 2

I'm an advocate and user of Debian.

And my answer to this question -- is RedHat the MS of Linux -- is a resounding NO.

RedHat may not be perfect. There are some trademark issues, and it isn't perfectly devout in the OSS / FS philosophy. But they are pretty strong in their OSS / FS philosophy.

There are some other minor moral issues. In terms of morality for a software developing organization, Debian has one of the best standards in their Social Contract. RedHat doesn't quite live up to that, but they are pretty damn good. They are certainly a far far cry from MS.

There are other technical issues that make me prefer Debian over RedHat (namely, Debian's superiority in terms of stability/security, and lack of bloat, and superior performance). However, these are not moral issues; and the moral issues which one can criticize RedHat for are rather minor.

Put another way, Debian, FSF, OSI, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc., are like the Ghandi's, Mother Teresa's, Mandela's, and ML King's of the software world. MS is like the Hitler of the software world. Would you really place RedHat in MS' category? Granted, they don't belong in the saint category either; but perhaps an appropriate analogy would be Winston Churchill.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:From a Debian Advocates POV, NO! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 00:00 · Score: 0

There are other technical issues that make me prefer Debian over RedHat (namely, Debian's superiority in terms of stability/security, and lack of bloat, and superior performance). However, these are not moral issues; and the moral issues which one can criticize RedHat for are rather minor.

As a former Red Hat user and sometimes Mandrake user I can say that I have fallen in love with Debian's dpkg system and apt-get. I remember all the flamewars about dpkg vs. rpm but as I look at it from the Debian user perspective, they were absolutely right. Keeping my system up to date with apt-get is much easier than I remember it with Red Hat and Mandrake's "MandrakeUpdate" and urpmi never worked right for me anyway (even on a new install). apt-get however has kept everything running smoothly and I've transparently upgraded my potato distribution I installed over a year ago to woody without any issues. Hell, I even moved the hard drive to a new system and everything works just peachy. Try that with Windows!! So, big plus for Debian is their fantastic package management system and the lack of the need for me to go out there and bring the machine down to single user mode with a boot CD and "upgrade" the system to a new version. That's kind of difficult when it's a colocated machine thousands of miles away, but with Debian it's a simple "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade". :-) Keep it up Debian, maybe Red Hat will learn something from you someday. I guess they have their up2date shit out now, but I doubt it's anything near what apt-get is.

In other news... by powerlinekid · 2002-08-26 15:20 · Score: 2

It has been reported that there is a backlash against Slashdot as many believe it is becoming the Microsoft of Geek websites.

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me

Power Law? by T4D · 2002-08-26 15:20 · Score: 1

I don't know what the market share distribution is between the different distros, but I would not be surprised if it follows a power law.

As long as Linux remains open-source, and adhears to open standrards, there will never be a monopoly. There will always be a #1 distro, but which is number one, may change from time to time.

or maybe... by dirvish · 2002-08-26 15:23 · Score: 2

Is Slashdot the Microsoft of OSDN?

--
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Compenguin · 2002-08-26 15:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

But redhat also has the isos of their newest release availible for free upon release unlike suse.

We need a company like Red Hat by mrscott · 2002-08-26 15:27 · Score: 1

Here's one reason that I like and use Red Hat's distro: They're gonna be around tomorrow. If I plan to pin my fortune's on one company/distro, they need to have the finances and the market to stick around. I doubt many corporations will decide to pick up the newest perfect-linux distro because it might be a little better than Red Hat. Companies want stable partners and that is one of the things that Red Hat provides them with.

As for their business practices/ethics, I haven;t seen them do much of anything wrong or unethical. Sure, people will point to the gcc 2.96 snafu, but there was nothing unethical about that and the company definitely gives back to the community.

Redhat Backlash, HA! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

There has been a Redhat backlash since redhat began. There are all sorts of people who dont like redhat for various reason, just look at many of the people who frequent irc groups that use debian, many put new users down if they use redhat. ( note not meant as a distro oor flame war inciter, merely pointing out a common experience )

People have derided Redhat because of rpm, have derided it for being too business focused, derided it because even though they might think ??? is a much better distro ( gentoo, debian, mandrake, slack.. etc ) redhat still remains ontop.

Redhat seems thus far to be pretty good. I use it at work cause thats whats installed there, though I also use mandrake and have tried all of the distro's. Redhat can never become the Microsoft of linux merely because anyone else can come along, take Redhats distro exactly as is, slap a new name on it and rebrand it as something new. This basically what mandrake did in the beginning, plus 586 compiled files. So if rehatd tries to through its weight around they can be replaced in the blink of an eye... its not so easy to do with MS, though possible. From a user point of view, provided a good sysadmin has set up the boxes you can make redhat, mandrake, suse and perhaps even debian ( different file system setup ) look the exact same to "just a user", who interacts with it via point an click. So based on that how much brand loyalty is there really. Sure we have distro wars so there is brand loyalty but it doesnt really run to deep

Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · 2002-08-26 15:30 · Score: 2

What do you call rpms?

I am totally serious here... I've seen several companies that make software for linux and just automatically assume that any Linux install will use rpm's -- which of course, will fail to work correctly due to dependancy issues if a person has typically gone with installing system software via tarballs.

rpms's are frequently assumed to be almost as universal for Linux as the .doc format is in the windows world. I can see some validity to the comparison between RedHat and MS. Of course, this is all just IMHO.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Red Hat is just plain evil by catbutt · 2002-08-26 15:30 · Score: 1

Well....probably not really. Actually I guess they do a whole lot of good. But slashdot is more fun when people have differing opinions.

redhat by scottp · 2002-08-26 15:31 · Score: 1

As far as I'm concerned from a money/capital stand point, since I'm a stock owner, I wish they were the MS of linux, however since I love open source so much I'm happy they are NOTHING like MS. I've tried many distros, I keep coming back to RH. Good job guys.

Microsoft of Linux... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:34 · Score: 0

If anyone's poised to become the Microsoft of Linux, it's Lindows. The CEO has enough pocket change to run the company for years, they charge money for an apt-get front-end (why doesn't somebody write an open source program like that? it'd be incredibly easy), and they don't really know much about the open source community. I wonder if their executives have even read any of the licenses. They don't comply with them until someone points it out to them.

Thinly veiled by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:35 · Score: 0

Heh. I think Redhat paid / bribed to have the original article written, knowing it would get posted on /., as the cheapest form of market research they could get.

None of you get it by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:35 · Score: 0

It's not like I have a choice. The dominance of RedHat means that I must use their distribution, and there are really no other viable Linux vendors anyways.

Despite the numerous, incompatible releases of RedHat out there, I am bound to use their software. I find as long as I use RedHat, I can remain quasi-compatible with the file formats and other programs that come pre-installed on the system, however 3rd party stuff is just hit-or-miss. I'm sure RedHat is doing stuff behing-the-scenes to prevent or partially disable competing applications, lord knows I have no way of checking this. Finally, the desktop integration with the OS means I can't seem to get rid of the graphical desktop.

This is a parody.

None of you get it, this entire thread simply does not matter. With Linux, you get to pick your vendor. If RedHat has a bad attitude, fuck 'em. There are over 100 Linux distributions, and many of them are very good. Many of the ML's have some very knowledgeable, nice people.

Therefore, the comparison with MS is invalid - we have choice. Windows users don't.

The real question... by Picass0 · 2002-08-26 15:36 · Score: 2

The real question is this:
"Will hackers still be able to love Linux if it become a real competitor to Microsoft?"

Will this all be fun when mom calls in the evening wanting to know how to build the new kernel? Or when some little Britney wannabe says "Linux" the wrong way? Or when what we do and talk about at the LUG meetings isn't unique anymore? When the club is open to all members, will it still be worth belonging?

Maybe that's why some people fear Red Hat. The more mainstream they get, the closer all of those things become.

Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:36 · Score: 0

Hmmm in a previous job I switched the other way. I knew that everything was GPL'd underneath so there was no loss of ability at the most fundamental level. RH had better brand name .... this was a start up fork in a previous product line so we wanted to be able to make a good media splash. Moreover, go back before the gcc-2.96 hose up, to when debian was glacially moving from 2.0.x to 2.2.x .... part of what I was doing was coding device drivers ... I had no interest in maintaining 2.0 and 2.2 drivers from the get go.

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:36 · Score: 0

Wow! You hit the nail directly on the head with this comment... I couldn't have ever said it better than this.

Is Slashdot the USA Today of Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:36 · Score: 0

I mean seriously...

Re:Is Slashdot the USA Today of Linux? by ro5coe · 2002-08-26 17:05 · Score: 1

yeah, probably.
But we're all here, all of us *nix folks, some more frequently than others.
As to the larger issue of Red Hat being the next Redmond: all I can say is to hell with anybody who needs a gui!
Just give me *nix with a command line and I'll fucking make whatever the hell else I need.
And Debian is just about the friendliest environment to do that in, imho; but Red Hat is OK, too. I work OK in both to make my own stuff.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by rodgerd · 2002-08-26 15:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, because rpm is a closed source program with no published information, and is protected by a variety of patents which RedHat use to ruthlessly stamp out any attempts to use rpm on anything other than their own authorised distribution.

Ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:38 · Score: 0

Red Hat has ethics. More so than most other distributions. I know a lot of people who work there (and in other distributions as well), and most have stated that they'd resign the day Red Hat did anything nasty. Red Hat does plenty of dumb things, but I've never seen them behave immorally. The people who bitch and whine about it being too big are just sore about Red Hat's success.

The interesting trend is that the three most open/free distributions (Debian, Red Hat and Mandrake) are the most successful. SuSE is in the middle (not as successful, semiopen), and all the closed ones (TurboLinux, Caldera, etc.) are dying, even if they had more financial backing at points.

I wish!!! by trance9 · 2002-08-26 15:39 · Score: 2

To be the next Microsoft RedHat would have to turn an enormous profit. As a shareholder, I can tell you that isn't happening just yet.

Let's worry about keeping the company going first, and fret about monopolies later.

Don't fear RedHat, fear unity... by SomeGuyFromCA · 2002-08-26 15:40 · Score: 1

What I fear is one choice for Windows and one choice for 80x86 UNIX - that's what UnitedLinux represents. Then it's the Microsoft/Apple wars without the hardware difference. Even if they manage to coexist, UnitedLinux would become like Microsoft - the only choice for a particular OS on a particular hardware. And as the old wise man said, one choice is no choice.

"And now at last it comes. You will give me a monopoly freely! In place of the Dark Lord of Redmond, you will set up a Penguin! And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stabler than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!"

Fear one choice which is really no choice. Fear setting up a second monolithic company. Competition good, biodiversity good, stagnation bad.

Or do you want to one day have this conversation:

"Which OS should I install, Windows XP 3 or United Linux 4.5 (with Konquering Gnome Desktop Interface)?"

"Doesn't matter. They look the same, they read each others' files, they're your only choices, and they both suck."

--
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright

It'll NEVER happen by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:40 · Score: 0

until they start CHARGING MONEY for OS
until they make it JOE-BLOGGS-SIMPLE.
until they make the install routine EVEN easier, and W/O the shite loads of crap JOE BLOGGS dosen't need ... HTTPD .. WTF ? I don't need one of those. I don't care about X-Windows Either.
and I sure as fucking hell DON'T care about EMACS. ugh. To be anywhere near the next microsoft ALL of the DISTRO tactics need to completely re-engineered from the ground up, because as far as what a customer *actually* wants, Linux is backwards.

(note : customer, not Geek)

Does anyone even use red hat? by dcocos · 2002-08-26 15:43 · Score: 1

I haven't seen a Redhat install for atleast 3 years, everyone is using Debian (servers), Mandrake* (newbies) and Gentoo (hardcore) not to mention the *BSD converts

* I know it's Redhat Based

Re:Does anyone even use red hat? by Oxide · 2002-08-26 16:30 · Score: 1

Dude, which planet are you from ?
Re:Does anyone even use red hat? by herc_mk2 · 2002-08-27 03:45 · Score: 1

err, well, we have over 100 servers running Linux -- all are RedHat (6.2 and 7.2 mostly), and a few dozen workstations. Are you a troll? I cannot believe that you could possibly be so misinformed.
Re:Does anyone even use red hat? by dcocos · 2002-08-27 08:36 · Score: 1

It wasn't meant to be a troll, its just that most of the people I've talked to over the last couple years have been moving away from Redhat and I could only think of one person I know who was running it now. But from the replies it seems like maybe I just have a biased sample.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:44 · Score: 0

You can't download it for free if you want SuSE... only a "live" evaluation.

Re:A space alien...with A SECRET! by teamhasnoi · 2002-08-26 15:46 · Score: 2

The secret is in his name! Some anagrams and their meanings:

Legal Bits
Stall Beg I
Gab Sell It
Beats Gill
A Bill Gets

And finally...

All Bis Get

DUMB dumb dumb by Archfeld · 2002-08-26 15:46 · Score: 2

Linux is anti-establishment all the way. What do you expect ? As RH strives for recognition in the business world as a legitimate OS and support company it is ONLY NATURAL for them to become part of the establishment. I can only say, judge RH by their actions NOT BY SOME reporters questionable articles. RH has consistently adhered to the GPL and given back to the OSS community. Funny but this was bound to happen. Imagine the backlash if large corps start actually using it and Linux become THE business OS. Where will all the Linux Zealots go then. They can't run and praise the same OS the corporate world is busy raping everyone with, that would be 'BAD' :)

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Speaking as an RHCE by Proudrooster · 2002-08-26 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Speaking as RCHE #807202341505038 I'd have to say that Red Hat is a force for good.

Red Hat is in a challenging spot, trying to survive as a company and post a profit while giving away their distro. The current business model is soley based on survival and what works.

Red Hat provides the following invaluable services:

1. Red Hat spends cash on EVIL lawyers to keep the Microsoft/Sony owned Congress from squashing the "cancer" known as "Open Source" and "GPL".

2. Red Hat maintains a lot of code, maybe too much code, and provides patches and bug fixes for FREE via up2date and RPM's. This is called the Red Hat Network.

3. Red Hat puts out a nicely integrated distro that supports nice integrated features like PAM (Pluggable Authentication Module).

4. Red Hat has created training cirriculum and has a very good and very tough certification program which provides quality screened people to employers looking for "Linux" experience.

5. Red Hat has created partnerships with commercial companies like Oracle and created a clusterable server distro which will only get upgrades once or twice a year called "Red Hat Advanced Server". Corporate America isn't going to cycle as fast as the rest of us and needs stability. One or two major releases a year is about all they can take.

6. Red Hat provides support at very reasonable rates.

7. Red Hat provides consulting.

8. Red Hat maintains many topical mailing lists including a very important one for security bulletins.

9. Red Hat Press has started to pump out decent books. I just picked up "Red Hat Linux Security and Optimization".

In the last UNIX war, everything became very fragmented into camps e.g. (Sun, Dec, SGI, HP, IBM). Everyone was pulling is a different direction.

Hopefully in this new era we can get things down to just a couple of players each with equal market share, I am rooting for Suse and RedHat. We can't have just one, because the competition is essential to continue to make things better and better. I sometimes lament at all the duplicated effort and think, if we could all just work together and strive for one goal, however, I realize that the competition is essential. There must be tail lights to chase or pass.

Additionally, Sun, HP, and IBM are all in the Linux game to make things even more interesting.

If anyone in the Linux game has the potential to be evil, I would say look it is he who holds the most patents... IBM and HP.

Until the current patent insanity is resolved in the USA anything can happen and probably will.

There are those that want the Linux community to go from "friendly competition" to "mean spirited destructive infighting". Linux has gained a lot of momentum and is still picking up speed. As the speed increases, I suspect the FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) will increase along with it. This FUD will probably be covertly generated by the true enemies of Linux and all things "open", who currently reside in Redmond and, are pushing a product called ".NET" which they can't even clearly articulate.

Let's hang together, try to resolve our differences peacefully and amicably while we strive to create the worlds ultimate computing platform.

Red Hat is NOT evil!
Red Hat is NOT like MICROSOFT!

Pick a distro, get behind it and PUSH!!!!!!!

It's not redhat that worries me by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:47 · Score: 0

Lindows, these people repeadily lie and dismiss open-source philosophy. Lycrois i have to look into. Go Gentoo

FUD by Eric+Damron · 2002-08-26 15:50 · Score: 1

I see nothing but FUD in the "Redhat is the Redmond of Linux" bullshit. Under the GNU license I doubt that anyone can become another evil monopolistic empire.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Bill Gates responsible for Linux? You Decide! by teamhasnoi · 2002-08-26 15:51 · Score: 2

Bill Gates is a man with a terrible secret! The secret is in his name! Some (secret, shh!)anagrams and their (oh so very secret) meanings:

Legal Bits
Stall Beg I
Gab Sell It
Beats Gill
A Bill Gets

And finally...

