Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?

Posted by timothy on from the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished dept.

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?)

236 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. They will never have the money.; Money == power. by RoundSparrow · · Score: 5, Insightful


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

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

    MODS: We were ASKED what we thought!

  2. No, no, no... by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    1. Re:No, no, no... by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly - some people likes to hate popular things, no matter how good or evil are they (things, not people ;o)))

    2. Re:No, no, no... by WhoCouldItBe · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

      And now that I have it set up the way I want, I don't want to change it. I'm lazy like that :)

    3. Re:No, no, no... by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Red Hat probably isn't the best distro, nor is it the worst. Still, there are a couple reasons why it is the largest:

      They offer a version of Linux that works right out of the box. Remember that while much of the Slashdot crowd likes to customize everything to the limit, most people are happy with most defaults. Redhat isn't the most secure, or the most powerful. However, it can set things up without asking too many questions; which is often a feature for someone new to Linux. In fact, I point Linux beginners to Red Hat or Mandrake for this reason: They are probably best off learning by poking around on a system with reasonable defaults, not having to make random choices when they're asked a question over their head.

      They're a fairly large company. They certainly don't have the cash of someone like Microsoft or even Apple, but they do have enough money to appear large and "stable". To many, especially in the business world, it's a big selling point to say that you'll be around in five or ten years.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    4. Re:No, no, no... by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      Which part of "Amigaish" do you mean?

    5. Re:No, no, no... by gr0ngb0t · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

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

      If the beginner is even a little bit computer savvy, I wouldnt have any problem in recommending an install of Woody as it is a much easier install than previous ones.

    6. Re:No, no, no... by dh003i · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

      I think its popular because of support.

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

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

      Not that I expect the business world to realize it, but being a company of any size is much less stable than being a community group. In ten years, Red Hat probably won't have gone out of business. But debian probably still won't have gone into business. MicroSoft may not have been liquidated by the government, but it doesn't matter because their customers will have had to replace everything 4 times anyway. Of course, there will be at least one maintained Red Hat-derived distribution in ten years, so the trust isn't entirely misplaced.

    8. Re:No, no, no... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Australian? Join EFA
    10. Re:No, no, no... by simm_s · · Score: 2

      What you are really talking about is infrastructure not redhat hiding things from you. Redhat needs to keep a consistent interface for everything. Thus they make things a little bit harder to hand configure, by forcing you to configure things via their gui/console interface. You can remove this and set up everything yourself. Some people try to merge their changes in redhats infrastructure and it causes chaos. To make a long story short if you don't like this use slack or gentoo.

    11. Re:No, no, no... by rutherford · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    12. Re:No, no, no... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

      They sell non-open-source software? That may be true (although I don't know any of their proprietary programs; can you name one?), but most of their software are open source. That includes the installer and all the configuration tools. Those are all GPL'ed. And they release the source code of their patches, including the patches for BSD-like-licensed programs like XFree86.

    13. Re:No, no, no... by fferreres · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    14. Re:No, no, no... by SWroclawski · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, this isn't completely true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      - Serge Wroclawski

    15. Re:No, no, no... by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

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

      --

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

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

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

      It seems that you have never tried to configure RedHat this way, and you are talking about something that you don't know at all. Maybe you are repeating what other uninformed people said.

    17. Re:No, no, no... by mgv · · Score: 3, Insightful


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    18. Re:No, no, no... by tauntalum · · Score: 2, Funny
      "...I've got a few years of debian experience under my belt, and installing woody on a new box was, to say the very least, significantly less painful than any prior install of it I've ever done."

      Installing woody on a new box? Is that a euphemism for something?

    19. Re:No, no, no... by dh003i · · Score: 2

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

      Yes, I agree it works and works well.

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

      --
      social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
    20. Re:No, no, no... by jonadab · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:No, no, no... by ceswiedler · · Score: 2

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

      When you say woody installed less, do you mean it did not install more? Or do you mean it installed less (not more), i.e. more? When potato didn't install less, did it install more?

    23. Re:No, no, no... by simm_s · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

      This is not an anti-redhat argument.

    24. Re:No, no, no... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

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

      Close to the same, but not quite.

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

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

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

      Another coworker tried installing a kernel RPM, which replaced the kernel but didn't run lilo correctly.

    26. Re:No, no, no... by iabervon · · Score: 2

      Actually, I prefer not to use distributions. My home workstation I built from original packages and wrote the scripts (cribbing somewhat from Slackware). I actually know how everything got there and how the scripts work. But Slackware is pretty good for getting your initial installation in place without making it hard to take over maintenence yourself.

  3. Loyalty is paper-thin by koreth · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  4. what this really means.... by brad3378 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Must be a slow news day!

    --
  5. Divide and conquer by John+Paul+Jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Feh.
    1. Re:Divide and conquer by Howzer · · Score: 2
      Seems to me that Gates must've read The Art of War.

      Perhaps you're right. It looks to me, though, that since the original (slightly oddball) comments came from IBM, that the old saying about them needs to be updated. Here it is for those who have forgotten:

      IBM, we're in the computer industry, but that hasn't stopped us from bringing you the very very best in F.U.D. since 196x.

  6. Sensationalism by GreenPhreak · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi
  7. depends on how you think of MS. by garcia · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

  8. Quality issues by k8to · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    -josh
    1. Re:Quality issues by FrozedSolid · · Score: 2, Informative

      I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

      Just a thought.

      --
      When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom
  9. Not Redhat != UnitedLinux by IRNI · · Score: 2

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

  10. Priorities? by Kragg · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
  11. Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupid) by hagbard5235 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I switched from RedHat to Debian about 2 years ago, largely because of a series of technical decisions that RedHat made that I didn't want to have to put up with anymore ( gcc-2.96 anyone ).

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

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

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

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

  12. How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by VistaBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by Monkelectric · · Score: 2
      You are exactly wrong. You have *NO* right to use/distribute/sell code that isn't yours. The GPL *gives* you right to do that, which is quite different from a eula which restricts your rights.

      If you dont like the GPL, you are *always* free to write the code yourself. No one was ever forced into the GPL, ever.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  13. Uggghhh by bogie · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Uggghhh by garcia · · Score: 2

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

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

      They went unnoticed as a bully.

      (note: Check my previous post, I am not against RedHat, I am just against your particular comment about them).

    2. Re:Uggghhh by garcia · · Score: 2

      hindsight.

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

      We only know what others want us to know.

    3. Re:Uggghhh by gimpboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

      --
      -- john
    4. Re:Uggghhh by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Interesting


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

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

      You have yet to point to a single action.

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

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

      Oh please. How about some proof and substance?

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

      In short, when RedHat begins to act like Microsoft... then this name-calling might be valid. Until then, like all corporations in the IT market, they deserve observation and careful review. But not labels.
    5. Re:Uggghhh by evilviper · · Score: 2
      Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible.


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

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

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

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

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

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

      Don't even try to argue that users won't stand for that. Just when we always think Microsoft has users as far over a barrel as they will go, M$ pushes them further, and they bend without hesitation. If there was any justice in the world, NetBSD would have 99.99% market-share (I'm not a NetBSD user BTW).
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Uggghhh by garcia · · Score: 2

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

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

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

      Connected or not we will NEVER know until the future what is going to happen. I am not unhappy w/their practices, nor do I think that they have even gotten close to breaking any laws. I just think that it is QUITE possible for them to be setting something up for the future.

