Slashdot Mirror
Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?
RadioheadKid writes "This article featured on eWeek asks the question 'Red Hat: Next Redmond?' It 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,' while Red Hat states: 'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.' Is this just some pro-UnitedLinux spin, or a valid concern? What do you think?" Such characterizations are nothing new, but a response on NewsForge from Red Hat's Jeremy Hogan supplies a counterpoint to make the eWeek article worth reading. (Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?)
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!
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.
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.
Must be a slow news day!
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.
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*
Seems to me that Gates must've read The Art of War.
Feh.
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.
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
Since Redhat is opensource they can't hide anything...if they ever go closed source they will lose many many people
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".
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$??????
Last I checked RedHat was still free....
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?
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
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
"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..
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
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'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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
"...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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
nuff said
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.
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.
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
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.
Make no mistake, Red Hat is a commerical organization, whose sole purpose is to make money and increase its value for its shareholders.
c e is the GNU General Public License. RH was founded on the GPL, which places significant constraints on distributors.
However, what could keep RH from devolving into another-business-that-has-achieved-market-dominan
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!
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."
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...
... 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.
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
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.
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 $.02
which btw will buy me 2.5 times more of the newest suse. Ya know if everyone wants this linux thing to stick around quit leeching their ftp bandwidth and just buy the bloody distro preferably directly from the respective distro's web site, so they get all of the profit instead of best buy/other stores here taking 3/4 of the profit.
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
Much like what happened back in the day when RedHat didn't bundle KDE and Mandrake did, the open source nature means that when RedHat fucks up (or more accurately makes choices that don't suit your needs), you can go with something else. The switching costs are minimal. How can you NOT be happy as a RedHat customer?
The day this stuff stops being true is the day I'll stay up at night worrying about RedHat taking over the world. In the mean time, I think the risk of say Gillette taking over the world is much more significant.
sigs are a waste of space
Here are the companies I'd rather worry about:
But the solution is simple: if you don't like what a company is doing, promote and use something different. I wouldn't use Qt or Apple's proprietary windowing system even if I liked their design.
If you are talking about the GUI changes that Redhat will ship with Redhat V8.x then you should know they made the same kind of changes to Gnome 2.x.
RedHat has good name recognition for a reason, they make getting Linux on your box simple. I am sure you can on and on again about your favorite distro and you will have valid points. I just love quick and simple net installs--free of charge--Microsoft ain't never gonna do that for me!!!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.'
And M$ 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!
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).
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.
Apologies for screwing up the HTML and not using preview mode.
sigs are a waste of space
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
*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.
Now *that* is a much nicer analogy:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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...
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.
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.
the Redmond of Macinthosh.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Is Slashdot the Microsoft of OSDN?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
But redhat also has the isos of their newest release availible for free upon release unlike suse.
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.
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
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.
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
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Well....probably not really. Actually I guess they do a whole lot of good. But slashdot is more fun when people have differing opinions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Legal Bits
Stall Beg I
Gab Sell It
Beats Gill
A Bill Gets
And finally...
All Bis Get
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 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!!!!!!!
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!
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!
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.
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
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.
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'
Nah. I'm not bitter. ;)
(Mod +5 insightful! No wait, mod -2 troll!)
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
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
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!
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"
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I kinda don't like it all that much - does that count?
sic transit gloria mundi
I think it's disgusting that someone would compare them to Microsoft.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
...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)
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...
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.
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???
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.
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!
They just don't have the same single minded commitment to evil.
Think about it.
(but not too hard)
You get Red Hat for free if you want, but you have to pay for microsoft. End of point!
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
RedHat open-sources their software they write themselves. Go pick on stupid proprietary companies like Caldera, SuSE, etc.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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...
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Doesnt anyone else notice the conflict between beginning and the end of this sentence from RedHat?
.. isn't open source supposed to be competition free?
;-)
'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.'
Hmm
Sounds like mr. Bill G:
'Our commitment to our customers remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying'
blah.
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!
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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."
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!!
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
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)
... 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. :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.
Redhat are in no way responsible for this behavior (maybe a little: they didn't refused to be the Oracle official distro
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
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
RedHat clearly isn't aiming for a Monopoly... ::Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?::
Did Redhat start from such roots?
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
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.
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.
Does this mean that Alan Cox will be running around on a stage yelling "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" any time soon you think?
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.
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.
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
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.
Now I thought Apache were the Microsoft of Open Source.
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)
Checkout the LSB website. RedHat 7.3 is LSB compliant.
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.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Total=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.
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.)
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
I believe that X-windows was developed at Xerox PARC before M$ put M$DOS out the door, let alone Windows...
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.
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
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.
...as many times as it takes to sell advertisement.
God I hate the press.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
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.
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.
Making Gnome and KDE
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
[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)
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
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.
May we burn her?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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?
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'
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
For someone from IBM to make these charges, is down right funny.
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.
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.
It's a non-free distributation.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
No, he was talking about suse.
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
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
VA is not the Dell of Linux hardware!
Lasers Controlled Games!
There's no real ethics in business. Never was, never will be.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
* 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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
/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.
/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????
:)
C'mon people... BSD has it right here. You put core OS packages into
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
There, rant finished, that wasn't so bad.
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...
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.
.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.
.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.
Now, the other post stated that a Java
Now, though using
The enemies of Democracy are
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
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
(and i'll probly also be going "yippy yippy" with my hands full of shareholder cash).
Magius_AR
I think this is a good tipoff that RH is not like Microsoft...
/. crowd for fear of losing his job or being sued or reprimanded etc etc....
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
Nice reply Jeremy, you still have that 'sparkle' good to see it!
This is a Microsoft sponsored plot, to divide the Linux world.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
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"?
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...
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.)
u gu st/008350.html
/.'s interface.)
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-A
(Sorry for the space in the URL -- it's an artifact due to
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
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.
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"?
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 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 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
...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.
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.
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)
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
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
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.
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.
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?
Dyslexia...
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
Slackware comes with that =P
gentoo? :) okay, okay...i know what you're talking about
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'
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always keep a stock of sticks with me to hand out to people.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ,
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.