All Bis Get

Did I post this twice? You Decide!

Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 15:52 · Score: 0

4. Do #3, but SELL your distribution.

5. Profit!

My take by hendridm · 2002-08-26 15:53 · Score: 1

They may or may not be the "Microsoft of Linux," but Red Hat is making open source look more appealing to management. Also, open source has stood up to monopolies in the past. Why should this be different.

Oh Hell No! by Niscenus · 2002-08-26 15:54 · Score: 1

There can never truely be a "Microsoft of Linux," for one good reason: It takes more than distro utilities to lock you into a GNU/Linux Operating System.

If Red Hat wanted to, sure, they could very well go far enough in distorting the GNU/Linux Operating System, forcing people to keep using their stuff (for example, developing their own core utilities, compiler, etc). Red Hat has made sure they won't be viewed as a Linopoly^(TM), for example, their willingness to comply with Linux Standard Base.

Red Hat joined the dot-com era at the best possible time; this put them in a position of having the kind of wealth to develop as far as they have, both as a distro and as a company. Unless I hear, "You can't compile Gnome 2.x on Null," I can assure you that's not going to happen. Look at their utilities. Go ahead, take a look at them, what do you see? That's right, the same D* tools on the underside all of us are using: wvdial for rp3, pkg-config with rpm, linuxconf in *most things here* Manager. Hell, half of their GUIs could just be created in wish!

I know I'm usually the one hyping the sensationalization, but if I'm not at the beginning, I have to deFUD.

"Parents beware, Lihnucks is a gateway operating system."

--
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum

This is Just Getting Rediculous by GroundBounce · 2002-08-26 15:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of glib: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

When Red Hat plans to release a distro with another new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

When Red Hat changes a few icons from two GPL'd Linux desktops: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

This is just nonsense. Red hat certainly has a large share of the corporate, commercial, and boxed Linux market, but they are far from a monopoly, and they have contributed everything they developed that goes into their normal distribution back to the open source community.

They host and support many open source projects, they regularly oppose bad laws like the DMCA or the latest Hollings drivel (including putting money where their mouth is via lobbying), and they champion Linux in schools.

Are they competing for market share? Sure. Are they trying to annihilate all competition with FUD, dirty marketing, embrace-and-extend, and illegal manipulation the PC distribution channel? Definitely not. Have they made some stupid mistakes? Of course they have, who hasn't?

I personally use Red Hat on some machines, but I use several other distros as well. That's called choice, something you don't get at all with Microsoft operating systems (unless your definition of choice is Win98, Win2000, WinXP, WinNT,or WinME).

Red Hat is definitely about competing for customers, but even if they had 90% of the boxed Linux market, they would not really have a monopoly because of the licenses which allow anyone else to produce a similar product for free. If Palladium ever succeeds, then there may be an advantage to companies who produce commercial versions of Linux, but we are still far from this situation at the moment, and it's not yet clear that business or the public will even accept it in the long run.

If you don't like Red Hat, then don't use it, but calling them the Microsoft of Linux everytime they freakin fart is just pure paranoia.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · 2002-08-26 15:56 · Score: 1

Your use of sarcasm suggests that you missed my point.

The point that I was making is that the alleged universality of rpm has caused several third party software manufacturers that may *NOT* release their source code (Oracle, Corel, et al) to _expect_ that you use rpm's.

Just because rpm is open doesn't mean that everything that uses it is. Of course, you can choose to not use products by companies that don't open their source, but that's really the same sort of "choice" as using windows in the first place. It locks you in.

True freedom exists when the owner of a PC can do what they _want_ with their computer, even if that means using software that someone else doesn't like for whatever reason.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Where have I heard this before? by Decimal · 2002-08-26 15:57 · Score: 2

Nah. I'm not bitter. ;)

(Mod +5 insightful! No wait, mod -2 troll!)

--

Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh

BALDERDASH!! Stop the nonsense!! by borgheron · 2002-08-26 16:00 · Score: 1

Please. We've got to stop this self destructive "we want to win, but not on anyones terms but our own" attitude which is holding us back. If Red Hat makes it, then thats *GOOD* for GNU/Linux. What more do you want??

Let's face reality: GNU/Linux has not *yet* beaten Microsoft. Hesitation on our part or a "backlash" against Red Hat because they are doing well *HURTS* our cause.
Try being a realist once in a while...

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

evidence of the backlash by augros · 2002-08-26 16:00 · Score: 1

wow! every single comment posted so far praises redhat, or at least vindicates it against false accusations. not even a hint of a troll joking around with devoted users! now that's quite a backlash!

YES THEY ARE! ;) by v77 · 2002-08-26 16:02 · Score: 1

1. Look, they call themselves RED HAT. And what did the show The Wire tell us? Isn't that how the cops identified the criminals? Weren't the criminals the ones with a red hat?

2. They're selling a product that's free. Now if that is not crooked, what is?

3. Most of us are addicted to linux, but they're pushing newer and newer distros, with more and more features, to get us even more addicted. That's not criminal? Isn't that a definiton of a drug?!

4. It uses RPM! For gods sake! Can't you see how criminal it is????? Can it be any more obvious???

It's clear they're crooked! they must be! So common...

The mob, drunk and angry at redhat, goes in and burns mandrake offices by mistake, with screams: "kill barney"

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by 0x0d0a · 2002-08-26 16:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

They *do* put up their ISOs online for free, which really does bring the price down to zero+download time.

--
May we never see th

TI calculators? by 0x0d0a · 2002-08-26 16:07 · Score: 2

TI does hold a monopoly over TI calculators, though that's kind of a meaningless statement.

Applying it to Apple at least makes more sense. Apple *had* competition at one point (when they allowed clones in the early PPC days), was stomped by them in price and performance, lost money, and promptly cut off their licenses and killed all of them. Yeah, I'd call that a monopoly.

--
May we never see th

Re:TI calculators? by barnacle999 · 2002-08-27 06:12 · Score: 1

"TI does hold a monopoly over TI calculators, though that's kind of a meaningless statement." You're completely missing his point. The term monopoly is only relevant when referring to commodities or services in a broad market. Apple makes personal computers, thus their competition extends to the windows world as well. PPC desktop market? Get real. Apple makes computers, and only within this broad market can you discuss "monopoly" with a straight face.
Re:TI calculators? by 0x0d0a · 2002-08-28 06:11 · Score: 2

This is exactly what I was saying. When there were other PPC desktop manufacturers, there was a market with multiple vendors.

--
May we never see th

Re: When is the last time that you checked? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:08 · Score: 0

Are you new here?

Red Hat Windows by Mordant · 2002-08-26 16:08 · Score: 1

is large, bloated, and rococo, I'll grant you (I'm a Slackware guy, myself). But three little letters - GPL - keep it from ever becoming another Microsoft.

The Fourth Body of Government: Consumers by Undefined_Here · 2002-08-26 16:09 · Score: 1

The people. Microsoft: A large bulk of MS users are simple minded consumers who cannot match computing use as their minds often run on a linear algorythm. (they can spell though, i can.t)

For the most part, they are rigidly locked into using microsoft.

Most l(unix) users are intellegent, and intellegent enough to easily transfer their operating system to whatever is best for their purposes. Redhat could never do what MS did, simply because of this: we'd all just move! Screw them, what can they do then?

One of the greatest potential threats of the coming future, in terms of economics, is the concept of 'factor price equalization' where every competitor must abide to the lowest price/cost etc. This is bad in many cases, in the cases of cell phones it is good (more and more features for competitiveness, better for us) and, likewise, for linux, REDHAT would be FORCED to be 'good' because, simply, there is enough 'equal' competition and most linux-users are smart enough/capable of switching easily.

Like family by SomeOtherGuy · 2002-08-26 16:09 · Score: 2

Redhat is like family -- tons of squabbles and fights in the house....But when someone on the school yard picks on your family (I can pick on my brother, but if you do you are dead meat) -- the first thing you do is come to their aid. Kudos to all the good posts I have read, and the ability of the /. crowd to set aside their internal differences to stand up for RedHat when the inevitible "Is Redhat the next Microsoft" posts come up. Even though I do not use Redhat myself -- I am far from blind to the great contributions they have brought forth....Plus bonus points for not going broke and rolling over like many of those that came after. (I am still bitter that none of the apt based commercial debian centered distros never made it up the hill.)

--
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by geekindustries · 2002-08-26 16:10 · Score: 1

They don't have the money that Microsoft has Um...do you remember waaaay back when? Bill Gates didn't start out with billions of dollars. Now I'm not saying that Red Had will be the next Microsoft (not by any stretch of the imagination). What I am saying is that Microsoft built itself up from the ground up. You gotta give them that. Red Had *could* do the same thing. I'm not saying they will, which they probably won't. Just saying that anything is possible.

--
Hard work usually pays off over time, but procrastination pays off now.

backlash by glwtta · 2002-08-26 16:11 · Score: 2

Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?

I kinda don't like it all that much - does that count?

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Pure crap. by flacco · 2002-08-26 16:11 · Score: 2

Red Hat is a great company, has contributed a whole lot to the GPL codebase, offers excellent products and services at excellent prices.

I think it's disgusting that someone would compare them to Microsoft.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

I really love... by cesarcardoso · 2002-08-26 16:15 · Score: 1

...those journalists wanting to find a "new Microsoft". They're in the wrong place, thanks to GPL. Maybe they should look at Cupertino?

--
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)

Re:Katz in disguise? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:16 · Score: 0

Red Hat Network => Not a bad thing last time I used it, although Red Carpet from ximian is cooler IMHO.

Red Hat Recommended Updates => Does this really need to be addressed? give me a break perhaps I should de-marketing-speak it for you "security updates, and application enhancements" In other words, "New Shit man!"

Gnome => Debian doesn't approve of KDE much either. Besides, unless you just hopped on the linux bandwagon, you should have figured out how to install shit by now. Perhaps I should also mention www.rpmfind.net

I think you smell world domination, but the GPL won't allow for a monopoly. The only way for that to happen would be for every other distro to go financially under, which is just not realistic. A: Too many of them B: Too many are very high quality. Red hat is good, but I don't think they are the best. Untill everyone thinks they are, they won't be a monopoly. Read an economics book and at least find out the definition of a monopoly.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:16 · Score: 0

If slashdot sucks so much then keep your lame comments to yourself.

I wish they had even close to that much $/power by cornice · 2002-08-26 16:19 · Score: 2

I can only wish that an open source company had even close to that much money and power. It might actually be able to change the tide on digital right management products and legislation...

You know, I can't stop myself. by OS24Ever · 2002-08-26 16:20 · Score: 2

It appears that the Linux community isn't happy when one of their own does good. I mean calling Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux is just deplorable.

In a manner of speaking, their success is what gave Microsoft it's success. They were at the right place at the right time. Say all the bad things you want about Microsoft in many ways, but in all honesty, prior to Windows 95, configuring PCs was not a walk in the park.

You had QEMM with it's Error 13s (Remember, you had three options, reboot, reboot and reboot), you had PCMCIA Card services that took half of your 640K of base memory after you loaded all the drivers for Netware or to mount an NFS share.

But now, you don't have to spend days on the web looking for answers, you put in a CD, follow the prompts, and off you go. So we must now hate Red Hat for doing good.

What a waste!

--

As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

You're way too sophisticated by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:22 · Score: 0

"Bill Gates" is straight English. It means "invoice doors".

Tall Poppy Syndrome by cranos · 2002-08-26 16:23 · Score: 1

And I used to think this was a purely Australian thing. As soon as someone rises above the mob they try to cut them down.

For gods sakes, its Linux... in corporate environments... accepted by the PHBs. What more do you want???

Not to mention RPM... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:24 · Score: 0

RedHat is as Microsoft in the sense that they staked out their business territory fairly early, and produced standards that Maybe Weren't Too Good But Are Now Accepted Practice.

The annoying thing is that, since they *are* open standards, there's much more inertia to keep them there. Nearly every Linux user will have to put up with a .RPM at some point. Every Linux user seeking generic employment may even have to use RedHat at some point, just to understand the vagaries of the distro. I can't fault RedHat for this, but in this sense, they have emerged as the oldest standards-leader in Linux, and any competitor- UnitedLinux, etc, may end up carrying a similar level of "Lock-In." Linux distros are, at heart, different OSes, and it isn't easy to make sure a binary package will run no-hassles on all of them, which, of course, is what the gov't and most corporateniks would love- "Okay, Bob's Linux has the featureset we need, let's put it on this year's machines." This is what the Dissenting States want to see from Windows- a multi-vendor OS that still click'n'runs the same code, no questions asked, no technical skill required... not that that's doable, but that's what they want.

You can't quite be a 'monopoly' when all your code is GPL (excepting product-unrelated business practices, e.g. malicious licensing, which I think RH has avoided), but you can be an anchor that drags the rest of the world down to your level.

Now, if the filesystem layout could just be standardized to install all packages into /usr/local or /opt, without various distros putting random crap in /usr/bin vs. /usr/local/bin, etc... Personally, I'd rather see someone create a totally different Linux-based OS, in the form of something like OS X (Cosmoe? Amithlon?), and maybe solve the packaging/dependency issues a totally different way... but that's just me.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Afrosheen · 2002-08-26 16:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dude, just run an rpm based distro or use Alien. Companies like to issue rpm's because the majority of people are using rpm-based distros.

Insanity, I say! RH did great and heres why! by SquireCD · 2002-08-26 16:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

I got a copy of debian when I was 13. I tried to install it and failed, miserably. I thought, "screw linux" - it's busted! A year later, I was even more tired of MS and DOS (wasnt so bad now that i remember back on it) so I bought RedHat from WalMart. I tried to install it and SUCCEED!

Now I'm 21, I've used Debian, BSD, SuSE, Caldara, Stormix, Lunar, and RedHat. RedHat was able to teach me linux and let me move on to the other distros. It's a level of how easy it is.

Microsoft's products are easy to use and thus, broken. RedHats is the easiest distro to install, and they make a few sacrafises for that. But, it benefits the entire Open Source and Linux community.

Without Redhat, I never would have used Linux, ANY DISTRO!

Red Hat can never be the next Microsoft by Error27 · 2002-08-26 16:32 · Score: 2

They just don't have the same single minded commitment to evil.

Is Microsoft the Red Hat of Windows? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Think about it.
(but not too hard)

That is crap. by digit · 2002-08-26 16:49 · Score: 1

You get Red Hat for free if you want, but you have to pay for microsoft. End of point!

Re:Open source means choice, every disto has a pla by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 16:52 · Score: 0

What's wrong with United Linux ?
They don't subscribe to Debian pinko-everything-HAS-to-be-free-or-bust theory ?

Tsunami Re:No, no, no... by Winnipenguin · 2002-08-26 16:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well said. Red Hat just happens to be the best surfer in the Open Source Tsunami. Sadly, when you are number one some people (especially rivals) try to beat you down.

Mahalo,
Winnipenguin, RHCE (bias declared)

10 REM sig
20 print "Help!!"
30 goto 20

Boo Corel, SuSE, Caldera, etc. by gjetost · 2002-08-26 16:56 · Score: 1

RedHat open-sources their software they write themselves. Go pick on stupid proprietary companies like Caldera, SuSE, etc.

Just another distro... by barista · 2002-08-26 17:05 · Score: 1

To me, Red Hat is just another distro. I've used Mandrake and SuSE, but not Red hat. From what I've heard though, Red Hat is to the US what SuSE is to Germany and Mandrake is to France. It may be more popular here, but it is not the only distro. The US Linux/computer press would naturally make the comparison between Micrsoft and Red Hat, but it doesn't mean it's true.

I don't use them, but I don't have anything against them either.

Redhat isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

The real problem is proprietary closed-source commercial software/hardware vendors who claim their products run on Linux but really only support the most popular brand, a couple of point releases back.

Sure, you can probably get it work on the latest release of your favorite distribution, but since the vendor doesn't document the dependencies, and won't provide technical help, a harried sys admin may find it safer to use the vendor-supported platform.

Hey, Computer Associates, Samsung, MeetingMaker, etc., why not try for cross-distribution compatibility and dependency documentation?

Re:Do writers make accusations just to get attenti by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:11 · Score: 0

Don't worry man. I don't know how this is a troll either.

Absolutely Wrong by Raul654 · 2002-08-26 17:16 · Score: 2

As a legal document, it is extremely restrictive

You are missing the big picture. It is *not* restrictive. The GPL lets Red Hat use the intellectual property of others (the linux kernel, dozens of apps, et al), something they could otherwise not do due to copyright law. But that permission is conditional - whatever they change, they are not allowed to commercialize.