    7. Re:Uggghhh by FrostedChaos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What would possibly make you think they are "setting something up for the future"? Do you think that they would abandon the strategy that has brought them so far, and which is their main business plan?


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


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

      --
      "Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
    8. Re:Uggghhh by droleary · · Score: 2

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

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

      Apple is dead.

    9. Re:Uggghhh by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2
      OK. Maybe I misunderstood your point. Lets track the flow of conversation a bit. The origional post stated, in part:

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

      To which you replied:

      it IS possible and it IS happening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      There doesn't seem to be any indication now that Red Hat is doing anything they shouldn't be doing. HOWEVER, it is to everybody's advantage (except maybe Microsoft's) that Red Hat be worthy of trust.

    11. Re:Uggghhh by evilviper · · Score: 2
      the big stink over their beta version of gcc


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

      Of course, if you don't like what I have to say, you can always just call me a troll, rather than attempt to address the facts, and hope a few moderators will go along with it...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  14. Red Hat gets a pretty bad rap. by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The deal with making Linux palatable to businesses is what makes Red Hat look so bad to people who aren't looking at Linux through corporate eyes. Red Hat, for better or worse, has become the Linux standard for business. Software companies that want to target applications to Linux are frightened by the type of support headaches that dealing with several distributions entails; so they target Red Hat instead. Hardware companies run with it because they've got proven support solutions that beat searching for a HOWTO anyday (provided you can afford them).

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

    --

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




  15. Open source means choice, every disto has a place by Longinus · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

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

  16. Third time's the charm by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

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

  17. Do writers make accusations just to get attention? by back@slash · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    --
    This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
  18. My opinion by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  19. Some ways to tell the difference by r_j_prahad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Is Redhat a convicted monopolist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Some ways to tell the difference by r_j_prahad · · Score: 2

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

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

  20. Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by pnelson · · Score: 5, Informative
    When MS was sending out audit letters to schools in OR and WA the first phone call I got was from Red Hat to see if they could help. When Eric H. was having trouble hacking RH's install code to modify their distribution to make it easier for schools he called RH and got all the help he needed. I'd like to see what would happen with a call like that to Redmond! RH has helped send us to conferences and provides free support to schools using Linux.

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

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

    1. Re:Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by ArsPolitica.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      "Anthony,

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

      --jeremy"

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

      I doubt we will see such gestures from Microsoft, other than to protect their monopoly and get a large write-off in the process.

  21. Can You Say FUD? by idiotnot · · Score: 2

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

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

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

  22. I have always been happy with RedHat by Kiwi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't much to say besides what the articles already went over. Basically, RedHat, unlike SuSE and Caldera (and some other distributions) is 100% free. There is no difference between the RedHat ISO images that anyone can download off of various FTP sites and the CDs for the core distribution which come from official RedHat. Unlike Mandrake, RedHat also makes official ISOs of the source. Mandrake only offers binary ISOs; people have to make their own ISO cd images from their source directory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    - Sam

    --

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

    1. Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by mauryisland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When was the last time that Red Hat prevented you from building your own Advanced Server from packages freely available on their servers?

    2. Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

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

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

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

      BTW, I use gentoo and mandrake, but this RH Null build looks interesting with a standard look between apps. I'll be playing with null tomorrow. :)

    3. Re:I have always been happy with RedHat by nzhavok · · Score: 2

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

      --

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

      An automated sourcebased install might end up looking like... a source RPM (or ports, or various other automated source installs). There's nothing stopping you from rebuilding many of the RPM's from source, which wont even break your package management system. rpm --rebuild is your friend :)

  23. As a non RH user by nuggz · · Score: 2

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

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

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

    1. Re:As a non RH user by nuggz · · Score: 2

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

  24. Re: When is the last time that you checked? by sharph · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html

    nuff said

  25. Evidence is startling by konmaskisin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Over the years Red Hat has stifled the competition so effectively that the number of Linux distributions has "declined" from 2 (Red Hat and Slackware) to 42 with new distributions arriving on the scene every week (Gentoo, Lycoris). Now they are actively sabotaging other projects by *gasp* changing their color schemes and graphics and paying developpers to work on projects that are used in dozens of their competitors products. ... Sheesh .... In other words: there is *no* evidence RH is "bad". They are an OSS company living by the GPL.


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


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

    1. Re:Evidence is startling by Papineau · · Score: 2

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

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

      A little more precision would be helpful for me, to understand what you dislike in it, and maybe have a different look on the packaging system.

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


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

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

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

      My point (obscurred by sarcasm, sorry) was that Red Hat has not done anything evil and compared to MS (and Sun and Apple) they are lovable saints.

    4. Re:Evidence is startling by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

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

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

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

      Is RedHat upto building a "off" distro again?

  26. GPL should keep Red Hat in check by pbryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --

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

    1. Re:GPL should keep Red Hat in check by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

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

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

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  27. What a load of hoo-ey by coupland · · Score: 2

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

  28. "Mod Parent Down!" and related mumblings by sam31415 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... I wish. Blasted flamebait.

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

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

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

  29. Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by X · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Actually, your whole critism about RedHat is why I love them, and why I love the fact that they GPL/LGPL their work. Personally, I was REALLY glad to have 2.96. It was the best, most stable g++ at the time. I'm not saying that people were wrong for hating it, I'm just saying that it suited me. And that's the great thing.... if you didn't like 2.96, you could do one of several things:

    • Install kgcc and just don't use 2.96 at all. Don't worry about the C++ issues.
    • Use another distribution... remember they have access to the same software
    • Build your own version of RedHat from the SRPM's and compiling it with gcc/g++ 2.95.x.
    • Do #3, but SELL your distribution.


      • Much like what happened back in the day when RedHat didn't bundle KDE and Mandrake did, the open source nature means that when RedHat fucks up (or more accurately makes choices that don't suit your needs), you can go with something else. The switching costs are minimal. How can you NOT be happy as a RedHat customer?

        The day this stuff stops being true is the day I'll stay up at night worrying about RedHat taking over the world. In the mean time, I think the risk of say Gillette taking over the world is much more significant. ;-)
    --
    sigs are a waste of space
  30. incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think the comparison is absolutely silly. Not only does RedHat sponsor a lot of GPL'ed projects, they actually make their ISO images and distribution available for download. I have seen no evidence that RedHat has done anything to threaten open source software.

    Here are the companies I'd rather worry about:

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

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

    1. Re:incomparable by jfunk · · Score: 3, Informative
      SuSE does not make available their distribution as ISOs (do they make their installation and maintenance tools available under the GPL?), although at least you can download the FTP tree


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

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

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

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


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

      Trolltech, in using the GPL, are encouraging more free software. If you do want to make commercial software, Trolltech's prices are very cheap, especially considering how quickly you can write apps in Qt. Ask any developer using Qt and they will tell you that it more than pays for itself. Also remember that there are no distribution licensing fees, so it will not increase the price of a device/piece of software, only decrease it.
    2. Re:incomparable by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

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

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

      I guess I don't understand what you mean.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So where in the GPL does it mention anything about ISOs?

      Where did I say that SuSE was "required" to distribute ISOs? I didn't accuse SuSE (or Apple or Troll Tech) of a GPL violation, I merely pointed out that I believe that their policies are bad for open source if they succeed.

      How do you come to the conclusion that simple framebuffer access is less efficient than X11? Do you even know how these things work?