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton

Doors are like Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:21 · Score: 0

And what happens with many new computers? We're CHARGED (Bill) for WINDOWS (Gates) regardless of whether we use it or not!

Crabs in a Bucket by bruthasj · 2002-08-26 17:39 · Score: 2

On the ocean shore there are crabs
Scavengers pick them for a nice grab
All they need is a bucket
they don't even need to lock it
For the ones below will keep
the ones above from leaping

So you crabs at the bottom
leave this one alone
as his red hat will keep him high
on the lip of the bucket

SH3!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:39 · Score: 0

I run slackware on my machines at home

I'll run redhat when they port it to the SH3 (Hitachi SuperH 3) processor so I can run it on my HP320LX...

recompile.org

There will always be a leader... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:44 · Score: 0

Even if their is a fairly even distribution of linux distros in use there will always be one that is used a little more than the rest. Its just a fact of life.

I personally don't mind redhat being the leader, they seem ethical enough. I personally run slackware, but that is beside the point.

Besides, with a clear leader like redhat there is a chance that I will get my SH3 linux port for my HP320LX....

recompile.org

Re:numbing it down by noshellswill · 2002-08-26 17:46 · Score: 0

The only diaper needed here is for the 6-toed dweezles mucking about bleating AND DROOLING OHBABYO HHARDERPLEEEESZ MAKE IT HARRRRDERRR. GoTo the closet, byte-boyz ... your electro-mechanic blo-up doll is waiting ...

LIKE DEBIAN! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:47 · Score: 0

see subject.

An attempt to lend credibility to ailing Microsoft by SgtChaireBourne · 2002-08-26 17:49 · Score: 2

Articles like this seem more an attempt to lend credibility to Microsoft than to spread discontent or uncertainty among OpenSource/FreeSoftware users or the newly curious. Afterall, they're trying to get you not to ask, "Is Microsoft as good as RedHat?". The same can be said of the Microsoft attendance at LinuxWorld -- it was more a gimick to gain credibility at a time when they're losing it rapidly.

In contrast to RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, Suse, Slackware, etc. Microsoft has stifled competition and innovation to the point of being found guilty in court. In fact, upon closer examinitaion it could look like Microsoft has been stifling the U.S. IT sector for few years. Eventually even the MBAs are going to figure that one out.

As many have said more articulately, as long as RedHat puts out GPL software year after year, things are great. Competition is thriving. As long as there is competition, the distros rapidly adapt and improve...

...and money is being made by those using GNU / Open Source.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Open source competition? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 17:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

Doesnt anyone else notice the conflict between beginning and the end of this sentence from RedHat?

'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.'

Hmm .. isn't open source supposed to be competition free?

Sounds like mr. Bill G:

'Our commitment to our customers remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying'

blah. ;-)

Re:Open source competition? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 03:42 · Score: 0

Hmm .. isn't open source supposed to be competition free?

No. I'd say Solaris and Windows are competition for Linux. Open source products compete with closed source products.

I'd say that FreeBSD is competition for Linux. Two open source operating systems, but with slightly different approaches to similar problems.

And certainly, two companies providing support for an open source product can compete for customers, too.

Dude, your thinking is pretty muddy here.

On the other hand, there's different approaches to how two companies can compete with one another. Some are more constructive than others. I happen to think that Red Hat's approach has been very constructive; they've been great supporters of Open Source software and the GPL.

Red Hat was the first Linux distro I paid for by PCM2 · 2002-08-26 18:00 · Score: 2

I bought my first Red Hat Box Set Linux in 1997 -- not because they had some kind of gun to my head, but because I felt bad for taking something good for free without supporting it.

--
Breakfast served all day!

GPL enforcement goes to court for first time by civilizedINTENSITY · 2002-08-26 18:00 · Score: 2

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24219.html

"We don't expect to have any problem enforcing the GPL in this situation," says Bradley Kuhn, FSF's vice president. Normally, he says, the Free Software Foundation conducts private enforcement of GPL violations on software that it holds the copyright on. In this case, MySQL retains the copyright on its GPLed apps, and the FSF is simply providing expert testimony in what is expected to be an easily-gained temporary injunction against the further distribution of NuSphere's version of MySQL.

Bruce Perens, founder of the Open Source Initiative, has offered to become a moderator in the case if one is needed. "Moglen will get his injunction," he says.

Re:GPL enforcement goes to court for first time by civilizedINTENSITY · 2002-08-26 18:06 · Score: 2

Opps, more on the same:
http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/1168
One interesting point: it did not appear that anyone was arguing that the GPL did not apply or was not a valid license. It sounded as though the GPL was treated as any other license would be in a software context. Judge Saris seemed to focus on the question of whether Gemini constitutes an independent or a derivative work and whether the harm caused to MySQL met the irreparable standard. Experts -- none of whom were permitted to testify today, though Eben Moglen, among others, was in the room -- had filed what the Judge called "classic book-ends," or perfectly conflicting reports, on the question of the derivative work. Much of her questioning surrounded whether Gemini could operate without MySQL (as distributed, MySQL contends, it cannot) and whether or not the two products had been "integrated". She seemed to be moved by the NuSphere argument that there was no co-mingling of the source code and that "linking" to another program did not equate to creation of a derivative work. She also pushed hard on the questions of whether the distribution clause of the GPL was violated, though little progress was made on that point by either side. Ultimately, Judge Saris seemed unconvinced that MySQL could show a likelihood of success on the question of irreparable harm.

All in all it appears that this federal court considers the GPL to be a valid license (which shouldn't be surprising - but it has been an issue from time to time and commented on in the academic literature) with a somewhat ambiguous clause about the obligations that arise when you distribute code that combines GPL code with code that was developed independently.

If they are... by Alien+Being · 2002-08-26 18:01 · Score: 2

that would make MS the Redhat of Windows. But that can't be right, cuz then there would be a windrake distro and anonymous ftp access to the source.

answer: no

Redmond Hat Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:02 · Score: 0

" The new branded Linux Distro is ready for download from www.redhat.msn.com/thefutureishere/redmond.asp
Af ter the sucessfull overtake of Red Hat the Biggest Linux Distro company Microsoft is offering a free download of the newest Linux ...
To install you have to put your credit card information to comfirm your ID only it will not be charged. And with the new EULA your information will be more secure in Palladium compliance Servers ..."

Correction by achurch · 2002-08-26 18:07 · Score: 2

You are exactly wrong. You have *NO* right to use/distribute/sell code that isn't yours. The GPL *gives* you right to do that, which is quite different from a eula which restricts your rights.

Mostly correct, except for one thing: you don't have to agree to the GPL if you only use GPL'd software, since the GPL only covers (copying and) distribution. You can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license and still be within the bounds of copyright law. Of course, this distinction is irrelevant to companies like RedHat which make money from selling GPL software, but it is an important one for users of the software.

They are not the M$ of Linux yet! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:09 · Score: 0

They are not there yet, but at least in attitude they are heading that way.

A while back at a show, I spoke to a RH person who claimed to be a tech, about the GCC2.96 issues, to be told that "There are no issues", followed by some comments that got close to insulting. When I gave him some examples of gcc problems, he would not comment.

Its not as if I hit him with "your dist is fscked"

All I asked was, when they expected a fix.

Other than that, what has driven me away from RH and others, is the continuing trend to turn linux into windoze.

Gnome and KDE are bloated to the point where they are giving windoze a run for its title of the most bloated software ever. This is not really a RH issue, just a pet hate.

RH, got me with 7.0 when it installed some bits of gnome where told not to. I selected nothing that needed X, Gnome or KDE and still got bits of Gnome and some of X.

Now using Slack and Gentoo with none of these issues. Not a GUI to be seen on any of my servers. Workstations runing Windowmaker, with no gnome or KDE.

RH would become the M$ is the linux world if they could get away with it. They need to be watched closly.

Red Hat isn't Redmond, it's just Corporate by ricst · 2002-08-26 18:12 · Score: 1

Red Hat has succeeded at becoming the largest Linux company. This isn't an accident. They have (wisely, IMHO) chosen to pursue large corporate customers by offering a well-supported, well-tested, reliable distribution. They realize that if they are going to get in the door of any Fortune 500 companies, they need to talk the talk and walk the walk.

We do want Linux used by big companies, right? Because if the answer is "no", then Linux isn't really going anyway profitable.... So when Red Hat succeeds, we should at least supply a small applause whether or not we personally use their distro. The more PCs that run (any version of) Linux, the less there are that run Microsoft. Isn't that a good thing?

Red Hat = Microsoft = Fat Pig Installation by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:13 · Score: 0

I don't consider Red Hat at all in terms of Microsoft , i.e. a marketing machine that often oversteps the interest of their consumers for their dollars.

However, I was just installing Red Hat became incredibly frustrated with the approach they take to that process. Red Hat Linux is a shot gun strategy for installing applications. You install far more applications you need to, then when you uninstall beyond their expectations the dependencies don't hold up -- i.e. gross instability.

While Debian is always out-of-date, at least apt and deselect give me only what I ask for.

What a stupid comparison by Sloppy · 2002-08-26 18:13 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Timothy, you ought to be ashamed of feeding the trolls by even giving this crap a second look. It's not even a particularly clever troll; it's just noise.

C'mon, editors, there's nothing wrong with doing a little common-sense filtering. Timothy, do you take your job seriously at all?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re:Open source means choice, every disto has a pla by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:17 · Score: 0

because someone(or some companies?) hopes that one distribution rules them all.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by antirename · 2002-08-26 18:20 · Score: 2

Yeah, but I LIKE redhat... I paid for 6.2 (about $50, IIRC). Oohh... now I see. I've been brainwashsed... that friend that gave those disks way back in college wasn't a friend after all... or what? This article is pure FUD. I use redhat linux because a) I'm used to it b) it works and c) because I haven't had time to experiment lately. Is there something better? I don't know. Have I thought about trying Debian or Gentoo? Yes. Will I get time in the next month, being realistic? No. Not to say that I won't eventually, but calling redhat the MS of linux is bullshit. I'm used to it, it works, and it runs just fine so I'm not in a big hurry to swap the servers. Do I feel locked in? NO.

RPMS are universal by amorsen · 2002-08-26 18:20 · Score: 3, Informative

The Linux Standard Base mandates that all compliant distributions must be able to install software that comes as an RPM. There is more information here. RPM's are universal.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

Re:RPMS are universal by tahirbond · 2002-08-26 19:33 · Score: 0

To add to this, RPM is now RPM Package Manager.
Re:RPMS are universal by stevenbee · 2002-08-26 23:57 · Score: 2

To add to this, RPM is now RPM Package Manager.
( (Recursive Package Mangager)Package Manager)) Package Manager) ) ?

--
Don't read this!
Re:RPMS are universal by TheLostOne · 2002-08-27 01:13 · Score: 1

Standard - Acceptable but of less than top quality (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Sorry.. couldn't help myself :) But seriously now, while RH being a monopoly is obviously a pile of FUD, through this we can begin to see the true fears of 'the community'.

As the image of Redhat grows in the minds of outside developers (3rd party seems incorrect here to me) we begin to see assumptions on a how a system will be setup.

For better or for worse... I make no argument here, but as we so often say the strength of Linux is in diversity. Not saying we don't need standards.. but upon what are they based? I have no first hand expierence, nor would I ever want to get in the discussion/argument... but question..

are rpms really better then debs? how much better.. how much worse... what about other systems? Point being.. were these the questions this Standards Board asked? (note to the lazy, the LSBs end goal is a mix between rpm and deb)

Key here... rpms were (likely, IMHO) chosen because they were popular, not because they were superior. Because most of the packaged based distros use it, because it is the most visisble package format for outside developers.

Am I afraid? No.. hell no. But I think that is more the attitude then 'Redhat is a monopoly'. Redhat has a lot of ideas... some good some bad. I am for this, that is what having distro choice is all about.

IMHO however, nothing as argued as rpm can truly become a standard... they can print it, make a piece of paper requiring it to have a sticker.. but as long as there are so many people left who'd prefer not to use then alternative systems will be made and distrubted. If Slack, Gentoo, etc never supported rpm... opting for a more traditonaly method.. are we going to call it non-standard? And if a standards will only isolate us more from our BSD cousins then isn't that bad? Couldn't our standards mesh with something that is.. as they say.. standard?

Anyway.. blah.. 2 points on the articles... first the reply by J Hogan was very well written. And secondly.. seems to me this entire article is a crock of it anyway... from the eweek article:

International Data Corp. reported this month that Red Hat won nearly three-quarters of the $80 million in U.S. Linux sales last year
So.. it seems to me they are basing Redhat's dominance on sales... gee.. that makes sense for a free OS doesn't it.... If this is the evidence they base their article on I question the point of wasting the drive space...

(oh.. and don't waste your time looking up standards, yes there are more appropiate definations, just not as funny ;)

--

'..that kernel panicked like a nun in a crack house!'
Re:RPMS are universal by Chris+Burke · 2002-08-27 03:03 · Score: 2

Let me address just one of your fears.

The beauty of Free Software is that you never have to worry about 'distancing' yourself from some other Free Software system, because any Free standard you adopt can easily be either adopted or transformed to the other system.

In other words, since both RPM and Alien are open source, nothing stops FreeBSD from using .rpms as they wish (I'm too lazy to check, but I'd imagine that RPM and alien already were ported to *BSD, if there were any desire to do so) Now, the -contents- of binary packages may be unuseable, but that's true of any package format. As far as source packages go, .rpm should be nothing more than a variant on .tar.gz.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:RPMS are universal by FooBarWidget · 2002-08-27 04:15 · Score: 2

RPMs are almost equal to Debs. The only things that makes Debs so easy to install are 1) APT (which is also available for RPM) and 2) it's not as widely used as RPM.
Re:RPMS are universal by tahirbond · 2002-08-28 16:23 · Score: 0

( (Recursive Package Mangager)Package Manager)) Package Manager) ) ?

Uhuh, ...((RPM Package Manager) Package Manager) Package Manager... ad infinitum.

Recursive acronyms do not have any expansion for the prefix that causes recursion. BTW, did you score your own post?

Redhat is good by buffer-overflowed · 2002-08-26 18:22 · Score: 1

It's been awhile since I posted, and I'm a tad bit tipsy now,someone let me know which UID I'm posting under...

Anyway, Redhat is a good company, they contribute to the Open Source Community. They may have a bit of a bloatware OS(that being an understatement), but so long as they contribute, hell they're great.

I measure systems I custom compile/build against redhat. And I generally include RPM for them, so they can't be all bad(and they aren't), certainly no Redmond.

When I see the home directory named "My Home" I may begin to draw the comparison. Then they begin to think that "MY" computer is their home.

no paralells meaning to be drawn, school come mornin', and 27 shots in me, gimme a freakin' break here will ya? I run linux from scratch.

--
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."

RedHat is the best Distro I know on a server by HappyUser · 2002-08-26 18:23 · Score: 1

From the days that rpm was put together I've loved using RH to build servers with. The updating of bugs, security etc is great!

As someone else pointed out, this is just journalist FUD created to sell. After all, these are the guys who are so confused about their occupation, they think they are actors who need to put up a drama, rather than a factual account of an actual situation.

RedHat has supported the community to the letter and then some. See the supportive comments you have here. Power to them!!

Redhat? by inphorm · 2002-08-26 18:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sorry, who threw logic out the window here. First goal of any business: - make a profit in order to achieve that: - market your product - try and "lock in" your customers, it is much easier to sell to an already happy customer than it is to create a new customer. - provide useful support that will keep your customers happy. - have a leading edge on your competition. Since when has it been a crime to be successful in the IT industry? Who made it illegal to make a profit? Nobody forced anyone to buy Microsoft Windows, nor has anyone forced anyone to buy Red Hat Linux.... - inpho -

--

Pmp @ DeviantArt

It's SuSE, if any by drago · 2002-08-26 18:29 · Score: 1

If there is such a thing as an evil Linux distributor then it's certainly not Redhat but SuSE. Just a few points:
* Proprietary, non-GPL administration tool (Yast), which controls all dependencies (instead of letting rpm do the job)
* Big, big marketing department
* A registry-like obfuscation mechanism called rc.config, which holds configuration data for all application (but not all of it of course...)
* strange kernel patches nobody ever heard of

No, Redhat is perfectly ok for me as the distribution for business use. Privately I use Debian, which I think is technically best, but I wouldn't use it in business (release cycles too long, resulting in too many outdated software and therefore missing features)

Re:It's SuSE, if any by Graymalkin · 2002-08-26 21:09 · Score: 2

YaST is a big front end for an RPM based distro. Shit dude mount a SuSE disc, it is loaded to the brim with RPMs and SRPMs what is so proprietary about that? Neither is rc.config a registry-like (sic) mechanism. I traded SuSE for Debian a while ago but I used it for a good couple years. While they might not be much better than RedHat in some ways they are certainly no worse. Lately they've shown a lot of initiative unifying their layout with other distros.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Computer industry push them... by Arkan · 2002-08-26 18:34 · Score: 1

... so when it comes to explain that no, I won't blank my Debian server to install a Redhat, because Oracle said they only support Redhat, my boss assume I'll be responsible for any failure of said Oracle server.
Redhat are in no way responsible for this behavior (maybe a little: they didn't refused to be the Oracle official distro :b), and this is the only thing close to a Microsoftian strategy. But you can't (and I hope nobody will) try and stop a company to build a partnership with another one.

Fact is, I'd prefer Oracle officially support Debian too. But Debian's team has not enough time to deal with partnership, and Oracle most certainly won't deal with people "doing it for free(as in beer)".

--
Arkan

err by ChrisJones · 2002-08-26 18:37 · Score: 1

that is an insane suggestion. go away and come back when you have some news that matters ;)

--
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by RoundSparrow · 2002-08-26 18:37 · Score: 1

RedHat clearly isn't aiming for a Monopoly...
The analogies with Microsoft don't hold much at all. It is a real joke.
Can the average IT person even name one of the executives of RedHat? Can anyone outside the computer industry?
Look at it another way. Bill Gate Wrote an Open Letter saying ::Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?:: Did Redhat start from such roots?

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Hafer · 2002-08-26 18:47 · Score: 1

The live evaluation simply does not contain the bloat others are complaining about. It is fully functional, nevertheless.
However, it does not turn up on ftp as soon as at the stores - you have to wait a bit.

Red Hat has suffered a backlash by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 18:50 · Score: 0

(Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?)

You bet we have. Redhat Linux used to have ~85%+ of the Linux userbase a few years ago, now it can't be more than ~20% tops, including commercial rollouts.

Redhat in Relation to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 19:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

It makes me wonder whether or not the majority of the Slashdot community knows the meaning of the word monopoly.

I dislike Redhat. I am biased. But not towards the truth. I'll make a few points and be off.

1.) Redhat releases software under the GPL.
2.) You are not required to run Redhat in order to use a.out or ELF binaries.
3.) The Redhat developers do not support the fabrication of Redhat-proprietary computer hardware.
4.) You may, to my understanding, obtain and edit/recompile the source code to anything within an official Redhat distro.
5.) The majority of non-GPL, non-free software requires Microsoft Windows. If a game or any other piece of software _were_ released in such a commercial manner for explicit use with the Redhat OS, it would still not be a monopoly.

Redhat is not a monopoly. It is just an operating system that tries to appeal to the less-experienced computer user. (e.g. Windows users, AOL users, etc. no disrespect intended, of course.)

Sorry to disappoint you.

Redhats next meeting by woodstok · 2002-08-26 19:10 · Score: 1

Does this mean that Alan Cox will be running around on a stage yelling "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" any time soon you think?

Slashdot Reports Own Mandrake Stock by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 19:21 · Score: 0

LOL

First they try and claim Mandrake is the first to use gcc 3.1, then they try and claim RedHat is trying to derail KDE, then they try and claim RedHat is the next Microsoft.

Well /. reporters, guess what. RedHat owns Mandrake so it's time to sell those Mandrake shares and buy some RHAT.

Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by slamb · 2002-08-26 19:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Personally, I was REALLY glad to have 2.96. It was the best, most stable g++ at the time. I'm not saying that people were wrong for hating it, I'm just saying that it suited me.

Why not? I'll say it: people were wrong for hating it. RedHat made the best decision. Their one mistake was not explicitly marking the compiler as their own - people thought it was an official gcc release.

Anyone who thinks the gcc 2.96 compiler is buggy should read this page.

Uhhh.. heard of Mandrake by electroniceric · 2002-08-26 19:38 · Score: 2

Given that an entire distro was founded by forking RedHat's product, they seem pretty committed to playing by the terms of the GPL.

Sure, you could imagine scenarios where RedHat added some proprietary extensions that closed their systems, but nothing they've done, from their sales pitches about open source and open standards to their kernel contributions indicates that they want to do that. I'm sure RedHat may capitalize on its opportunity to do dirty deeds somewhere along the line, but that doesn't equate to being a true bully.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Hater's+Leaving,+The · 2002-08-26 19:39 · Score: 1

That you don't feel locked in doesn't mean that you aren't locked in. Do the majority of windows users feel locked in? I'm a _huge_ Linux proponent (user since 1993), and I'll admit that most of the windows lusers that I know don't feel locked in.

I'm not saying that you are locked in, I'm just saying your final testemonial argument is not applicable.

THL.

--
Keeping /. cynic density high since the fscking Kwhores/trolls arrived.

WHO is like Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 19:42 · Score: 0

I guess it depends on why you don't like Microsoft... Do you have Microsoft because they're big? If so, then I guess Red Hat *IS* the Microsoft of Linux...

I hate Microsoft's products because: I can't change things that bother me, I have no access to their source, they provide proprietary solutions to lock you into their products, etc... The list could go on.

As far as those things go -- the things that *REALLY* matter to me -- Red Hat is probably one of the *LEAST* Microsoft-like distributions. Maybe slightly less open than Debian...

For example, SuSE has locked down their installer so that people can't make derivitive works ("We will not let them Mandrake us!")

The point is that Red Hat is extremely aligned with the Open Source community. Sure they're a large company, lending credibility to a system and community I'm proud to be involved in.

So shut up already about calling Red Hat the Microsoft of Open Source. You're not doing anyone a favor...

Sean

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by FooBarWidget · 2002-08-26 19:52 · Score: 2

Then that's because those companies are stupid and do not investigate things further, not because RedHat is trying to lock them.
RPMs are not universal, tarballs are universal. And tarballs are truly universal, perhaps even among other Unices.

Apache by David+Off · 2002-08-26 19:53 · Score: 1

Now I thought Apache were the Microsoft of Open Source.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by FooBarWidget · 2002-08-26 19:56 · Score: 2

Use rpm2cpio to convert an RPM to a cpio archive, then use cpio to extract it. Not guaranteed that it will work (because of the libraries the app is linked to) but at least you can extract it.

Getting rid of RPM doesn't solve the problem. The real problem is incompatible library versions an app is linked to, and perhaps directory structure (although this becomes a non-issue when all distros conform to the LSB)

They already are LSB compliant by FooBarWidget · 2002-08-26 20:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Checkout the LSB website. RedHat 7.3 is LSB compliant.

Re:They already are LSB compliant by Flywheel · 2002-08-27 21:26 · Score: 1

Well, there's still some discussion regarding how LSB compliant Redhat really is and will be - I too have many doubts, mostly because it would mean that Redhat freely should give away a monopoly-like status ... something they cannot afford.

SuSE/UL is at the moment the only "nearly true" LSB compliant distribution...
The apparent domination of Redhat is not the problem. The problem is that most RPM-packages has Redhat path's "hardcoded" into the install-script....often making it impossible to avoid compiling programs/libs and so on, if you're using a non-Redhat based distribution ... it is a huge problem for new users .... hundreds of hours has been used for making the distribution user-friendly and you find out that only the bundled packages is totally problem-free ... it does not sound wise to me.

--
Live long and prosper...

Committed to Open Source... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 20:05 · Score: 0

...my A$$. They're committed to the GPL (to kill the software market) and to SOFTWARE PATENTS to reap some money from poor dorks who used their GPLed code.

How funny =)

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by rodgerd · 2002-08-26 20:19 · Score: 3, Informative

rpm is a free tool. You can build it on most any POSIXish system. The format of rpm files in cpio with a few extra bits. It is trivial to get files, scripts, and whatnot out; it is trivial to build and install and use rpm on Debian, AIX, Solaris, what have you.

The vendors of those commercial applications are unlikely to support you using rpm on Debian to install their product, but that's because they probably don't support Debian, anyway. In which case it doesn't matter how they ship it.

If you're too fucking stupid to understand that rpm is no more "proprietary lock-in" than using newfangled gzip instead of real Unix compress on your tarballs, you shouldn't be working with computers, you should be scratching in the dirt with a stick.

Oh for the power of Moderation by Captain+Large+Face · 2002-08-26 20:23 · Score: 2

Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Total=2

One way or another by forgoil · 2002-08-26 20:24 · Score: 2

It is the worst Linux distro that I have ever had my hands on (I don't get impressed by installations or weak admin tools to doesn't fix the underlying mess), and they have a history of really major fuck ups, for example the gcc 2.96.x stupidity. I will never trust red hat on a production machine ever.

I long for a stable server distro for linux, completely free from X and non related software. A pure, secure, highly supported, well managed, and tested distribution. One were every API shipped is correctly and fully documented, where all the horrible bugs are removed, where each package is tested and fixed and is done in time for each release.

Heck, if it was me, I would take a serious look at *BSD instead of linux when running servers, but since linux and *BSD are different on some accounts, it can be a bugger to make it work on both platforms, and it takes too much time unfortunatly. It would have been a different sitution if it had been my own hobby project.

Another thing about Red Hat, there are an alarming number of releases from large corporations (drivers for instance) that favors Red Hat. Why oh why can't there be a single package file format so that the same package works for any distribution? The first one who says "freedom of choice"... Yeah, tons of freedom if you choose to have '\0' or '\n' as a delimiter. Get real.

Re:One way or another by Marasmus · 2002-08-27 01:44 · Score: 2

Much agreed. Beyond the quality concerns of RedHat, their rather exclusive and standards-strongarming tool sets, I have really just one concern that drives me completely up the wall with RedHat: Hardware Vendors.

RedHat either largely supports or fails to discourage the act of Vendors creating proprietary, closed-source hardware drivers that run only on RedHat. This action may not last forever, but it lasts long enough that someone using a particular product with proprietary drivers is forced to use RedHat for a year or two before the driver goes totally open-source, thus locking-in that customer on RedHat products.

First case in point: Adaptec AACRAID support. AACRAID drivers were formerly only available for RedHat. For two years! For two years, if you wanted to run a system with AACRAID (which includes Dell PercRAID cards), you had to use RedHat. It wasn't until after Adaptec's drivers were leaked and some employees fired that Adaptec broke down and neglected to sue the pants off of people distributing open source drivers. Even after that, it took a good 9 months before those drivers were mature enough to use on anything remotely close to production hardware.

Today, Promise Technologies is doing the same thing with their FastTrak controllers. Yes, there IS kernel support for FastTrak software RAID. NO, it does NOT work with the new Promise cards on the market. Promise's binary drivers for RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera are the only ways to get the newer cards working. The situation for the SuperTrak series cards is even more annoying! They put out open-source drivers, but specifically send them out so that they'll only compile on RedHat kernels. Their documentation tells you that you can compile the driver on custom kernels, but leaves that entirely up to the skill of the person implementing the driver. They try to make themselves look good by open-sourcing the driver, but continue to lock-in customers to one OS vendor choice.

The Microsoft-ish behavior of RedHat is how they allow this closed-source driver lock-in to occur on their open-source platform, and don't encourage companies to support the entire open Linux platform. THAT is what gets them compared to Microsoft.

--
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".

Carte blancHE by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 20:37 · Score: 0

s/a carte blanc pass/carte blanche/

Re: I dont agree by fferreres · 2002-08-26 20:39 · Score: 2

You are basically extrapoliting todays situation. They don't need to hide the sources to take advantage of the market share thing. For example, we use an antivirus that is ONLY supported on Red Hat (we installed it on our Slak server, but it was a pain due to the inslation program, etc.)

Ximian Gnome requires you to have certain distros as well. With slakware you are out of lack. Now, extrapolete in whose directions and you'll see the point.

It's the chicken and egg thing. At some point companies may not care about slackware, gentoo or whatever as long as it works under Red Hat and some other widely used distro. They will not be supporting all distros, just as _most_ companies do not support more than one OS.

And Red Hat may well make the cost of supporting other distros higher (if they ever want). There are thouthand ways to do it. I am not saying they will try that, but they could (but not yet).

--
unfinished: (adj.)

So say the "proprierty" linux distributions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 21:07 · Score: 0

Basically this article is saying that Redhat,
which always fully opensources all of its
development is becoming like Microsoft because
the distributions that try the proprierty
lockin route on Linux are failing: I have never
even tried SuSe because the key to their
distribution (Yast) is not open soure. The others
are even worse. There are other distributions
besides RedHat doing well (Mandrake, Debian);
These are also fully open source: see the
pattern here ...

Monopolies by jaavaaguru · 2002-08-26 21:29 · Score: 2

I don't use Microsoft Windows, or Office, or Developer Studio. I choose not to use their software, not because they are a monopoly or a horrible nasty company, but because their software doesn't suit my needs. I want software that follows standards and open formats, and runs without degrading over time. Red Hat provides software that does this. My Red Hat CD has several compilers, Perl, KDevelop and some office apps, a browser and mail client. And what's more, they all do what they're meant to and still provide compatability. I like the software Red Hat provides much more than I like the software MS provides. Even if Red Hat behaves like MS, they still provide good software that does what I need it to, so I'll still use it. Some people say Apple has a monopoly, but I'd have nothing against using a Mad with OSX and OpenOffice (if they do it for Macs).

--
Follow me

As far as X-windows goes... by vandy1 · 2002-08-26 21:33 · Score: 1

I believe that X-windows was developed at Xerox PARC before M$ put M$DOS out the door, let alone Windows...

IBM FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 21:35 · Score: 0

It simply sounds like a load of IBM FUD nothing more in fact if anyone in the Linux realm is close to Microsoft it its twisted business practices it is IBM.

Not sensationalism by Nailer · 2002-08-26 22:10 · Score: 2

I don't think eweek / zdnet's articee is wrong at all. As much as many people who read /. believe Microsoft to be an monpolistic choke hold on the computer industry, people in the wider community just see Microsoft as a dominating force in their field, which is exactly what Red Hat is. According to Netcraft, IDC and most other sources, Red Hat has more market share than every other Linux distro combined. It also has the largest professional services organization, hardware support, and influence over the future of Linux, as well as the healthiest balance sheet. And more power to them, they make and integrate quality software.

Around here, that's worse... by Nailer · 2002-08-26 22:17 · Score: 2

Why not "The Starbucks of Linux?"

You obviously haven't lived in Melbourne, Australia. We has real Greek and Italian baristas making high quality world class coffee for decades.

Mention Microsoft round here, people will tell you Bill Gates has a lot of money, but boy doesn't Windows crash a lot.

Mention StarBucks, and someone will mutter something about poor quality south American coffee, fake italian words, sugary `flavored' coffee, and their bizarre adherance to the USAmerican `let's fill it with cream and then eat it!' philosophy. Then they'll spit in your coffee :).

FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 22:22 · Score: 0

FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD and FUD!

Redhat is an opensource company... anyone who wants a piece of their cake can compete for it on equal terms.

Yes, of course they are, and it's A GOOD THING! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 22:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because the Linux hacker community is the next Bill Gates.

In 10 years time, when 90% of computers are running Linux, if we, as a community, think a new piece of hardware is complete rubbish, we don't support it. End of story. The hardware doesn't sell. Ha ha ha ha ha. Should have designed decent hardware in the begining will be my answer to the company who is sniviling that their software modem, or complete rubbish USB ADSL adaptor, (yes, I am thinking of one piece of trash product in particular here, but I won't name it, to avoid a flame war), isn't supported.

The geeks who are decended from the geeks who developed all this technology - and instead of patenting it like the selfish wannabe theives of today, gave it away, in the sense of it being open - will have control, and we with our infinitely greater intellegence than corporate fat cats will be telling the world what goes and what doesn't.

If the DMCA and EUCD were being introduced in to that world, we could just say, "Introduce it, and there will be a new GPL, saying 'export or operation in the United States or Europe is illegal, and violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.'".

We cannot say that now. In 10 years time, when Linux penetration reaches 90%, we can AND WILL.

Re:Uggghhh : As many times as it takes... by gmac63 · 2002-08-26 22:49 · Score: 1

...as many times as it takes to sell advertisement.

God I hate the press.

--

INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Spicerun · 2002-08-26 22:57 · Score: 1

I like and use Red Hat. I don't consider myself 'locked in' seeing that I can also take all of those programs that run on Red Hat, and run them on Debian (for example) with miniscule, if any, changes required. Try doing that with M$.

If Red Hat was to 'lock me in', I'd have to buy an upgraded program for every new distribution of Red Hat, or for every time I upgraded a Red Hat utility/library program with a non-Red Hat utility. And the program would never work on a Debian, Suse, etc. distribution.