      Yes, I do. More importantly, I have used X11 on platforms less powerful than what Qt/Embedded requires. There is no technical or efficiency reason for Qt/Embedded--X11 has a longer and better history of running efficiently on embedded devices than Qt/Embedded.

      Your monopoly accusation is also preposterous. All of Trolltech's competitors are using the framebuffer as well.

      iPaq Linux and most embedded UNIX GUI apps use X11.

      That's not what I call a monopoly.

      You need to read more carefully: I said Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux-based handhelds. They will probably not succeed in the long run because their strategy makes no sense for anybody than themselves: they don't offer anything lots of other toolkits don't offer as well, but Qt/Embedded is considerably more limiting than an X11-based solution. Unfortunately, Troll Tech will do a lot of damage in the process by making platforms like the Zaurus less attractive for commercial development.

      Trolltech, in using the GPL, are encouraging more free software.

      Linux has become successful because it is a reasonable platform for both free and commercial software and allows people to publish software for it under a wide variety of licenses. Without the ability to create commercial software for Linux without having to pay some sort of tax to one company, Linux would have been a flop. Just because something is, or forces something else to be, GPL doesn't make it good for open source software.

      Troll Tech wants to be the gatekeeper and toll taker for commercial applications on Linux. Why should we give a single company that kind of control over GUI applications on Linux?

      If you do want to make commercial software, Trolltech's prices are very cheap, especially considering how quickly you can write apps in Qt.

      Yeah, right, that's what people say about Windows as well. And with Windows, people don't even have to pay Microsoft to develop commercial apps.

    4. Re:incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Yes, I am sure. I have run X11 on 20MHz desktop machines with 4Mbytes of RAM and it worked fine. It runs fine on the Agenda VR. It runs fine on the iPaq using Handhelds Linux. There is even a pure Java implementation that weighs in at around 200kbytes of code.

      There is nothing "cumbersome" or "awkward" about X11. It's a window system that keeps applications safe from one another and works with a large number of different toolkits and programming languages. It is highly scalable and can be implemented with almost no memory other than a screen buffer, up to workstations with gigabytes of memory to spare for graphics. Network transparency, pluggable input methods, and a host of other features are icing on the cake.

      Qt/Embedded is a bulky and messy design in comparison, largely restricted to a single toolkit, defined in terms of APIs rather than protocols, much more limited in functionality, and more limited in the range of programming languages it can support.

      There is plenty wrong with X11--after all, the design is nearly two decades old. But none of the current crop of competitors come even close to improving on it, and certainly not Qt/Embedded.

    5. Re:incomparable by Arandir · · Score: 2, Flamebait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    6. Re:incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 2
      What do you mean integrate X11 more smoothly into OSX?

      X11 doesn't come preinstalled on OSX machines, making it difficult to distribute end-user applications. Also, the way X11 is implemented on OSX is unnecessarily inefficient, XDarwin is unnecessarily large, and window management has some rough edges.

      You "doubt Apple will succeed with this"? Do you say this because... no GPL apps work with the Quartz GUI?

      No. I just think that Quartz and Cocoa are dead in the long run as APIs: nobody needs another proprietary GUI, and Apple doesn't have the market share to force the issue. Most people will be creating Apple applications through Java, various X11 compatibility hacks, various Win32 compatibility hacks, or cross-platform toolkits.

      Apple may, of course, still keep Quartz and Cocoa at the core of their system, but that's more of a liability than an advantage.

    7. Re:incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Have you ever tried to fit X11 into a handheld then had it be responsive afterwards?

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

      Which of Trolltech's competitors does not use a framebuffer? What handheld had an X11 system to begin with so that Trolltech could "replace" it?

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

      If you're selling proprietary software, then you have to treat Qt/Embeddedlike any other commercial toolkit, and pay for it.

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

      But what's worse is that Qt/Embedded restricts choice--whether I want to pay for it or not, I already have applications using other toolkits that work perfectly fine on handhelds. Why would I want to pay off Troll Tech for the privilege of then having to spend even more money to port them?

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

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

    8. Re:incomparable by Arandir · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Qt is expensive.

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

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

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

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    9. Re:incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 2
      And you're saying your iPaq is more responsive with X11 than without?

      The iPaq with X11 is more responsive than PocketPC on the identical hardware, and it is also more responsive than the Zaurus running on comparable hardare.

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

      Troll Tech has managed to get Qt/Embedded onto the Sharp Zaurus. I'm sure that involved loss leaders, just like getting Qt into KDE.

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

      Well, then you can't have looked very hard. wxWindows, FLTK, and Tcl/Tk are free, and I have used all of them porting applications to Windows. You can use gcc or several other free compilers for programming. There is, of course, also Java and a number of other languages and non-C++-based toolkits.

      Go price out competitive crossplatform application frameworks of equal quality.

      I have, since before Qt was around. Qt's price and license would have been justified in the 1980's. Today, it isn't--if it weren't for the initial QPL gimmick and the KDE licensing confusion, Qt would never have made it.

      It still accounts for a very significant fraction. Like it or not, KDE has caught on.

      KDE mostly duplicates what other desktops provide as well. There are no KDE applications that are essential to anything.

    10. Re:incomparable by Arandir · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    11. Re:incomparable by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Am I going to sympathize with pay-for proprietary developer who has to pay for Qt/Embedded? Hell no!

      The problem isn't having to pay for Qt, the problem is that Troll Tech is using various strategies to try and limit competition, from other commercial toolkits as well as free tollkits. Being forced to use Qt is no better than being forced to use MFC.

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

      Qt is not essential for Linux because we have Gtk+ and lots of other toolkits. If KDE and Qt ever were to win the competition for the Linux desktop, then Linux would be in trouble. As long as they are a sideshow, they don't matter much either way.

  31. Recent behavior towards KDE??? by DAldredge · · Score: 2

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

  32. RedHat is a simple install, period. by toupsie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    RedHat's default install is not the one I use, ever. However, if I want to install GNU/Linux on a computer, I use RedHat. Reason? I can pop in a Net Install floppy, boot the box, and choose a mirror site for Redhat. About an hour later, I have the basic building block on the server I need. I do this both for x86 and Alpha -- never need to remember to bring software. A couple of trips to RPMFind.Net, a tweek of rc3.d and an update -u...that's it. You have a functional, decent performance server for your need...NFS, Samba, AppleTalkIP, HTTPD, WebDAV, FTP, POP3, SMTP, RTSP, X11, etc. Just go nuts tightning down the default install and you have a box that can stay up 365+, no problem.

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

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  33. Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

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

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

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    2. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      Don't think for a minute if Apple were in the drivers seat that you could tell the difference between Microsoft of today.

      Let's see. Apple licensed AOL's instant messaging service, MS tried to steal it. Apple lets Terra Soft preload Yellowdog and OS X, MS prevents OEM's from offering Linux, BeOS, OS/2 to customers that want it.

      Microsoft broke the law. Apple hasn't. There's a lot to tell apart, so I don't see how you could claim otherwise. Don't forget, Microsoft has been violating the law ever since DOS days. The way a company is run when it's small is the way it's run when it's large.

      -Brent
    3. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Drakino · · Score: 2

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

      Hmm, lets spin this another way:

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

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

      Apple has done just about as many nasty things as MS. They just don't have the market share for many people to notice and take action. I love OS X, but I feel it was only born out of competitive necessity.

    4. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      while MS tried to use the same AIM protocal to help unify IM as ordered by the US government when AOL merged with Time Warner.