If ever... by Arimus · 2002-08-26 23:00 · Score: 1

there was a topic with an amazing potential for flamebait, trolling et al this is it...

RedHat are trying to do what most companies do and make some money. I don't have a problem with Redhat... good luck to them as if Linux is to get corporate recognition it needs corporate attitudes by the companies providing linux distro's.

--
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.

Re:No, no, no... You're completely off base by azaroth42 · 2002-08-26 23:00 · Score: 1

Making Gnome and KDE /initially/ look the same is a GOOD THING out of the box. Users who care will just fire up the configurator and set their WM up how they want it and new users won't be confused by two completely different window managers.

Others have commented on your misinterpretation of the LSB, I won't repeat it.

Open Source does not have to accept community patches. Many open source projects have a set of developers and never see any code from anywhere else. But think: Redhat is a Distribution not a Development company primarily. They distribute others' code. So they accept everyone's patches when they chose what projects to include in their distribution.

-- Azaroth

how about a big 'duh'? by shren · 2002-08-26 23:01 · Score: 2

[the article] quotes an IBM VP who says, 'There is a backlash against Red Hat from many consumers and government agencies, who fear it is increasingly becoming the Microsoft of the Linux world with respect to its dominance and attitude,'

IBM and Red Hat are competitors, so IBM has some hefty motivation to say not-nice things about Red Hat. Both companies provide Linux services. Call back when Red Hat's employee count and profit margin competes with IBM and I'll consider taking you seriously.

--
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)

MODERATORS by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · 2002-08-26 23:07 · Score: 0

Hahahahah now if this isn't a case of OFFTOPIC I don't know what is.

The topic was 'Is Redhat the Microsoft of Linux'.

Anyone else see where Qt came up?

Re:MODERATORS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 06:13 · Score: 0

"Anyone else see where Qt came up?"

Yeah, the parent post

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by LightningTH · 2002-08-26 23:23 · Score: 2

Companies like to issue rpm's because the majority of people are using rpm-based distros.

This right here is what can make RedHat a monopoly as RPM's are the the standard way to install things in RedHat. Just like DEB is the standard way to install in Debian.

In the past, it has been proven that .deb is much more functional than the rpm counterpart yet .deb never picked up and took off. You can try naming off alot of reasons but one reason is that RedHat went commercial while Debian has continued to stay completely free.

So, does RedHat going commercial help or hurt linux? That is completely dependent on wether or not it tries to adopt practices that other distro's use, or, if it tries to implement things and ends up forcing other distros to make changes as a side effect.

We've found a witch! by Hard_Code · 2002-08-26 23:44 · Score: 2

May we burn her?

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Woody? [OT] by jpmorgan · 2002-08-26 23:48 · Score: 1

WOODY!?

What are you trying to do? Scar him for life and keep him from ever touching Linux again? But seriously, everything in Woody is old. Couldn't you have at least installed Potato?

Re:Woody? [OT] by moose_hp · 2002-08-27 01:00 · Score: 1

Couldn't you have at least installed Potato?

Last time I checked Debian (a few minutes ago), Woody was the lastest stable release (while potato was the old stable and sarge the testing dist. and sid the unstable)

Want new things ? install sid and apt-get update everything every morning (well i do that)

--
DON'T PANIC.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · 2002-08-26 23:53 · Score: 2

And yet again, my point is missed. Shall I try again? No... I'll let someone else explain it for me. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I. Here's a link to another post elsewhere in this topic which expresses the point better than I ever could have hoped to.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38735&comments ort=0&tid=110&mode=thread&cid=4145592

Now note, I do acknowledge that it is not entirely fair to blame redhat for this, and it's not my deliberate attempt to do so. This is really the fault of the 3rd party companies that assume the universality of rpm. However, it may be interesting to note that if redhat was not _so_ dominant, these companies probably wouldn't have made that mistake to begin with.

Now... rather than waste slashdot bandwidth hurling further insults about my intelligence, may I suggest that you email me next time? Slashdot is a place for expressing opinions and thoughts on the stories therein, not on the level of intelligence or character of other posters.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

what are you babbling about, idiot? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-26 23:54 · Score: 0

Shit for brains.

Yeah Sure. by broody · 2002-08-27 00:02 · Score: 1

Red Hat supports numerous open source projects with manpower and materials, hosts numerous other projects, distributes ISO images of their product, and supports the LSB. Yeah sure, just like Mircrosoft.

--
~~ What's stopping you?

Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 00:04 · Score: 0

4. Do #3, but SELL your distribution.
5. Profit!

All your base are belong to us.

Re: I dont agree by jmu1 · 2002-08-27 00:05 · Score: 2

Generaly, if you are using one of those "compile me" distros, you won't bother with the installer anyway. You're making a point that doesn't matter in 99% of the time.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 00:15 · Score: 0

So, does RedHat going commercial help or hurt linux?

It hurt it in my eyes which is why I won't use Red Hat in my workplace (government). If I use Red Hat I might as well just go the extra 9 yards and use Solaris or even Windows. I prefer Debian because I can ensure that American taxpayers aren't funding bullshit corporations. The software in the distro is free and open and they have made a commitment to keep it that way. I like Debian.

Backlash against business? by oldstrat · 2002-08-27 00:28 · Score: 2

I've got to say right up front. I own stock in Redhat.

I won't say I've agreed with every turn the company has made in it's business decisions.
However, How many distros out there have Redhat as thier base?
Who is the base for the K12 Linux Terminal Server Project (K12LTSP.ORG)?
Who gives me the source code to do with what I will, and allows me to put the OS they sell on every boxen in sight(and without a registration code when I change out MY hardware)?
It sure isn't a company from Redmond, It's Redhat.

To compare RH to MS is to elevate MS, and denegrate RH.

Re:Backlash against business? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:44 · Score: 0

"Who gives me the source code to do with what I will, and allows me to put the OS they sell on every boxen in sight(and without a registration code when I change out MY hardware)?"

FreeBSD. And I can update it for free!
Re:Backlash against business? by oldstrat · 2002-08-27 06:29 · Score: 2

And the topic was "Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?".

The response was "Backlash against business?"
It appears you are happy being part of the problem.
FreeBSD is not commercial, nor is it Linux.
I'm not saying it isn't good, it just has nothing to do with the issues.
Linux and BSD have nothing to gain from, "My NonMSOS/Nix is better than your NonMSOS/Nix" childish behaviour, and MS has everything to gain.

If I had to work in a computing world where there was only room for one OS vendor, I think I'd become a street mime.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by N3WBI3 · 2002-08-27 00:36 · Score: 1

Youre missing the point, RPMs will rise and fall with how people use them. I like them because I am a newb. Now I have had problems with them but I cant even get my damn cadet radio card to work so its probably my fault.

Anyway the point is this: if tommorow every software provider decided to use RPM it still would not hand redhat a monopoly because its an open standard. Meaning that mandrake, suse, redflag, whatever can impliment this standard in their own system.

The comparision to .doc is stupid because unlike MS, redhat has not/can not move to keep competitors (and in the buisness world thats what other distros are) from impleminting rpms in their products.

So long as a Linux distro complies to open standards (and that includes developing new techs like RPM's) other Linux distros can use their innovations.

--

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by N3WBI3 · 2002-08-27 00:39 · Score: 1

Hey chuckles, red hat is free and open too. and Bullshit corporations produced the hardware youre using, the telecommunicaitons lines youre transmitting over, and probably the car you drive to your corporate job (most people either work for a corporations or work for a company which does buisness with a corporation).

Dont we have it bad enough being in the same market with M$ than trying to pick a fight with all corporations.

Class warfare is the choice of the bitter.

--

IBM, Ha! by oncee · 2002-08-27 00:48 · Score: 1

For someone from IBM to make these charges, is down right funny.

Backlash in spades by X-Nc · 2002-08-27 00:52 · Score: 1

Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?

You're joking, right? $DIETY help us!!!

There's been a huge backlash against RH for a few years now. It's getting bigger every month. The funny thing about it is that if, say S.U.s.E (or Mandrake or Caldera) were the #1 Linux distro company they would be the "evil one". One of the down sides of the whole Software Libre community is that it has to "fight the establishment" so anyone who is percieved as being in power is the enemy. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say "Red Hat is getting to big so I switched to Debian/Mandrake/SUsE/[your distro here]." It's idiotic but it's true.

--
-- If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.

They are like M$, but in a good way by tekrat · 2002-08-27 00:58 · Score: 1

Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux? Well sure, but if your definition of Microsoft is: "Fairly dominant OS distribution with a good set of bundled applications that's easy to install, reliable and actually comes with support."

Now, as much as the Anti-MS faction is here, that's a fair assessment of MS products, and a fair assesment of Red Hat.

Is Red Hat a domineering, conceited bunch of bastards trying to send modern computing backwards a hundred years by creating bloated, buggy garbage that is marketed to destroy any competing and probably superior product? I don't think so, even though the above statement is *also* a fair assesment of Microsoft.

Therefore, Red Hat is like Microsoft, but only like one side of Microsoft.

But rather, I wish that Microsoft was more like Red Hat.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

SuSE is the Microsoft of Linux by Sir+Homer · 2002-08-27 01:00 · Score: 1

It's a non-free distributation.

RHAT != MSFT by kko · 2002-08-27 01:00 · Score: 1

Before ranting ask yourselves one question: how can RHAT monopolize GNU/Linux?
How can something that is free and freely redistributable in source code form be monopolized?
How can they monopolize Linux, if they provide the source code to their own distribution for others to peruse?
Having a profitable business does not necessarily mean stepping over other companies.
Besides, look at me, I have been free to try a bunch of distros all for free, with nobody behind my back pushing me in one direction or the other
(which is more than I can say about MSFT). I have freely used Debian, Caldera, Corel, Mandrake, RedHat, and Gentoo (and I have currently settled for OpenBSD, which I find lovely and simple, except for the disk partitioning, which is a bit weird unless you try to draw a parallel between that and HPUX's partitioning-volume scheme).
Some might say: "But a lot of companies are releasing commercial software that requires RedHat x.x!!!"... Well, maybe those companies think RedHat is a more professional distro, or one of their PHB's likes it best; in the end it's their prerogative to support whichever platform they think is best for their product.
Stop blaming it all on RHAT, and try to make your favorite distro more visible to big companies for a change (how? I don't know. Go figure it out). We're all supposed to be on the same side: we're all (free *NIX users at least) users (and some of you are developers) of free software. If we fight among ourselves, how are we supposed to battle evil MSFT and conquer the desktop-sever-enterprise-whatever?
Now, if I could use *NIX at my workplace, instead of this hideous W2K monstrocity (though you have to admit VS.NET is a lot nicer than VS6.0 and C# is nicer than C++ IMHO)...

--
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.

Anarchists and crack smokers. by uncoveror · 2002-08-27 01:02 · Score: 2

The only people who accuse Red Hat of being the next Microsoft are anarchists who rail against anything that looks remotely authoritative, and crack smokers who believe every conspiracy theory they hear. Red hat has nothing in common with the Bill Gates mafia.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.

Re:Anarchists and crack smokers. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:33 · Score: 0

Er, I thought it was all the Linux zombies that were the anarchists and crack smokers? At least that's the impression that slashdot gave me.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by mustangsal · 2002-08-27 01:15 · Score: 1

I'll gladly pay a company if they put the work in to "packaging". This is America Jack. Start your own company and set your own prices. The beautiful thing about Linux, is if you do't like RH prices, but like their packaging system, buy mandrake. Or stay with SUSE, it's your right.

--
1+2+1+1 || 1+2+2+1

More like Old Hat by alext · 2002-08-27 01:19 · Score: 2

I'm sure I'd be more of a Unix fan if I'd not worked with something like VOS. All the components in these fault-tolerant machines were hotpluggable, and all device drivers dynamically loadable and reloadable.

I think my favourite feature was the utterly predictable naming of commands - no umount here.

VOS was designed in the late 70s, based on the legendary Multics.

Anyway, the important thing is not to make excuses for the various problems we've inherited but to organize and develop something better.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by pbrammer · 2002-08-27 01:27 · Score: 1

What are you talking about?? The first place RH hits is FTP... What the hell is "live evaluation?" You aren't speaking of RH, are you? The FTP version is COMPLETE. Everything can be downloaded. Period.

Phil

Haven't touched redhat since Gentoo by Sembiance · 2002-08-27 01:27 · Score: 1

I used to be a big RedHat fan.
I used it for every server we were setting up.
But quickly it became apparent that it was becoming too comercialized and not geeky enough.

Once I found Gentoo http://www.gentoo.org/ I never looked back.

I never much cared for RPM's anyways. I always installed via source, so much better.

Slashdot: the next AOL? by wardk · 2002-08-27 01:29 · Score: 1

thought i'd scoop you on this story.

"There is a backlash against Slashdot from many slashdoters and slashdotees, who fear it is increasingly becoming the AOL of the net world with respect to its dominance and attitude," said Fullakra P, Fudmeister of Cluster pucks, in Gomers, N.C.

Embrace and Extend by gamartin · 2002-08-27 01:35 · Score: 1

Why do people use a distribution at all? Because a distribution makes life easier. Red Hat provides a valuable service by simplifying the vastly complex open source landscape into an easily digestible form that other people can leverage; we benefit from their expertise. Interestingly, Microsoft does essentially the same thing -- the whole Windows experience is designed so non-experts can get complex things done. In a sense Red Hat and Microsoft do the same thing by reducing complexity for the customers.

So what's the difference? Why am I willing to pay Red Hat money and not Microsoft? It's actually a hard question to answer, and surprisingly it boils down to corporate ethics and philosophy. The real difference is that Red Hat wants to be a helpful citizen in a complex world, while Microsoft wants to own the world. I pay Red Hat only because it helps me, but it helps me in several ways both short term and long term. I believe we are all stronger and have more and better options because of open source, and I pay my money to companies with similar beliefs. I pay money to Red Hat for my small business because Red Hat is indisputably more cost effective, more flexible, and more likely to bring about a future that is even better.

So what if Red Hat decided to pull a Microsoft and "embrace and extend" open source? It's certainly possible to add proprietary elements to a linux distribution without violating the GPL, so Red Hat could gradually lock people into a proprietary mode of operation and turn the screws. RPM is a good example of something that could have been evil but isn't. However, proprietary lockdown would not succeed beyond the short term anyway; odious developments would simply drive people to other distributions. The beauty of linux and open source is that all distributions have access to the same raw material. If I needed to I could fail over to another substantially identical distribution without incurring much pain. Users have choice and the freedom and ability to exercise it. This is the way capitalism is supposed to work! Open source breaks any strong symmetry bewteen Red Hat and Microsoft

Why is Red Hat successful to the point where people ask if they are becoming like Microsoft? Because they do a good job and many people like me have found them useful. But are they becoming like Microsoft? No. Do I feel locked in? No. I would switch if I did. Red Hat knows it could easily alienate its customers, and therefore must be careful not to.

There will be noises about Red Hat losing touch with the market, but something as complex as a distribution requires myriad engineering decisions that won't please everyone, especially as the pool of customers grows. I find it perfectly reasonable that Red Hat is evolving enterprise, general, and desktop distributions since there are obvious engineering tradeoffs and optimizations. I also find it reasonable that there will be other companies making different engineering decisions (Mandrake). All this is for the good.

SUMMARY: Open source breaks symmetry between Red Hat and Microsoft. Red Hat is useful only so far as it reduces complexity of open source world.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 01:39 · Score: 0

No class warfare is the choice of the privileged... or the subdued slave.

The installer by sklib · 2002-08-27 01:43 · Score: 1

I think one of the reasons people feel this way is that the redhat installer, instead of having a progress bar and some text flashing by about what package just got installed, tells little stories about redhat's origins and how great it is and all the crap you can do with it. That is just a very windows-esque thing, and I have never enjoyed it. I wish there were a way to turn it off -- cuz I really don't care what kind of beat-up hat the guy wore.

--
-S

Source by fredopalus · 2002-08-27 01:43 · Score: 0

As long as I can get the source code it's fine with me.

--
Jonahweb.com has stuff.

Red Hat is evil by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 01:45 · Score: 0

Red Hat is evil. They are quietly subverting the GPL, and telling everyone how open they are out of the other side of their mouths.

The truth is, they're run by greedy beancounters installed by the VCs. They're sitting on a little pile of cash. And they'll do anything to make it grow....except invest in the marketplace.

That's right: the stockholders voted with their wallets and sent them a $multiM mandate to invest in market leadership. What they have now is not market leadership. They have failed and defrauded their investors.

Meanwhile, try to d/l an iso of advanced server. Oops. isos are not required by GPL. Neither are rpms.

Wake up, people.

Re:Red Hat is evil by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:37 · Score: 0

How many of you idiots have even read the GPL it doesn't say free software for all, thats RMS it says you can do what you want but if you use GPLed code you have to rerelease any changes under the GPL.

Suck it up move on and learn more before you open your mouth.
Re:Red Hat is evil by RunzWithScissors · 2002-08-27 03:43 · Score: 1

I disagree.

I too was concerned about the fact that you couldn't download Advanced Server's ISOs, but lets face it, Red Hat is a corporate entity who's main goal is to, uh, make money. Quite honestly; people in our community (myself included) are cheap bastards, but if we insist on everything, every product, every service, for free then how are the vendors who supply said products supposed to persist?

Software like Advanced Server is a bit more complex than the base Red Hat distro, and EVERY piece of it is GPL'ed code. Now, you can get every piece of it from somewhere (Red Hat did) but does that entitle us to all of the work that Red Hat has done to make all of the components work together for free? I mean, Red Hat already gives us a very fully featured base distro, are we entitled to all of Red Hat's development efforts? I think not. I mean if you're really interested is making your own Advanced Server release and giving it away for free, download the stuff, glue it together yourself, and give it away.

On second thought, Red Hat not offering Advanced Server ISOs is not such a bad thing. They should be entitled to reap the benefits of their development efforts.

-Runz
Re:Red Hat is evil by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:31 · Score: 0

No, you have to release the modified source if you release modified binaries. If it all stays in-house, you get to keep the source.

RTFGPL.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Analog+Penguin · 2002-08-27 01:50 · Score: 1

No, he was talking about suse.

Disappointed... by RadioheadKid · 2002-08-27 01:55 · Score: 2

Well, so many people missed the point of why I posted the story. It wasn't to say the Red Hat is the Microsoft of Redmond, it was to show how rediculous the claims of the IBM VP were and also how UnitedLinux may not be a great thing, if it's members are going to be trashing other distros in the press...Oh well, guess I was much too optomistic.

--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson

Heh by RadioheadKid · 2002-08-27 01:57 · Score: 2

It wasn't to say the Red Hat is the Microsoft of Redmond

shit...to early, need caffine..

--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson

At least we can be pretty sure that... by John+Harrison · 2002-08-27 01:58 · Score: 1

VA is not the Dell of Linux hardware!

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

Ethics by karji · 2002-08-27 02:08 · Score: 1

There's no real ethics in business. Never was, never will be.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-08-27 02:13 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:14 · Score: 0

The goal of capitalism is Microsoft. It is the embodiement of profit.

Answer: YES by Whatthehellever · 2002-08-27 02:24 · Score: 1

IMHO, I believe the statement "Red Hat has become the Micro$soft of Linux." Why? Many reasons:

* Red Hat believes they are the only real Linux distributor.

* In Linux, it's Red Hat's way, or no way (See what they're doing to KDE in their next version).

* They're way too political. Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little lobbying, but Red Hat is the onlny company openly doing the heavy lobbying that Micro$oft does.

* Their distro blows.

Hey, I can sit here all day and moan and groan about the things I don't like about them, but I think you already know the rest.

I don't like Red Hat, I don't like their distro or their attitudes. I'll happily choose my own distro and be satisfied with it. After all, that's my RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Right, Red Hat?

--

---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.

Re:Answer: YES by jeremy_hogan · 2002-08-27 09:29 · Score: 1

>>>* Red Hat believes they are the only real Linux distributor.
Don't tell me what we *think*. I'll tell you.

Is it better to have 100% of a 1 billion dollar market? Or 60% of 10 billion.

We do not think we are the only real distributor. We think we ar ethe market leader, and the numbers prove it.

>>>* In Linux, it's Red Hat's way, or no way (See what they're doing to KDE in their next version).
Nobody's *doing* anything to KDE. We are taking the best, in our own opinion, of both of the leading desktops.

Note, we are still shipping KDE in 8.0, so I don't know what your point is. Perhaps you'd like it if we favored KDE over Gnome, or a hybrid solution, but that's your choice, not ours.

If we purposely borked the distro to make KDE un-installable, then you'd have a poiunt. If we weren't shipping KDE in addition to the default desktop, you'd have another point.

Package maintance, at the end of the day, is KDE's responsibility. We cannot and will not shove un0QA'd rpms in our distro or RHN, we don't have the resources to shipe every revision of every package. Who does?

The way it's gone down between us and KDE is unfortunate, but is a product of mistakes on both sides, and timing of significant realeases in the 6 series, where we began to favor Gnome, and did not like closed source Qt libraries.

We owe it to our users to make the best integrated solution available, in your opinon, and many others KDE may be that solution. So install it, we certainly aren't going to stop you.

>>>* They're way too political. Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little lobbying, but Red Hat is the onlny company openly doing the heavy lobbying that Micro$oft does.
Uhhhh.... so you think it's okay to outlaw OSS/FS? You think it's okay to forbid people to play DVD's they own? Well, I don't And netiher should anyone else. As long as corporations are lobbying against freedom and against IP rights, and making long term decisions about my access to such freedoms and rights, I and Red Hat are lobbying against them.

>>>* Their distro blows.>>After all, that's my RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Right, Red Hat? Yes. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Linux is the Windows of Unix... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:27 · Score: 0

Linux is the Microsoft Windows of Unix.

Fuq the duq!

FreeBSD, OpenBSD, IRIX, Solaris, Tru64.

Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:28 · Score: 0

To call RedHat the next Redmond is simply ridiculous. The communal attitude that is so common in the open source community is unfortunate because real FREEDOM is not "you can do anything you want as long as I think it's good for the community".

People need to learn that by making something easy to use RedHat isn't selling out it's simply spreading the faith. RedHat has produced quality software and have chosen to sell it and target large companies as that is where the money is.

As an aside to my rant, the crimes of Microsoft are not locking in customers into a given technology, IMHO. Customers can choose something else at anytime as long as a choice is available. In a free market the onus is on the customer to do so and to vote with the dollar (or the yen, mark, or whatever). The crime is removing that ability to choose by trying to illegal and unethically destroy the competition. Using vaporware anouncements to drive small companies out of business, using monopolies to block other technologies from working on 90% of PCs, and using EULAs to simply outlaw competitive products are the crimes. RedHat is guilty of none of this to my knowlege.

BTW, I am a KRUD (basically redhat) and FreeBSD user so now you know my biases. Yeah I know, "Debian is the real linux"...if they'd just keep up to date on Kernels and not be such a pain in the ass to install on a laptop I'd be right with you. Love apt-get hate all the extra time spent configuring a Debian laptop box. (oh and I actually love the Gentoo concept but I just don't have the time to configure more than one Gentoo test box here and there or to use it as my general purpose distro)

Let the flames begin but my opinion is that this isn't a vetable growing, pot smoking commune where we have to agree on the direction of the product. It's an open and free community where we let people do what they will as long as they don't stop others from doing the same and RedHat hasn't violoated those principals, yet.

People who are smart are snobs by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:32 · Score: 0

Wow, stupid people are getting so vicious these
days, they spend their time making up cruel words
for people who put in their time. If you spent half
the time studying your trade rather than thinking up
smarmy remarks to put down people who are better off
in the intelligence department, you wouldn't worry
about those who know more than you.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by N3WBI3 · 2002-08-27 02:35 · Score: 1

lol gotta love the lefties. Do they really believe this crap or do they say it to sound like an activist.

Fact is if you live in the USA you are rich, poor here is rich on more than three quarters of the earth. Now that youre one of us 'privileged' im sure you wont mind giving up more than half you salery in taxes (which 75% of wich go to social programs) to help the less fortunate world over. or are you really one of those people who think you have it bad.

--

Hardware platform by fdisk3hs · 2002-08-27 02:38 · Score: 1

My only complaint with RedHat is NO SPARC/ULTRA PORT. A PPC, SPARC/ULTRA, and MIPS port would be a good thing, heck they could compile it on a Debian box...

Net/OpenBSD and Debian have the portability market cornered. Doesn't anyone care about running the same OS on all your machines? I guess you can look at it as a 'right tool for the right job' situation...

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by ralphie98 · 2002-08-27 02:38 · Score: 1

I don't feel locked in, and that's because I'm not. I was using redhat on this machine up until 3 weeks ago when I managed to hose it up. Didn't have a redhat distro cd on hand but I did have mandrake. Installed mandrake, installed my programs that I use and everything worked great.

There is no way Red hat could ever be a monopoly. That rebuttal by Jeremy Hogan explains why. Popularity shouldn't be confused with being a monopoly.

--
I am a nobody. Since nobody is perfect, that means that I am perfect.

RedHat isn't ALWAYS right... by Quixadhal · 2002-08-27 02:38 · Score: 2

I don't hate them for that. In fact, I only marginally dislike them for the abomination that is RPM. The people I really hate are the ones who decided that following the "Linux Filesystem Standard" meant dumping EVERY SINGLE PACKAGE into /usr!

C'mon people... BSD has it right here. You put core OS packages into /usr, and you put extras that you install yourself info /usr/local. RedHat (and almost every other linux distro) tries to make everything seem as if it is "part of the OS", which makes it a nightmare to maintain.

RPM could be nearly as good as the ports system (although rpm -ba blah.spec will never be as elegant as "make install"), but it needs to allow for easier integration with non-rpm'd elements. Besides, it's hard to go wrong with the defacto standard of configure; make; make install.

Oh, and /sbin is for STATIC binaries... you know, the things you need to have work when you screw up and hose libc? What good are dynamically linked binaries in /sbin????

There, rant finished, that wasn't so bad. :)

corporations *want* an MS of Linux by mikeee · 2002-08-27 02:46 · Score: 2

To many, especially in the business world, it's a big selling point to say that you'll be around in five or ten years.

Yeah, this is huge. Corporate customers want a dominant vendor with just enough competition to keep them honest. If the corporate market takes off - and I think it's beginning to - RH will get 60% of it. That could be nice steady support contracts worth a few hundred million dollars a year within a couple of years.

At that point the whole market could tip - RH will have enough cash, not to hire as many developers as MS, but to hire as many as it's really worth having anyway. A couple years of that and they could flood the world with GPLed applications.

The tricky bit will be RH deciding which OS projects that compete with commercial vendors that run on RH they will back...

Why was UnitedLinux created? by MrJones · 2002-08-27 02:50 · Score: 0

Because RedHat won the Distro War.
That simple.
Also, RedHat was here before all of those 4.
Do I use RedHat? :-)
But, if I can download UnitedLinux for free, it
should be fine.

--
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt

Linux is the Windows of the Unix world by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 02:51 · Score: 0

Silly pinguine, linux is for kids

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Chris+Burke · 2002-08-27 02:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think I see your point. But I think you are in error. As has been pointed out -- and used as fuel for some egregious insults to your intellect -- one can easily change an .rpm into several other formats, including .deb and .tar.gz. Thus .rpm does nothing to restrict your ability to access the contents of an .rpm on any system. .rpm is ubiquitous.

Now, the other post stated that a Java .rpm didn't work on Mandrake... Assuming this person knew how to access .rpms (perhaps therein lies the flaw, but is .tar.gz any less opaque if you don't know about tar xzf?) then the only other reason it 'wouldn't work' is if it made assumptions about where particular files lived, or the system having particular versions of libraries. That has precisely nothing to do with .rpm, and everything to do with the 3rd party targeting a specific version of a specific distro, and is exactly the problem that the LSB was designed to fix. You'd have the same exact problem with a .tar.gz that was built with the same assumptions. .rpm itself does not enforce these assumptions -- an .rpm that I made from a .deb created on my Debian system would have Debian-centric assumptions in it.

Now, though using .rpm is not a 'fault' of the 3rd parties, the Red Hat-centric assumptions are. In the absence of the LSB, their market position is certainly what caused this -- but what would be the alternative? Red Hat is not so supremely dominant that anyone can pretend it is the only distro. Clearly it is just vendors not wanting to put the effort into supporting many vendors, and thus picking only the largest. If the 'largest' were not so large, would that change anything? I doubt it would instill the vendors with extra energy.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Absolutely by FreeUser · 2002-08-27 03:09 · Score: 2

I used to point new linux users to Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSe but no longer... If the beginner is even a little bit computer savvy, I wouldnt have any problem in recommending an install of Woody

I agree 100%, though I am an ex-Debian, now Gentoo user.

For new users that just want something that works, the distro I recommend depends on whether I will be doing the installation, they will be doing the installation, or we will be doing it together.

What is more, the distro I choose depends on whether they have interest in learning GNU/Linux, or just want a working computer to do X with.

If I'm doing the installation, OR if we're doing it together and they have an interest in learning GNU/Linux, I will give them Gentoo, despite its manual installation. I have had very positive feedback from that, the most negative of which was "It's an auful lot of cryptic typing, but the install documents tell you what to do and it works every time!" while the most positive feedback I got was "It might be a lot of work, but now I feel I really understand what's making my computer tick!"

If they are doing the install, or we are doing it together and they just want a machine that works, I will typically give them Mandrake (though knoppix is looking like a good choice these days) so they aren't scared off by the install. Mandrake autodetects nearly every piece of hardware I've thrown at it, which is the one thing missing from both Debian and Gentoo IMHO.

My sister's husband is the only person I've ever encountered who tried GNU/Linux and chose to go back to Windows (because of some stupid game he was addicted to), and it amuses me to no end how much trouble that has caused him.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Is Sun the Microsoft of Solaris? by kindbud · 2002-08-27 03:11 · Score: 2

I mean, they're charging twenty bucks again to download the Solaris ISOs for which all my Sparc machines already possess a license (yes download, not a mail order CD). The Mac guy on the next cubibcle is sounds like she's griping about having to pay for OSX downloads from Apple.

Could you remind me again what does RedHat charge for their product, in downloadable form? Refresh my memory, would you?

--
Edith Keeler Must Die

a "linux" microsoft, is such a thing possible? by Magius_AR · 2002-08-27 03:14 · Score: 1

Heh, when Red Hat has a single year of _positive_ net income, maybe I'll validate that statement.
(and i'll probly also be going "yippy yippy" with my hands full of shareholder cash).

Magius_AR

who cares? by belverus · 2002-08-27 03:16 · Score: 0

Who cares? We have MAC now? The best unix flavor around.

Jeremy Hogan Spokesmodel for RH??? by pauly_thumbs · 2002-08-27 03:19 · Score: 1

I think this is a good tipoff that RH is not like Microsoft...

Microsoft would never let a jeremy hogan do the talking for it's company and if a jeremy hogan did work for microsoft he wouldn't dare get into it with the /. crowd for fear of losing his job or being sued or reprimanded etc etc....

Nice reply Jeremy, you still have that 'sparkle' good to see it!

Re:Jeremy Hogan Spokesmodel for RH??? by jeremy_hogan · 2002-08-27 08:24 · Score: 1

Spokesmodel? That sounds so sexy....

It's good point you raise, I consider it my job in community relations to engage the /. crowd, among others.

Not in the way M$ pays shills to pretend they don't work there and/or feed canned responses to PR reps, but to express a real opinion in a real voice.

Darn few companies are willing to allow that sort of thing, let alone encourage it.

Divide and Rule by obdulio · 2002-08-27 03:24 · Score: 1

This is a Microsoft sponsored plot, to divide the Linux world.

--
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Tassach · 2002-08-27 03:26 · Score: 2

If it bothers you so much, write a rpm2tar program. Problem solved.

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?

Free? Not for me... by BobMcD · 2002-08-27 03:26 · Score: 1

I assume I'm in the minority here, but if I want to get Red Hat, I'm going to have to buy it from someone. I've been trying to download a working copy of disc 2 for two months (at 18 hours a try - only to find the sums don't match). So, I think, 'no problem, I'll just take the company's cash to Best Buy.' So let's see, do I want to pay $800, $1500, or $2500? I can get another copy W2K for roughly $700! Since when is Windows cheaper than Linux?!?!?! In the end, I found a site where some guy will send me the CD's for $30. But somehow it all seems like warez...

Actually, there is Resentment against RedHat by llywrch · 2002-08-27 03:33 · Score: 2

Although I'm puzzled that I can't find any of it here on /. (All the vitriolic RH-bashing posts must have been given misleading subject lines & modded down to -1.)

As an example, you can take a look at the following email in a flamewar I have gotten myself into:

http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug/2002-Au gu st/008350.html

(Sorry for the space in the URL -- it's an artifact due to /.'s interface.)
And feel free to take a look at the other emails in this thread.

Quite frankly, I'm dealing with a mindset that I am having trouble communicating with. This mindset believes that all corporations are evil, & since RH is a corporation, ipso facto RH is evil. And twice as evil since RH is ``corrupting" Linux. In other words, for some people, equating RedHat with Microsoft is a religious issue. They don't want to persuade you that it is, they want to convert you.