      No, MS used the merger as a scapegoat to excuse their theft of AOL's service.

      Also, MS has been the only company to actually alert Trillian's creators ahead of time about a server change that might break Trillian.

      Everyone can play with their product was they wish. If Microsoft wants to use Trillian, that's their prorogative. However, if Trillian refuses to properly license AOL's service like Apple did, then I think that Trillian is at fault. Why doesn't Trillian sell their client, and then step up to the plate and sign a licensing agreement with AOL. Seems to me that would accomplish a lot more then whining about how AOL won't let them play, er, um steal.

      I've tested out the Trillian client, so I can't say that I'm totally out of the loop as to what they are doing. I just think that they should do the right thing.

      Apple has done just about as many nasty things as MS.

      I'm sorry, but if Apple's done anything nasty, they must have done a good job keeping it a secret. I'd have thought that slashdot at least would have been all over it.

      but I feel it was only born out of competitive necessity.

      Most things are, but that's a good thing in my book.

      -Brent
    5. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by PotPieMan · · Score: 2

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

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

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

      Oh, and if you actually read the requirements for the AOL Time Warner merger, there is nothing that requires a compatible IM network in the current forms. The interoperation is required for future IM networks that use video, for example.

    6. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      but this is like complaining people acess /. with IE instead of Mozilla.

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

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

      That's why I said, Trillian should sign a contract with AOL to be an official client and then sell their client. If they don't, then I have a problem with them.

      -Brent
    7. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      What exactly are they stealing from AOL?

      AOL's resources

      I don't know what hiwire is so I can't comment on that.

      Sorry, I was refering to this story.

      IBM doesn't want alternative PC manufacturers, so to try and force alternative manufacturers on IBM is wrong. It steals something that belongs to IBM.

      Try replacing IBM with Apple and you've got the analogy in the bag! At one time Apple allowed clones. When companies got a license to clone the Mac from Apple they were OK. When Apple canceled 3rd party hardware, it was no longer OK. Same thing with different PC parts. For instance, I'm sure that if I wanted to make a n Geforce 4 card I couldn't just buy a box of GPU's off the black market. I'd probably have to sign a licensing agreement with NVIDIA to use their chips, and their intellectual property.

      -Brent
    8. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why in the world should RedHat encourage ESRI to create packages for their competitors? RedHat has done their part by becoming LSB certified (they didn't have to do that, and if they hadn't become certified the LSB would be deader than a doornail).

      RedHat has gained their lead by writing cool software and giving it away. Most of their erstwhile competition (ie Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux) tried to lock their customers into proprietary software that they layered on top of Linux. RedHat, on the other hand, gave their tools away. RedHat's tools, and the RedHat distribution, became the most popular despite the fact that Caldera, SuSE, and others often had better tools. The difference was that RedHat's tools were Free.

      Personally, I use Debian Linux, but I am tired of all of the bellyaching by the other commercial distributions.

    9. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by jdreed1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hop on over to (random example) ESRI's web site (www.esri.com) and then tell me that I have a choice of linux distributions if I want to run ESRI software.

      Where do you see Linux products on ESRI's website? Talk about monopolies - ESRI does what it wants, since it has a monopoly on the GIS market - you couldn't have chosen a worse example had you tried. ESRI has a history of only offering support for Windows, Solaris, and the other Unicies (IRIX, DUX, etc). And now they've even punted that. The current version of ArcView is only available for Windows, and they punted their scripting language in favor of Visual Basic.

      ESRI, like any monopoly, will offer the bare minimum necessary to get the largest number of people to STFU. If they offer RedHat support, it's only because it's the most popular distro, not because there's some zekr1t n1nj@ conspiracy going on. RedHat couldn't possibly convince them to offer LSB compliant packages, whether it wanted to or not. They could drop RedHat support in a second, and they really wouldn't lose any customers.

      Yes, this was OT, but I had to set the record straight.

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

      My point is that as long as RedHat releases the source to any of their custom libraries we can easily run software that is "RedHat" specific on the distribution of our choice. It might require a little extra work, but not really that much extra work.

    11. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      I was speaking of the reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS which resulted in the PC clone market. [...] Its the same thing with Trillian.

      I have no problem with Trillian reverse engineering AOL protocol. I would even like to see a protocol compatible server that I could use on my internal network as a private instant messaging service. This is analogious to reverse engineering the IBM bios.

      However, as soon as Trillian connects to AOL's servers without AOL's approval, it is stealing AOL's server. It has gone much beyond just reverse engineering.

      -Brent
    12. Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      It is after all being used by AIM subscribers.

      AOL only lets AIM subscribers use official clients. And if they do it's their choice. For you to use an unlicensed client anyways is to steal from them.

      -Brent
  34. Re:Surprise??? by hpa · · Score: 2

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

    As far as KDE versus GNOME, you can change the default either for the system (and it prompts you during installation!) or for an individual user. In fact, being able to set which desktop to use (as well as which language) right at the login prompt is very newbie friendly in my opinion.

  35. Yeah right... by WhoCouldItBe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *sigh*

    MS has money. MS has marketshare. MS is an established name. Regardless of how you feel about Microsoft, how can anyone POSSIBLY relate RedHat and Microsoft this way?

    Quite simply RedHat just doesn't have the power to be a Microsoft-like company. They don't have the money, they don't have the resources, and they sure as hell don't have the marketshare. Maybe they're the leader of the commercial Linux pack, but so what? Don't get me wrong - I like Linux. I use Linux. But don't expect me to believe that RedHat is going to be able to force computer companies to bundle Linux with them. Last I heard, the PC companies we're cutting back on bundled Linux!

    Maybe RedHat is adding some proprietary stuff, or plans to in the future for whatever reason (clusters etc - I don't know). Well all I can say about that is 'DUH!' News flash folks - their business model revolves around a free OS, they've got to pay the bills somehow. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't work for free.

    But anyway if RedHat is able to become successful, then more power to them. And if you don't like it, give your money to someone else.

    1. Re:Yeah right... by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      Last I heard, the PC companies we're cutting back on bundled Linux!

      Wasn't this because Microsoft was again choosing for the customer what they should buy?

      -Brent
  36. RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by ukryule · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From Jeremy Hogan's reply in Newsforge:
    It seems like a week can't go by where someone doesn't fling the "Microsoft of Linux" accusation at Red Hat. ... Why not "The Starbucks of Linux?"

    Now *that* is a much nicer analogy:
    • They have a recognisable brand
    • You can buy from them almost anywhere nowadays
    • The cost of the ingredients is a tiny part of the overall price
    • It isn't much better than the competition, but it's nicely packaged
    • If you know what you're doing you can make a much better version yourself
    • I can stop using them anytime I want (hah! At least I tell myself that ...)
    1. Re:RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      good lord.

      open a starbucks franchise just made my list of things to do if I ever lose my mind.

      I read a few years back out McDonalds franchise owners complaining about the competition between the various mcdonalds - hell...they have it easy compared to this.

    2. Re:RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by hey! · · Score: 2

      Hmmm. Does this mean I can walk into the Red Hat offices, plug in my laptop and use them as my alternate office?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  37. Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by da3dAlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gather 'round and listen kiddies, I'm putting up some karma points on this one. Seeing as how this SEEMS to be an article to generate FUD about RedHat, I'm putting my neck out here and saying "get over the distro wars". Now listen...

    I'd like to tell a short story about a conversation I had with a fellow linux enthusiast at one of the ALS conferences years ago. (This was back when it was still the ATLANTA Linux Showcase, but I digress). Anyway, I was speaking to someone at the Debian booth, as I had told him that I was curious about switching to Debian. He asked, "why do you want to switch?", to which my best reply was, everyone else on Slashdot is doing it, why not I? Given that there seems to be the fairly LARGE camps of Debian users vs RedHat users I wanted to see what was so great about the other side (btw, other distro users, please don't flame me that I left you out). This fella (sorry, forgot his name) asked me what I currently used, and how well I knew it. I said I've been using RedHat since roughly a year after I started with Slackware linux, and I had gotten to know RedHat pretty well. He then told me that there's no reason to switch if I'm comfortable with what I'm using.

    That's actually the bulk of the story. I never ended up trying Debian, but I did think about what he said, usually whenever these discussions arise about who's got the better distro. The point I think I'm trying to make here, is that it doesn't matter what other people think of the distro, as long as it's what you feel comfortable with. If Debian (or whatever) works for you, then keep using it. Don't go switch because so-and-so says theirs is better. At least you're running Linux--you've shed the shackles of Redmond, so why keep bitching about what's better on this side of the fence? Honestly, RedHat still seems to listen to it's user base, and that's what matters. The day that any distro developers stop listening, is the day they trully become like Microsoft.

    I can say more, but I'll see what kind of response this generates first.

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    1. Re:Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by da3dAlus · · Score: 2

      You hit right on the idea that I've had all along. I started using RedHat a LONG time ago, and I've just stuck with it. Does that make me mindless follower or a zealot for RedHat? I don't think so. Just because it became a popular distro is no reason to bash the company or even the users. If RedHat completely screws the pooch on any of their upcomming releases, will I or even others switch? Probably. I've just never understood the mentallity that when something becomes and icon, as you say, that it suddenly becomes the root of all that's evil (or maybe that's just the nature of this Slashdot crowd). Just because a bunch of people like a distro, doesn't mean that it should be the one and only. Like I said, if you like it, and it works, why change? When people or companies have had their fill of any product that does not meet their expectations, they will search for a better alternative (or at least that's the way it has worked with every Linux shop I've been a part of).

      --

      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    2. Re:Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      He then told me that there's no reason to switch if I'm comfortable with what I'm using.

      The same thing can apply to the use of another OS, you know. When you start throwing reason around here on /., your gonna get slapped at some point.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  38. I-don't-get-it by mgeneral · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is it with the bashing of successful companies???
    Ok, so at one time, Microsoft was a little startup...without much technical inguinuity...albeit...but they were the underdog against the bohemeth IBM. Now they are they enemy.
    So another underdog comes to the table, and they are becoming enormesly successful in their industry. And we have to bash them? Calling them the "microsoft" of their industry?
    This is riduculous.
    Redhat is a great company. They adhere to standards. They continue to release GPL code. They have introduced more people to Linux than probably all other players combined. In fact, in my industry (systems integration), 3 or 4 years ago, my customers wouldn't touch Linux. Now, when I tell them I'm installing RedHat, they can put a name behind the product and somehow they feel better about it. Today, in certian situations, I can bring Linux in-house to organizations that would have otherwise balked at my proposals a few years ago. In fact, I attribute this to the success of Redhat for creating a solid organization that backs the very code so many of you are working on. A company that the "C" people (ceo's, cfo's, etc) can identify with and trust.
    Just because they are successful doesn't mean that they are evil.

    --

    Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses.
  39. Re:Red Hat? Hah! by Vinum · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I guess my point is...

    It doesn't matter if you LIKE redhat or not, support them damnit. People like them are the few that might accomplish the goals we all really want. Hell... type emacs on a command prompt, and hit Ctrl-H then Ctrl-P

  40. Red Hat's position seems more believable by SoftwareJanitor · · Score: 2

    After reading both articles, I think that Red Hat's arguments make more sense. Given that both points of view are obviously biased, and both are stated fairly well, my opinion is based on the points as presented. And FWIW, I use Mandrake on most of my boxes and have used SuSE and Caldera fairly extensively in the past. While I like a lot of things about SuSE, and liked Caldera's distro in the days I was using it (Network Desktop 1.0 to 1.3 distros), Red Hat certainly has had more of a history in allowing free downloads of their software and releasing their software as open source than either of those two. I've also not seen any credible allegations of anti-competitive or other illegal or unethical actions on Red Hat's part, so until I see otherwise I think it a bit unfair to compare them to Microsoft.

  41. Oh come on... by JustinHoMi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gimme a break! Redhat is competing primary against MICROSOFT, not other linux vendors. They're doing what they're doing for the best of the linux and open source communities. If we have division b/n these communities, then it's only going to hurt ourselves.

    Justin

  42. The fruit... by sterno · · Score: 2

    From the newsforge commentary:
    Microsoft tried, and was forced to become criminal in its activities to do so. Who would willingly do that again? What true long term gain is there in feeding your own girth without advancing your product line or its merits? What fruit is there in eating at your own customers?
    Um, let's try huge piles of cash. You can criticize the morality and legality of what they've done but it's hard to argue the fact that nobody's going to jail and all the big players have made immense fortunes. And do they have trouble sleeping at night? No, I guarantee you that they all feel that having a unifying unquestioned platform for all people to run on their computers is a wonderful service for humanity (and that point does have merit).

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:The fruit... by foonf · · Score: 2
      No, I guarantee you that they all feel that having a unifying unquestioned platform for all people to run on their computers is a wonderful service for humanity (and that point does have merit).

      Maybe they'll say this now, but I think a look at Microsoft's pre-1995 history suggests that this has not been their primary motivation. They began selling development tools for multiple, incompatible environments in the 1970s, sold/supported multiple operating systems in the 1980s (DOS/Windows, Xenix and OS2) and ported their software to others including the Macintosh. They were ready to support multiple, non-binary compatible processor architectures with Windows NT (x86, MIPS, PPC and Alpha), but the open hardware needed to run the MIPS and PPC versions never took off and the Alpha didn't ever achieve significant market share. To this day they support Macintosh versions of most of their core office software. Microsoft wants to make money, period, and they will do what they have to.
      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  43. Those dirty rotten bastards! by jpl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's show those evil (evil I say!) bastards at RH. Everyone post an ISO image of their software on the internet! Make copies or said ISOs and sell them for profit! Ha!

    Then, use their software on *all* your machines at work, and don't pay them a red cent! Ha!

    Oh, wait a minute...

  44. Not as bad as the real MS, but yes, they are by Panoramix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comparing RH to Microsoft sounds to me a bit harsh for the hats, but...

    My company has recently been involved in several projects using Linux -- some from quite unlikely customers, such as the long-time Microsoft buddy that has The Way Out... but that's another story. Anyway, their consultors were pretty much learning to use Linux on the fly, and they have zero Unix background. They of course use RedHat, and they did succeed in installing a couple of Linux systems, which ended up being, well... somewhat imperfect.

    Alright, yes, they were ugly and insecure and just crap overall. But then again, they were learning, so I don't blame them. I just think that they shouldn't be able to install such systems. Or at least believe that the machines were tip-top and running smoothly.

    To rant even further, the thing that bothers me most about Microsoft is the idiotizing effect that has on their users. I'm sick of people mailing me 2MB worth of word documents every other day, given that my net link is rather small and I don't use Windows -- but they don't even know what they're doing. They just pressed a colourful and friendly button and poof, off it went. I just stopped trying to explain that I don't even run Windows, which makes reading their docs a pita for me.