Another source was an ex-acquaintence who claimed that RedHat was just another example of ``glitter Linux". He claimed that RH was one of the most insecure distributions in existence, & that the only true Linux distribution was . . . Slackware.

Shortly after this proclamation, he also claimed that Windows NT was superior to Linux, a claim that I felt proved that either he was seriously burnt out as a computer tech or had sold his soul to Microsoft. (There were other signs that he had been wooed by people at Redmond & was drinking their kool-aid.) So I wasn't too surprised when he declared his intent to sell everything, buy a farm in Northern California & leave the industry.

None of these viewpoints reflect my opinions. Just trying to document the phenomena.

Geoff

--
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p

A periodic question by HiThere · 2002-08-27 03:33 · Score: 2

This is a question that keeps coming up. I suppose that it's proper that it does, as we need to keep an eye on the major players, but so far...
The worst thing that Red Hat has done recently is to remove the KDE and Gnome icons, and make the desktops look more similar. I consider this quite impolite, but it isn't even similar to what MS does on a regular basis. It was enough to cause me to go out and pre-order a copy of LibraNet, but so far I'm still planning to by Red Hat 8.0. If I still remember the issue at release time, I'll reconsider, but that's my current plan.

However, notice that I COULD have decided to switch on one day's notice, and with little provocation. This isn't the kind of control that MS exerts. This isn't even the kind of control that Apple exerts. I think that a resurgence of control by IBM is more likely than that RedHat would grab the controls. The GPL is pretty good insulation, and Red Hat is better than most companies at using it. (SuSE, for instance, has the YAST2 installer, which is, I believe, proprietary. Mandrake has a bunch of special tools, which may or may not be proprietary, but don't seem to work with other distributions. But Red Hat tools migrate all over the place.)

(OTOH, I wish that they would adopt apt-get for rpm. That's one nice tool! Much better than up2date. But perhaps they make a bit of money selling update downloads...there's some reason that up2date can't download from anywhere but Red Hat. [I haven't traced it down, partially because I've been using apt-get.])

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Tassach · 2002-08-27 03:34 · Score: 2

FUD. Nothing prevents you from using RPM on another operating system. You can compile and run RPM on any modern UNIX variant, and even on Windows (using Cygwin). Last time I checked, RPM was GPL'ed. How exactly is that a bad thing?

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?

The point by ii1yama0 · 2002-08-27 03:37 · Score: 1

Sure, RedHat may not make much releasing its distro for free and charging a pittance for tech support - but consider this: if their distro becomes pervasive and acquires a quality track record, it will come to a point where they'll be able to charge corporate clients pretty much anything for custom engineering work and consulting services, which have very high profit margins. RedHat has put together a team of very smart people to make sure that this happens ...

--

HelpUsObi 1

This is ridiculous by wisemat · 2002-08-27 03:41 · Score: 1

This sounds like the loosers in the Linux business who cannot compete whining and nothing more.

Red Hat is winning, but that is the only way they are like Microsoft. Most of the software they distribute is GPL, there is no product activation, they are not in the BSA. They are not behaving anything like Microsoft.

Even the idea they could make a monopoly out of Linux is ridiculous, because the barrier for entry is low. For one thing, the barrier of entry is low. If Red Hat somehow becomes the only commercial Linux distro and you are unhappy with them, then go take a copy of Debian, tune it to your corporate environment and sell it as your own distro. Also, they have tons of competition that is not going to go away from sources lik Microsoft, Apple, BSD, etc which make comparable products(Last I checked, BSD will even run most Linux binaries....)

This whole idea is ludicrous and attacking Red Hat simply because Red Hat succeeds.

I'm not a Red Hat fan by fire-eyes · 2002-08-27 03:43 · Score: 1

...However, I don't think they are the MS of Linux. A rather absurd assumption.

Until Red Hat starts performing anti-trust type actions, all of this is bogus shit.

Get off the bandwagon people.

--
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.

The Media... by vex24 · 2002-08-27 03:45 · Score: 2

Eweek, like much of the mainstream computer media, doesn't understand the nature of Free computing. They pick Red Hat to be "the next Microsoft" because Red Hat has a bold color scheme and a distinctive corporate logo.

It's all about brand identity to the uninformed journalist. They're looking to declare a "winner" in the "Linux war". I don't have to explain how silly that is to slashdot readers. ;)

--

People shape laws. Not the other way around.

Re:The Media... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · 2002-08-27 04:45 · Score: 2

I think that hits the metaphorical nail on the metaphorical head. The alleged "mainstream" press still can't seem to wrap its mindset around the way open source/free software works...

While I personally dislike Red Hat's distribution and think RPM is a tool of The Devil(tm), it's still another choice, and I don't see any way that Red Hat could "get rid of" Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Mandrake, Suse, etc, and regardless of any dislike I may have for some of their practices (e.g. GCC 2.96, removing the "differences" between KDE and Gnome [since in my opinion, it is the differences between then that prompt people to choose one or the other - making them the same makes the choice difficult for those not already familiar with them - but it's STILL just a CHOICE], and so on) their presence as an additional choice of distribution can only be a good thing, from my perspective.

In short, we already HAVE a "winner" in the "linux wars": the users, who have a wide variety of choices available to them. The press seems to have gotten stuck on the "There Can Be Only One(tm)" concept from all those years of proprietary stuff...

--
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend

Richard Stallman... by Vengie · 2002-08-27 03:51 · Score: 2

Just had the biggest boost ever, from every post that actually said "Gnu/linux" and "The GPL will protect us from this."

*dodges out of the way of stallman's ego*

--
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by tshak · 2002-08-27 04:02 · Score: 2

Let's objectively review the early History of MS:

They don't have the money that Microsoft has

Same with MS at RH's age.

and given that they aim for low prices

If you have any recollection to the cost of home office software and/or business software you'll know that MS undercut the competition with Office and that price has relatively held. I remember paying almost as much for Wordperfect then I do now for MS Office (OK, I don't actually have MS Office but you get the point).

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Jord · 2002-08-27 04:03 · Score: 1

You can do a full install of SuSE from their website. You just cannot download the ISO images like other distro do. I just installed SuSE 8.0 on one of my machhines the other day. Simple and easy.

--
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.

Simple: No. by tiger_66_y2k · 2002-08-27 04:05 · Score: 1

RedHat is not the Microsoft of the Linux world and it never will be.

Personally I wouldn't be caught dead using RedHat or one of it's derivitives because I don't like the RPM system or the fact that their startup scripts are bloated....but that is my choice.

Using Linux is about having the choice to chose something without being locked into some arcane EULA from some monopolistic, bullys. This is what makes this industry so great! We have the choice to use or refuse any software. Including RedHat's distro...

Also, all of these choices creates better competition and encourages innovation and improvement.

The point is, RedHat will not be another Microsoft because we won't let them. I have faith that the general public will also wisen up in the years to come.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by FooBarWidget · 2002-08-27 04:12 · Score: 2

I never said that RPM doesn't run on other operating systems or Linux distros, or that it was a bad thing. You're replying to the wrong post.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:14 · Score: 0

Okay, but is that really practical for the 500 million internet users on a slow connection? It's a huge market. Redhat gave up on it. SuSE didn't. And what sense does it make anyway, from Redhat's point of view? A geek with a broadband connection is just as likely to try gentoo or any of a hundred distros that don't have shelf space at national retailers.

My personal eRHperience by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:19 · Score: 0

7.0 couldn't compile a kernel, and the one I managed to build on 7.3 didn't run. 7.3 trashed the Gnome Control Center, forcing you to dig down through the menus every time you wanted to tweak something. (Unless you detached them, and then everything was only one layer away. But that's still not elegant.) They wrecked XScreenSaver by forcing the use of the Control Panel to configure it. (Unless you run "xscreensaver-command -prefs" from a terminal... provided you knew you could do that, of course.) And then there's the disaster called "Nautilus" which opens ~20 windows and finally decides it can't display the GNOME help. (Also note that GMC knew what to do with an RPM, and Nautilus doesn't.)

Basically, RH7.3 was the eRHperience that got Linux kicked off my drive. And all I have to say about what replaced it is, PORTS ROCK.

Re:My personal eRHperience by hyperstation · 2002-08-27 07:55 · Score: 1

gentoo? :) okay, okay...i know what you're talking about

The Biggest Difference Between Linux and MS by CONTROL_ALT_F4 · 2002-08-27 04:43 · Score: 1

Is uptime - my redhat box has been up for a week without rebooting. The NT 4 systems at work cannot go for more than four days without a crash or required reset.

Let's hear it folks, post your best Redhat, NT, XP, and 2K uptimes. What is the highest pid you have ever achieved?

Re:The Biggest Difference Between Linux and MS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 13:39 · Score: 0

Strange, I've had the NT4 workstations that I do development on running for weeks on end without rebooting. Why don't you try running NT4 on hardware that is HCL certified or something other than shit hardware?

Why there's so much hatred of Red Hat by return+42 · 2002-08-27 04:46 · Score: 2

Dyslexia...

RH: view from a fomer insider by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 04:54 · Score: 0

I was a manager at RH from before their IPO until recently. I did fine with the stock so I'm not disgruntled or anything.

While RH management would never draw a direct comparison to MS, RH has done as much as anyone to propagate the myth of their dominance. Recall that during their IPO roadshow (and their secondary offering, which was priced at $95) they were telling investors that their revenue would double every year for 5 yrs on the way to $1 billion in sales.

That hasn't happened, and it's not going to. These days it's looking more like Red Hat is just going to be....the Red Hat of open source.

Here's the problem. In its first 3 yrs as a public company RH has spent a most of its time positioning itself as the Vatican City for open source. "Our commitment to open source remains absolute" etc.

This is stupid two ways: as a for-profit venture, RH will never please the true open source orthodoxy -- it's a little rich for them to keep claiming the moral high ground.

Also, it puts their ideology above profit, which is bad news for their shareholders. Markets change, customers change. RH seems more interested in being True Open Source than running a profitable company.

No one really has to worry about RH because their own lack of foresight will eventually catch up with them. Whether you are open source or not, selling large volumes of tech product means having relationships with the kind of companies that BUY large volumes of product.

HP, IBM, Oracle and Sun all will make much, much more money from Linux than RH ever will ---- because they already have the sales relationships in place that are key to selling Linux into large companies.

I don't think RH will die out, but I do think their revenue will top out much, much sooner than $1 billion. They've already missed the big opportunities that were available to them.

RedHat is NOT the problem here... by dlapine · 2002-08-27 04:58 · Score: 1

And you blame RedHat for the failure of Promise or Adaptec to release open source in what way?

RedHat doesn't pay these clowns to write binary-only modules; they do it themselves, and they choose to write for the OS's that have the most market share.

If you don't like this behavior, don't buy that hardware! In addition, let them know why you're not buying and tell them whose stuff you are getting.

Blaming RedHat for the sins of others is not a rational thing to do.

--
The Internet has no garbage collection

Re:RedHat is NOT the problem here... by Marasmus · 2002-08-29 08:32 · Score: 2

RedHat sells these exact drivers with their Enterprise Editions. RedHat's action is both deliberate and profitable. They are targeting and taking advantage of a lack of driver availability in other Linux distributions. It is indeed extremely rational.

I have made it painstakingly clear to Adaptec that I will not purchase or use their products again, and I haven't for the last two years. Promise appears to be a bit more cooperative to the driver development process, and I'll give them more time before I flat-out boycott them. Nonetheless, I have already voiced my concerns to them directly.

In the meantime, Alan Cox and members of the Linux-IDE team work away at open-source implementations of the FastTrak RAID, which is quite commendable... especially considering that RedHat is his employer.

--
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".

RedHat Lacks CONTROL by Stephen+Samuel · 2002-08-27 05:16 · Score: 2

Yep, they're the biggest player on the block. Yep, just about everybody that releases a package for Linux will release an RPM. Yep, they sometimes make silly decisions that cause problems for users. Yep, they're trying to make money off of their name and recognition.

Nothing wrong with all that (except the stupid decisions).

Where RedHat can't be a Redmond is in the area of control and ownership. RH doesn't control Linux, and they don't own it. They can't threaten to pack up their ball and go home with it, because they've given us all copies of the ball.

Unlike MS, RedHat actually has to keep their customers happy if they want to keep 'control' of the market
They can't sue me for fixing their broken code
They can't stop me from distributing a version of Linux that has IE instead of Mozilla or Knoquerer as the default browser (but they can tease me mercilesslY)
They can't sue me for installing 137 copies instead of 130.
They can only convince me to pay them for support or training or for the fact that, in creating the distributions, they provide a valuable service that I'm willing to pay to support.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

Reality Check by TheLoneCabbage · 2002-08-27 05:16 · Score: 1

Those who say they see no difference between minimum wage and slavery, deserve to feal the end of a whip on their hides.
-- Paraphrased from the FISH (quoteing someone far more notable)

Yeah, RedHat is competative. That doesn't make it like MS. RH is a for profit company with investors, so it will do what it has to for money, suprisingly they have always stuck close by the OS crouds and keep on contributing. Dominanance does not make them evil, behaviour does.

MS could be a benificent leader of the industry, but instead has chosen tyranical lead, in no ones intrest but their own. That is the difference, RH is the Linux leader, but when they make decisions they still consider the consumer, and the OS community, not simply their personal desires for world domination.

--
I would rather be ashes than dust!

Divide and conquer by geekee · 2002-08-27 05:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh no, the Linux community is turning on itself! This must be a Microsoft plot to divide and conquer the Linux community!

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by DeathPenguin · 2002-08-27 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree. with RoundSparrow on this one. People always bring down companies like Redhat and Transgaming when they try to make a buck or two. These companies need to earn revenue somehow, and panhandling is not a permanent solution.

Maybe once Windows is dead and there's no more competition from MS, then we can focus more on ethics. But for now, it's about gaining the necessary monetary resources to fund programmers.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 05:54 · Score: 0

I think it's sad that we have to hate the successful in our culture. It's always noble to try to come up with something better. But when you are using something because someone is not successful, I think you would need to ask yourself why.

I think that applies to Redhat or Microsoft.

One Word: by otis+wildflower · 2002-08-27 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Mandrake.

The concept that RedHat could wield even a whisper of monopoly power that M$ does is a total fiction, trumped up by losers. Why? RedHat IS NOT A MONOPOLY.

I think it's a good thing that software vendors balk at using RedHat as their supported platform, and more of them should take the extra time to certify against a number of linux variants. Consumers should absolutely demand it.

I haven't seen a whole lot from RedHat that is provocative or bad-spirited. While I use Mandrake pretty much exclusively now, I don't have anything against RH, except that they don't optimize for i686 and up, don't have as many neat toys and gui thingys as Mandrake, and Linuxconf still sucks.

First you get deh money, den you get deh power... by GojiraDeMonstah · 2002-08-27 06:07 · Score: 1

And DEN you get deh weemen.

--
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005

perfect example by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 06:12 · Score: 0

Enlightenment was the default manager for years, then when redhat decided to drop it. It fell by the railroad side and as since been listed on their where are they now or inactive projects list....

Re:perfect example by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 08:20 · Score: 0

of course E is still being developed. Currently waiting for raster to make his mind about the evas routines. Once that is done maybe down the road E17 can be the spoiled child once again.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by redog · 2002-08-27 06:38 · Score: 1

Slackware comes with that =P

It is very sad by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 07:56 · Score: 0

...to see that slashdot is plagued with censorship.

Shall the geeks inherit the world? I hope not.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · 2002-08-27 07:57 · Score: 2

A lot prevents you from using RPM on a system if some or all the software currently installed on it wasn't already installed via RPM. That, my friend, was my entire point. The real crunch comes in when 3rd party software installers just assume that you have always used RPM, and then fail to work properly even if you have all the libraries and other packages installed on your system that it requires. Now while you can always convert the rpm's to tarballs, then the install program would also need to be changed -- and in the case of 3rd party software, you may not always have access to the source code for that.

The LSB won't help this problem... in fact, with their endorsement of rpm, it may even make things worse for people that don't always use rpm.

Now I acknowledge that there's a legitimate case for the fact that the closed source software is really the cause for being "locked in", and not rpm's per se... but as I've said elsewhere, if redhat were not so ubiquitous, they wouldn't have made that mistake in the first place. It may not be fair to blame redhat for being successful, but for someone who is more comfortable uncompressing a tarball, and using the linux mantra of "./configure;make;su;make install", being forced to use rpm's ALL the time just to use them SOME of the time is a real pain in the ass.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Response from IBM by IBMSpokesperson · 2002-08-27 08:09 · Score: 1

Despite what has been reported in eWeek, IBM would like to accurately state its position. We have great respect for Red Hat and the other Linux distributors. IBM and Red Hat have been working together since 1998 and will continue to jointly provide our customers with enterprise Linux solutions far into the future. We continue to look at ways to further strengthen our relationship with Red Hat and the other Linux distributors for the benefit of our customers and the marketplace. That said, just as competition between IT vendors stimulates the marketplace, competition between all of the Linux distributions has created a vibrant, dynamic Linux marketplace for all of us. We look forward to continuing to provide our customers with great Linux solutions.