    It's like the people that just double-click on executable attachments in their mail, to get the cute sheep on their desktop (and the nasty trojan on their disk). Filtering content and babysitting software for such users is, imho, a battle lost before it starts. Fighting this requires only common sense and a bit of computer knowledge --surely no more that the bit of training you need for operating a car. If using a computer required even a small bit of computer knowledge, most of these things wouldn't happen.

    But anyway, I don't blame computer-illiterate users for this state of things. I do blame companies such as Microsoft that actually encourage this ignorance by struggling to build software that even an idiot can use.

    And on that account, yes, I do consider RedHat as the Microsoft of Linux, and I do hold a certain amount of disgust and resentment for their practices.

  45. Er... by Sj0 · · Score: 2

    It's almost like a "MS Scare". Just like mcarthyism, if anyone even expresses the ideas of MS, they are pointed at and singled out.
    My philosophy: I like Red Hat Linux 7.3 because it's a solid piece of software. I got Red Hat Linux for free, from ftp.redhat.com. Nobody at Red Hat has attempted to take away my rights, and indeed, they have fought for them.

    I believe the common phrase is "bitch, whine, moan complain. That's all I ever hear from you!"

    --
    It's been a long time.
  46. Apple is by News+for+nerds · · Score: 2, Funny

    the Redmond of Macinthosh.

  47. redhat is real ultimate power by Adler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    i've tried mandrake, debian, slackware, Suse, Nomad, turbolinux, and a few more and i always come back to redhat, its IMHO more focused on what they have to do. They release one version and rather than switch to making the next release they support the current release for a year or 2 trying to make it better rather than the "it will be fixed in the next release."

    i gave it to a MS only tech who had been trying many other distros most of which he was unable to get to even install, he didn't use redhat because he heard it was bloated, insecure and unstable. and it installed perfectly the first time and he's stuck with it.

    its only flaw is (again my opinion) if you dont do a custom package selection install you get too much of the same thing, a couple different image viewers, email clients, mp3 players, image editors and so on. so if you wanna claim they're like MS the only way you'll win that argument is that they bundle software with their OS.

    --

    Everybody denies I am a genius--but nobody ever called me one!

  48. Some leverage by rhysweatherley · · Score: 5, Interesting
    RedHat does have some leverage here. For example, giving preferential positioning to icons for their own applications in RedHat 27.2. MS got slapped for that just recently.

    But there is a difference. MS used contracts and stand-over tactics with OEM's to prevent the icons from being changed. In RedHat's case, the GPL acts as a counter-balancing force.

    While they continue to GPL everything they do, the license makes it legal for an OEM to apply a "mod kit RPM" that modifies the RedHat distro however they want.

    Also, unlike MS, RedHat cannot say "fine, we will withdraw your license". The minute they tried that, the OEM's would fork the code and tell RedHat to get lost.

    RedHat will only survive so long as they provide a useful service. They are dead the moment they stop.

    UnitedLinux would be better off copying RedHat than trying to re-invent the glory days of proprietry Unix where vendors lorded it over users and _all_ Unix distributions sucked.

    1. Re:Some leverage by Lxy · · Score: 2

      For example, giving preferential positioning to icons for their own applications in RedHat 27.2

      More proof that they're Microsoft. Just after I got 7.3 downloaded, 27.2 is available. Sheesh.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
  49. Arr. by psicE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Arr.

    There's a fundamental difference between RedHat and Microsoft. It has nothing to with the relative size, or position in the market. It has nothing to do with the current employees at RedHat. It has nothing to do with the business model. It doesn't even have anything to do with the GPL.

    No, the fundamental difference between RedHat and Microsoft is that RedHat is standards-compliant. Compile one piece of software on RedHat, and you can run it on most any Linux distro. If you can't, you can get compatibility libraries so you can. All for free.

    This means that vendor dependence is no more. Anyone can use RedHat for a while, then if Mandrake offers a better deal, they can switch on the spot. No buying new applications, or hardware, or support contracts; everything stays the same, except the distributor.

    This means that RedHat can't do "embrace and extend." If they do, people can switch distros instantly, and RedHat's dominance will be gone. RedHat only remains dominant because they offer a good product; and as Mandrake's offering gets better, its marketshare rises on the charts. If RedHat's tops, it's because it's good software. Period.

  50. Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    So, in a sense, RedHat has become the next Windows. It is synonymous with the concept of Linux.

    Are you implying that Windows is bad? I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad. If Microsoft would sell Windows on it's own virtues, instead of selling it by preventing consumers from buying what they want, Microsoft would not have it's anti-trust troubles.

    Red Hat may be the front and center trademark in the Linux field. But they are selling it on it's own virtues, not by prevents other distributions a place in the market.

    -Brent
  51. From a Debian Advocates POV, NO! by dh003i · · Score: 2

    I'm an advocate and user of Debian.

    And my answer to this question -- is RedHat the MS of Linux -- is a resounding NO.

    RedHat may not be perfect. There are some trademark issues, and it isn't perfectly devout in the OSS / FS philosophy. But they are pretty strong in their OSS / FS philosophy.

    There are some other minor moral issues. In terms of morality for a software developing organization, Debian has one of the best standards in their Social Contract. RedHat doesn't quite live up to that, but they are pretty damn good. They are certainly a far far cry from MS.

    There are other technical issues that make me prefer Debian over RedHat (namely, Debian's superiority in terms of stability/security, and lack of bloat, and superior performance). However, these are not moral issues; and the moral issues which one can criticize RedHat for are rather minor.

    Put another way, Debian, FSF, OSI, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc., are like the Ghandi's, Mother Teresa's, Mandela's, and ML King's of the software world. MS is like the Hitler of the software world. Would you really place RedHat in MS' category? Granted, they don't belong in the saint category either; but perhaps an appropriate analogy would be Winston Churchill.

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  52. In other news... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

    It has been reported that there is a backlash against Slashdot as many believe it is becoming the Microsoft of Geek websites.

    --

    can't sleep slashdot will eat me
  53. or maybe... by dirvish · · Score: 2

    Is Slashdot the Microsoft of OSDN?

    --
    FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
  54. Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by Compenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But redhat also has the isos of their newest release availible for free upon release unlike suse.

  55. Re:Smaller distributions by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    I could see how some people using smaller distributions could be annoyed that a lot of popular commercial software is targeted to Red Hat.

    Intriguing.

    Why not just use Red Hat for those applications then? Certainly a proposal for a new application would take into account what distribution it is supported on?

    -Brent
  56. Re:Wait...How Is SuSE Open??? by MobyTurbo · · Score: 2
    YaST, SuSE's setup, configuration, and hardware detection tool, may not be GPL, but it includes source code; on the condition that you don't derive monetary gain from it.

    Considering what SuSE has done for the community in supporting KDE developers, the -aa VM, and the Reiser file system, among other things, painting a picture of them being, in Stallmanist terms, "a parasite of the free software world" is unfair. It's noteworthy that when they were having financial difficulties before IBM's investment in them that during the layoffs they refused to lay off one developer.

  57. Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · · Score: 2


    What do you call rpms?


    I am totally serious here... I've seen several companies that make software for linux and just automatically assume that any Linux install will use rpm's -- which of course, will fail to work correctly due to dependancy issues if a person has typically gone with installing system software via tarballs.


    rpms's are frequently assumed to be almost as universal for Linux as the .doc format is in the windows world. I can see some validity to the comparison between RedHat and MS. Of course, this is all just IMHO.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  58. The real question... by Picass0 · · Score: 2

    The real question is this:
    "Will hackers still be able to love Linux if it become a real competitor to Microsoft?"

    Will this all be fun when mom calls in the evening wanting to know how to build the new kernel? Or when some little Britney wannabe says "Linux" the wrong way? Or when what we do and talk about at the LUG meetings isn't unique anymore? When the club is open to all members, will it still be worth belonging?

    Maybe that's why some people fear Red Hat. The more mainstream they get, the closer all of those things become.

  59. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, because rpm is a closed source program with no published information, and is protected by a variety of patents which RedHat use to ruthlessly stamp out any attempts to use rpm on anything other than their own authorised distribution.

  60. I wish!!! by trance9 · · Score: 2

    To be the next Microsoft RedHat would have to turn an enormous profit. As a shareholder, I can tell you that isn't happening just yet.

    Let's worry about keeping the company going first, and fret about monopolies later.

  61. Re:Isn't it interesting.. by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    I'm not flaming or anything, but Microsoft is quite successful, whether their business practices are "nice" or not is irrelevant.

    So you think that if a company is successful, then they should be put above the law? Why not let successful criminals be above the law?

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

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

    -Brent
  62. Re:A space alien...with A SECRET! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    The secret is in his name! Some anagrams and their meanings:

    Legal Bits
    Stall Beg I
    Gab Sell It
    Beats Gill
    A Bill Gets

    And finally...

    All Bis Get

  63. DUMB dumb dumb by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    Linux is anti-establishment all the way. What do you expect ? As RH strives for recognition in the business world as a legitimate OS and support company it is ONLY NATURAL for them to become part of the establishment. I can only say, judge RH by their actions NOT BY SOME reporters questionable articles. RH has consistently adhered to the GPL and given back to the OSS community. Funny but this was bound to happen. Imagine the backlash if large corps start actually using it and Linux become THE business OS. Where will all the Linux Zealots go then. They can't run and praise the same OS the corporate world is busy raping everyone with, that would be 'BAD' :)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  64. Speaking as an RHCE by Proudrooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speaking as RCHE #807202341505038 I'd have to say that Red Hat is a force for good.

    Red Hat is in a challenging spot, trying to survive as a company and post a profit while giving away their distro. The current business model is soley based on survival and what works.

    Red Hat provides the following invaluable services:

    1. Red Hat spends cash on EVIL lawyers to keep the Microsoft/Sony owned Congress from squashing the "cancer" known as "Open Source" and "GPL".

    2. Red Hat maintains a lot of code, maybe too much code, and provides patches and bug fixes for FREE via up2date and RPM's. This is called the Red Hat Network.

    3. Red Hat puts out a nicely integrated distro that supports nice integrated features like PAM (Pluggable Authentication Module).

    4. Red Hat has created training cirriculum and has a very good and very tough certification program which provides quality screened people to employers looking for "Linux" experience.

    5. Red Hat has created partnerships with commercial companies like Oracle and created a clusterable server distro which will only get upgrades once or twice a year called "Red Hat Advanced Server". Corporate America isn't going to cycle as fast as the rest of us and needs stability. One or two major releases a year is about all they can take.

    6. Red Hat provides support at very reasonable rates.

    7. Red Hat provides consulting.

    8. Red Hat maintains many topical mailing lists including a very important one for security bulletins.

    9. Red Hat Press has started to pump out decent books. I just picked up "Red Hat Linux Security and Optimization".

    In the last UNIX war, everything became very fragmented into camps e.g. (Sun, Dec, SGI, HP, IBM). Everyone was pulling is a different direction.

    Hopefully in this new era we can get things down to just a couple of players each with equal market share, I am rooting for Suse and RedHat. We can't have just one, because the competition is essential to continue to make things better and better. I sometimes lament at all the duplicated effort and think, if we could all just work together and strive for one goal, however, I realize that the competition is essential. There must be tail lights to chase or pass.

    Additionally, Sun, HP, and IBM are all in the Linux game to make things even more interesting.

    If anyone in the Linux game has the potential to be evil, I would say look it is he who holds the most patents... IBM and HP.

    Until the current patent insanity is resolved in the USA anything can happen and probably will.

    There are those that want the Linux community to go from "friendly competition" to "mean spirited destructive infighting". Linux has gained a lot of momentum and is still picking up speed. As the speed increases, I suspect the FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) will increase along with it. This FUD will probably be covertly generated by the true enemies of Linux and all things "open", who currently reside in Redmond and, are pushing a product called ".NET" which they can't even clearly articulate.

    Let's hang together, try to resolve our differences peacefully and amicably while we strive to create the worlds ultimate computing platform.

    Red Hat is NOT evil!
    Red Hat is NOT like MICROSOFT!

    Pick a distro, get behind it and PUSH!!!!!!!

  65. Bill Gates responsible for Linux? You Decide! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    Bill Gates is a man with a terrible secret! The secret is in his name! Some (secret, shh!)anagrams and their (oh so very secret) meanings:

    Legal Bits
    Stall Beg I
    Gab Sell It
    Beats Gill
    A Bill Gets

    And finally...

    All Bis Get

    Did I post this twice? You Decide!

  66. This is Just Getting Rediculous by GroundBounce · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of glib: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    When Red Hat plans to release a distro with another new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    When Red Hat changes a few icons from two GPL'd Linux desktops: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    This is just nonsense. Red hat certainly has a large share of the corporate, commercial, and boxed Linux market, but they are far from a monopoly, and they have contributed everything they developed that goes into their normal distribution back to the open source community.

    They host and support many open source projects, they regularly oppose bad laws like the DMCA or the latest Hollings drivel (including putting money where their mouth is via lobbying), and they champion Linux in schools.

    Are they competing for market share? Sure. Are they trying to annihilate all competition with FUD, dirty marketing, embrace-and-extend, and illegal manipulation the PC distribution channel? Definitely not. Have they made some stupid mistakes? Of course they have, who hasn't?

    I personally use Red Hat on some machines, but I use several other distros as well. That's called choice, something you don't get at all with Microsoft operating systems (unless your definition of choice is Win98, Win2000, WinXP, WinNT,or WinME).

    Red Hat is definitely about competing for customers, but even if they had 90% of the boxed Linux market, they would not really have a monopoly because of the licenses which allow anyone else to produce a similar product for free. If Palladium ever succeeds, then there may be an advantage to companies who produce commercial versions of Linux, but we are still far from this situation at the moment, and it's not yet clear that business or the public will even accept it in the long run.

    If you don't like Red Hat, then don't use it, but calling them the Microsoft of Linux everytime they freakin fart is just pure paranoia.

  67. Where have I heard this before? by Decimal · · Score: 2

    Nah. I'm not bitter. ;)

    (Mod +5 insightful! No wait, mod -2 troll!)

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  68. Re:Isn't it interesting.. by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    What I meant by "nice" was that they were fast in their business practices, they quickly made a good product, and marketed it ruthelessly. Is this against the law?

    Ok, so we can agree that no person or company is bad 100% of the time. But what about the areas that Microsoft did break the law. Don't you agree that we should hold them accountable for those actions?

    -Brent
  69. Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They *do* put up their ISOs online for free, which really does bring the price down to zero+download time.

    --
    May we never see th
  70. TI calculators? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    TI does hold a monopoly over TI calculators, though that's kind of a meaningless statement.