RedHat and hardware... hrm... by mactari · 2002-08-27 08:10 · Score: 2

From the rebuttal, linked above... The point he's making seems to be that, sure, RadHat likes to be a big name in its field, like Starbucks or Microsoft or McDonalds, but no, it's not going to illegally wield monopoly powers. Then we move on to yet another possible reason why people might dislike RedHat and compare it to Microsoft:

That gets me a bit closer to the fear; a lock on 3rd party ISV support. Folks are afraid that they will only be able to get enterprise level apps on Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Linux Advanced Server. If that's the case, the question should be, "When will Red Hat become the Sun of Linux?".... And it's easy to answer. Right about the time we get into the hardware market. Current estimates put that two days after never.

You know, that's not such a bad idea at all. What if RedHat did get into the hardware market and wrote open source drivers for hardware that they'd patented -- and then would only provide enterprise support for these boxen? Sounds like a great idea to me, at least from a "free as in I still gotta eat" point of view. Pretty danged slick. I wonder if he just threw that out for some random reason, or if the idea has really been thrown around inside RedHat a time or two.

--

It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Chattah · 2002-08-27 08:10 · Score: 1

I would have to agree with you 100%. I like my software free like almost everyone else on /. but these companies that product the software we use IE: Red Hat Mandrake ect.. they have developers that have families to feed.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Nevyn · 2002-08-27 08:15 · Score: 1

This right here is what can make RedHat a monopoly as RPM's are the the standard way to install things in RedHat. Just like DEB is the standard way to install in Debian. In the past, it has been proven that .deb is much more functional than the rpm counterpart yet .deb never picked up and took off. You can try naming off alot of reasons but one reason is that RedHat went commercial while Debian has continued to stay completely free.

Can you site this "proof" that the .deb format is more functional than .rpm format, having used both I'll tell you two things for free, 1) they are both about the same. 2) .rpm files are at least 10x easier to create.

Also comercial doesn't mean it's not "free", indeed with the "non-free" archive in debian I wouldn't be suprised if debian included more non-free code than Red Hat did. The only non-free things in Red Hat's distro. that come to mind is netscape ... and that's because until mozilla was released noone would have bought it unless it included netscape.

Saying that Red Hat is a monopoly in the Linux market is both true and false. False in that people can continue to just fork it if they go proprietry, but true in the they do such a good job that a lot of people use Red Hat. Oh the sky is falling we are being ruled by competant people doing a good job ... Oh how we suffer.

--
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by guisar · 2002-08-27 08:32 · Score: 1

Is your comment an attempt at sarcasm or a blatant show of ignorance? I mean, have you ever visited RPM.org where the entire source code and documentation of the RPM system (not to mention the text of Maximum RPM) has been made freely available?

You guys have finally lost it by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 08:33 · Score: 0

Well, I'm just totally floored by this post. WTF??? The "microsoft" of "linux"? They are a business, they are doing this for a profit... why else would they have a company, why else would investors invest in them. Man, you guys really need to pull your heads out.

Kudos to MS for making loads of $$. You jealous trolls working for dot-bombs should kiss their feet for giving you an interview, if you're so lucky.

The microsoft of linux... if only this were true. How great would that be? A strong company that sells an OS you all seem to like. So it's bad that they are doing well?

I can't read slashdot anymore... if you guys want this to be a communist regime where everyone is guaranteed a job and business is "equal and regulated", go to CHINA. If you can't hack it in a competitive business environment, take a f-ing walk, but don't criticize great companies for doing well and dominating their markets, that's called capitalism. Get over it.

silly by strombrg · 2002-08-27 08:43 · Score: 1

Let's think about why microsoft is hated so much, then compare that to redhat.

Microsoft is hated because:

1) They drive other companies out of business with apparently no remorse

2) They're so irritatingly popular that people who don't want to use microsoft software are sometimes forced to use microsoft software anyway

3) Microsoft is a monopoly that has used its monopoly power to extend its power into other monopolies, which is illegal

4) Microsoft -commonly- mucks with proprietarism and embrace and extend to curtail interoperability

5) Their software is kind of sucky.

Now let's look at redhat:

1) I've never heard of Redhat driving another company out of business. Any labor of love linux distribution can survive fine, redhat or not. Maybe some of the commercial dists had trouble and I didn't hear about it

2) I was once forced to switch to redhat from debian, because a potential client insisted. But I could've held out - I wasn't really forced. I suspect I'm in the minority on this one.

3) Abuse of monopoly power? Are you -kidding- me?

4) Redhat once did something that could (on a bad day) be construed as trying to create vendor lockin - the gcc thing. This just isn't the kind of pattern of abuse that microsoft has shown.

5) Redhat's software really isn't sucky. rpm isn't perfect, but it's the standard. Other than that, IMO redhat software is pretty good, and shares a LOT of code with other linuxes.

In other words, redhat isn't nearly so bad as microsoft, and frankly, when people say it is, they damage other people's (already poor) understanding of the severity of microsoft's abuses.

Preposterous by KevinJoubert · 2002-08-27 09:00 · Score: 1

This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of.

Red Hat, Inc. is about as much like Microsoft as Linux is like Windows.

Red Hat is trying to make money. WTF is wrong with that? There is more than one Linux distribution that got its start and continues to remain viable by DIRECTLY copying the Red Hat product. How in the world can anyone compare THAT to ANYTHING like MS?

The bottom line is that Linux is Linux. You can make any one distro look like any other distro right down to the last character. Red Hat attempts to add value through whatever means they see fit, as does SUSE, Debian, and every other Linux distro.

What's good for Red Hat is good for Linux in general and anyone that doesn't see that is a complete and utter fool.

All flamers can bite me,

-K.

--
-K.

Apple reference is BS by absurd_spork · 2002-08-27 09:17 · Score: 2

Apple tries to move developers to a proprietary windowing system, incompatible with open source applications. [...] More likely, however, they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot, until finally someone integrates X11 into OSX more smoothly than XDarwin.

This is uninformed and wrong. Apple tries to get as many developers for MacOS X as they possibly can because MacOS X is their platform.

X11 cannot be "integrated properly" into the OS X at all. In order to integrate, applications have to use the OS X GUI. Any application that uses a different GUI is not integrated. Maybe it runs, but it will look and feel different and awkward. Since X makes no constraints whatsoever on the look & feel of programes, except that it suggests they use windows, most X applications cannot be integrated with OS X at all, except programs such as LyX which have a GUI independence layer or Qt programs as soon as the proposed Qt for OS X arrives, and even these only to a limited extent.

--

There is absolutely no reason to panic.

Well DUH... Of course RH is becoming MS! by emu_doogie · 2002-08-27 10:44 · Score: 0

You see kids, we live in a world of capitalism. In capitalism, there is the desire of a company to reap the benefits of its labors. In this case, while Linux is of course, and was created as, a free, open source OS, RH got its grubby little capitalist hands on it to start innovating it. They made getting Linux on your computer much easier, by going to the store and paying a nominal fee for the CD and the Manual.

Now, SUSE, as well as many others have taken this same step towards inovation. So, what is RH to do one may ask to stay competitive? After all, RH IS a company with employees and owners who want to make $$. Well, by golly, they will put some stuff in their distro that no one else has! They sprinkle in a little bit of RPM, and a little bit of anything else they may make on their own.

For now, RH is content to let others see what they have done, and change and build on it. However, the day will come when RH will realize that they keep spending money and innovating, only to have the other Linux distros come and "borrow" their technology which RH put manhours and $$ into.

Before long, we see RH, with all of its fancy bells and whistles that make it the #1 Linux Distro, start to get cranky about these other distros copying their stuff and repackaging it! Next, RH starts slowly, by putting a patent on the RPM format, and maybe some other minor things which other distros already offer, so it isn't seen as a big deal.

Next, RH sees a fledgling Linux distro company, maybe SUSE, maybe Mandrake. They see the potential and talent at thost companies. Fortunately, as one of the more successful linux distro's, RH has the capital to buy one of these companies up, and merge their technologies to make an even better software product. They now have twice as much talent, and twice as much product.

With another competitor or two out of the way, RH keeps gaining steam, making a user friendly OS that can actually compete with the no-hassle MS Windows. RH has established itself and turned a profit, and has a stable product that can't be found though any other linux distro. They want to expand on what they have, and start selling CD's and manuals to Dell and IBM to put on their computers when they go out the door.

I am sure you can see where the story goes from here. Just because an OS is free doesn't mean that it doesn't make a profit. Be DAMNED sure that the kids are RH aren't out there developing software for all of you nerds just so that you will think they are cool.

The owners of RH can be just as stuffy as any suit from MS, and why wouldn't they want to be. Its the american dream. Create, and Innovate, and reap the rewards of your labors. Turn a profit, make consumers happy and make consumers WANT to buy your CD's full of open source software.

Open source was doomed to fail from the beginning. It was a noble cause, but legal loopholes will eventually make Open Source about as meaningful as saying Linux is actually easier to install than windows. If you want to sit on your computer and crank out totally free software to impress a bunch of computer nerds for the rest of your life, go ahead, have fun. But rest assured, companies like RH don't need to impress nerds, they need to impress real life consumers, and they will. However, it will come at a price.

-Economic and Capitalist Realist

Red Hat Testimony by mikey_d · 2002-08-27 10:54 · Score: 1

I've used FreeBSD, NetBSD, Debian and Red Hat.

Red Hat is now my OSS OS of choice.

I buy their software, and don't download iso's because I want to support them in continuing to produce quality GPL software. Red Hat critics need to ask themselves if they want OSS to succeed - if so, get on board and support a company that's making sure Linux will become mainstream.

Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Scooter · 2002-08-27 12:06 · Score: 1

I always keep a stock of sticks with me to hand out to people.

Moderators by xQx · 2002-08-27 13:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Every article about redhat over the last 2 months I've said Redhat was the microsoft of the linux world... and been modded to -1 about it.

Now, there's an entire article expressing my view.

I wish moderators could moderate articles, so I could take my revenge apon thee.

dominance is the natural way of life here. by kentsin · 2002-08-27 13:42 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Feel the force, read the force and practice, Jedi.

It is just a netural way for IT business or development to become : DOMINANCE!

Linux, BSD, OSX and Windows were competing for what?

All that standards and protocols draft and abandoned were just part of that GAME.

It is DOMINANCE give the user the better LIFE and will give the business the better REWARD.

Why fight against the way of life. Why not go for it and be happy?

Learn the force, learn the force, go with it, do not fight it.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 13:48 · Score: 0

Who really cares as long as it is open source free and not Microsucks crapy, insecure, over priced, flambe shite!!!!

Where see IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 16:29 · Score: 0

I read the entire linked article and didn't see any quotes from anyone from IBM at all, let alone a VP saying anything close to what was presented in the abstract. Interesting that it was just "an IBM VP". No name given.

I would find it very odd that IBM would publicly criticize one of its own partners in the Linux game.

Re:Where see IBM? by kanne · 2002-08-29 01:46 · Score: 1

eWeek pulled the quote from the IBM exec. It was definitely there before and unless there's something wrong with me, it's definitely not there now. Since there is a (largely unnoticed) post on /. from a "IBM spokesperson", essentially retracting the comments from the article, I assume that IBM made eWeek pull the quote.

RedHat CEO by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 17:16 · Score: 0

Two years ago I made the mistake of reading a book by the CEO of RedHat about their rise to success. It was atrocious. The guy writes like a small child. Totally incoherent babbling interleaved with gratuitous genital gratification. He poked fun at the other Linux distributions, says they have names out of Lord of the Rings. Hey, dickhead. RedHat. Duh. Just shows that in the dot-com days any loser could make it, and this one did (with himself I gather).

nothing... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 17:41 · Score: 0

warning: initialization makes redhat from pointer without a cast

again who can send patches to microsoft?
microsoft is an anti-social programmer
there are potentially two sources of human intervention in computing, source code, and binaries. you can obviously circumvent both

4 engineers re-invent the wheel and slap 'em all on the same car, if you have 75 cents leftover stick an mp3 decoder inside.

It's not about the code or the free gpl versions! by towelboy · 2002-08-27 18:53 · Score: 2, Funny

It's about the politics of market share.

People want balance and choices - not dominance.

One example of RH monopolism is RPM.

RH used its muscle to insure that LSB chose RPM over APT even though APT is next-gen by comparison. Everyone who uses APT raves about it and no one thinks RPM is superior. This is one example of MS like behavior.

I can understand that RH has it's pride and wants to continue to support RPM. But why not offer a choice? We have umpteen desktops? Why not a choice in package managers too? Why punish or deprive your users? Because RPM keeps the customers locked into the RH market. They can't go wandering off to Debian or somewhere else. Ergo MS! Hence fear.

tb

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 19:03 · Score: 0

I used to use Redhat until I got a clue. Now I use Slackware and OpenBSD. Both great OS's for exceptional prices.

With regards to Redhat's prices, I think Redhat and Mandrake are asking way to much money for their "Pro" products. Their prices mirror that of Microsoft Win2K.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 19:09 · Score: 0

You are so smart!

Only explanation... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-27 20:05 · Score: 0

Gay moderator, took his comment about oral techniques the wrong way.

HOW DARE HE SUGGEST THAT MEN CAN'T SUCK COCK??!

United FUDnix? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-08-28 00:52 · Score: 0

are you kidding me? this is just some BS and Sour Grapes from the United Linux folks. FUD to create doubt surrounding the one big distro that didn't join their reindeer games. Sour Grapes because RH didn't want to play.

Just because they decided on a different plan for their business, which they are allowed to do, doesn't mean they are the next MS.

talk about using power to put pressure on another business, what do you think United Linux is trying to do to Red Hat with this BS?

please, i didn't fall for it when MS did it and it won't work for United Linux either.

As long as it gives us a choice by Zelig321 · 2002-08-28 02:14 · Score: 1

There's nothing wrong with RedHat making money and protecting what is theirs.

I don't mind paying for software (especially at the OS-Level), as long as I have the opportunity to make a choice. Up until maybe a year ago, there was simply no alternative to Windows on my desktop. Now, I have a choice to boot up Linux and accomplish pretty much the same tasks with it as I do in Windows.

And it comes at a price, which is to have RedHat establish some kind of mainstream dominance over the Linux market and pay for their efforts.

2 Microsoft is better than 1. And 3 would be even better.

Anyways, those of you complaining are pointless. Just switch to Mandrake or other distros. The choice is yours.

Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by PLBogen · 2002-08-28 02:21 · Score: 0

Users with slow connections deserve to pay.
Broadband is cheaper in most places in the US now then getting a second phone line and an ISP esp. if you are one of those people still using MSN or AOL.

No, it isn't. And it won't ever be. by cgreuter · 2002-08-28 07:50 · Score: 1

This idea of Red Hat being the Microsoft of Linux is a really, really dumb meme. Here's why:

MS got (and extended) its monopoly by always controlling the connections between things. This lets them play each end of the connection against the other.

The obvious example of this is their OS monopoly.

The OS is, in addition to being a big mass of software, the interface between computer and application. The thing that gives MS their power is that Windows is the only way to run Windows apps[1]. This lets them dictate terms to both PC makers (they need Windows or their customers won't be able to run most commercial PC software) and application developers (they need access to documentation and development tools or they're excluded from the world's largest customer base.)

And because they have access to the OS source code and developers, MS's applications division can use OS features that nobody else can. OS changes can be specifically formulated to not break MS software while breaking the competitors. (It's rumoured that they did this to Lotus with a DOS version some years back.)

Compare this to Red Hat. The don't own most of the software in their Linux distribution. They don't (and can't) prevent you from producing a binary compatible OS using Linux source code. Mandrake did it. Heck, you can make BSD run Red Hat binaries.

And, with all of the source code available, they certainly can't restrict your ability to develop Linux applications, even assuming they wanted to.

They don't have a monopoly and they can't get one.

--Chris

[1] Yes, I know about emulators. Sure, you can run some Windows apps under Wine or Win4Lin, but you still can't just go to the store, buy a Windows app and know that it'll work.

Aptitude by peter · 2002-08-28 10:23 · Score: 2

Woody includes aptitude, which does the same thing as dselect, but is much more obvious. Plus, it has minesweeper built in.

There is also deity (and deity-gtk), which I haven't used.

--
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)

Slashdot Mirror

Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?

664 comments