    Applying it to Apple at least makes more sense. Apple *had* competition at one point (when they allowed clones in the early PPC days), was stomped by them in price and performance, lost money, and promptly cut off their licenses and killed all of them. Yeah, I'd call that a monopoly.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:TI calculators? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      This is exactly what I was saying. When there were other PPC desktop manufacturers, there was a market with multiple vendors.

      --
      May we never see th
  71. Like family by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 2

    Redhat is like family -- tons of squabbles and fights in the house....But when someone on the school yard picks on your family (I can pick on my brother, but if you do you are dead meat) -- the first thing you do is come to their aid. Kudos to all the good posts I have read, and the ability of the /. crowd to set aside their internal differences to stand up for RedHat when the inevitible "Is Redhat the next Microsoft" posts come up. Even though I do not use Redhat myself -- I am far from blind to the great contributions they have brought forth....Plus bonus points for not going broke and rolling over like many of those that came after. (I am still bitter that none of the apt based commercial debian centered distros never made it up the hill.)

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
  72. Re:Speaking of bad technical decisions... by foonf · · Score: 2

    Any clue why they did this?

    Hop on over to a windows box sometime, open a command prompt window, and see what the output of the "dir" command looks like.

    --

    "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  73. backlash by glwtta · · Score: 2
    Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?

    I kinda don't like it all that much - does that count?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  74. Pure crap. by flacco · · Score: 2
    Red Hat is a great company, has contributed a whole lot to the GPL codebase, offers excellent products and services at excellent prices.

    I think it's disgusting that someone would compare them to Microsoft.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  75. Re:Smaller distributions by mark-t · · Score: 2
    Why not just use redhat?

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

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  76. I wish they had even close to that much $/power by cornice · · Score: 2

    I can only wish that an open source company had even close to that much money and power. It might actually be able to change the tide on digital right management products and legislation...

  77. You know, I can't stop myself. by OS24Ever · · Score: 2

    It appears that the Linux community isn't happy when one of their own does good. I mean calling Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux is just deplorable.

    In a manner of speaking, their success is what gave Microsoft it's success. They were at the right place at the right time. Say all the bad things you want about Microsoft in many ways, but in all honesty, prior to Windows 95, configuring PCs was not a walk in the park.

    You had QEMM with it's Error 13s (Remember, you had three options, reboot, reboot and reboot), you had PCMCIA Card services that took half of your 640K of base memory after you loaded all the drivers for Netware or to mount an NFS share.

    But now, you don't have to spend days on the web looking for answers, you put in a CD, follow the prompts, and off you go. So we must now hate Red Hat for doing good.

    What a waste!

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  78. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude, just run an rpm based distro or use Alien. Companies like to issue rpm's because the majority of people are using rpm-based distros.

  79. Red Hat can never be the next Microsoft by Error27 · · Score: 2

    They just don't have the same single minded commitment to evil.

  80. Re:Dumbing it down by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  81. Re:Smaller distributions by bmetzler · · Score: 2
    If you have to just use Redhat, how is this any different than being forced to use Windows because your favorite game or application is only available on that platform?

    What's wrong with using Windows if that's what your application requires? I don't see anything wrong with it. I usually take that into account when I look into choices for applications. But there is nothing wrong with an ISV choosing a specific platform to run their application on.

    -Brent
  82. Tsunami Re:No, no, no... by Winnipenguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well said. Red Hat just happens to be the best surfer in the Open Source Tsunami. Sadly, when you are number one some people (especially rivals) try to beat you down.

    Mahalo,
    Winnipenguin, RHCE (bias declared)

    10 REM sig
    20 print "Help!!"
    30 goto 20

  83. Absolutely Wrong by Raul654 · · Score: 2

    As a legal document, it is extremely restrictive

    You are missing the big picture. It is *not* restrictive. The GPL lets Red Hat use the intellectual property of others (the linux kernel, dozens of apps, et al), something they could otherwise not do due to copyright law. But that permission is conditional - whatever they change, they are not allowed to commercialize.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  84. Crabs in a Bucket by bruthasj · · Score: 2

    On the ocean shore there are crabs
    Scavengers pick them for a nice grab
    All they need is a bucket
    they don't even need to lock it
    For the ones below will keep
    the ones above from leaping

    So you crabs at the bottom
    leave this one alone
    as his red hat will keep him high
    on the lip of the bucket

  85. An attempt to lend credibility to ailing Microsoft by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2
    Articles like this seem more an attempt to lend credibility to Microsoft than to spread discontent or uncertainty among OpenSource/FreeSoftware users or the newly curious. Afterall, they're trying to get you not to ask, "Is Microsoft as good as RedHat?". The same can be said of the Microsoft attendance at LinuxWorld -- it was more a gimick to gain credibility at a time when they're losing it rapidly.

    In contrast to RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, Suse, Slackware, etc. Microsoft has stifled competition and innovation to the point of being found guilty in court. In fact, upon closer examinitaion it could look like Microsoft has been stifling the U.S. IT sector for few years. Eventually even the MBAs are going to figure that one out.

    As many have said more articulately, as long as RedHat puts out GPL software year after year, things are great. Competition is thriving. As long as there is competition, the distros rapidly adapt and improve...

    ...and money is being made by those using GNU / Open Source.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  86. Red Hat was the first Linux distro I paid for by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    I bought my first Red Hat Box Set Linux in 1997 -- not because they had some kind of gun to my head, but because I felt bad for taking something good for free without supporting it.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  87. GPL enforcement goes to court for first time by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24219.html
    "We don't expect to have any problem enforcing the GPL in this situation," says Bradley Kuhn, FSF's vice president. Normally, he says, the Free Software Foundation conducts private enforcement of GPL violations on software that it holds the copyright on. In this case, MySQL retains the copyright on its GPLed apps, and the FSF is simply providing expert testimony in what is expected to be an easily-gained temporary injunction against the further distribution of NuSphere's version of MySQL.
    Bruce Perens, founder of the Open Source Initiative, has offered to become a moderator in the case if one is needed. "Moglen will get his injunction," he says.
    1. Re:GPL enforcement goes to court for first time by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2
      Opps, more on the same:
      http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/1168
      One interesting point: it did not appear that anyone was arguing that the GPL did not apply or was not a valid license. It sounded as though the GPL was treated as any other license would be in a software context. Judge Saris seemed to focus on the question of whether Gemini constitutes an independent or a derivative work and whether the harm caused to MySQL met the irreparable standard. Experts -- none of whom were permitted to testify today, though Eben Moglen, among others, was in the room -- had filed what the Judge called "classic book-ends," or perfectly conflicting reports, on the question of the derivative work. Much of her questioning surrounded whether Gemini could operate without MySQL (as distributed, MySQL contends, it cannot) and whether or not the two products had been "integrated". She seemed to be moved by the NuSphere argument that there was no co-mingling of the source code and that "linking" to another program did not equate to creation of a derivative work. She also pushed hard on the questions of whether the distribution clause of the GPL was violated, though little progress was made on that point by either side. Ultimately, Judge Saris seemed unconvinced that MySQL could show a likelihood of success on the question of irreparable harm.
      All in all it appears that this federal court considers the GPL to be a valid license (which shouldn't be surprising - but it has been an issue from time to time and commented on in the academic literature) with a somewhat ambiguous clause about the obligations that arise when you distribute code that combines GPL code with code that was developed independently.
  88. If they are... by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

    that would make MS the Redhat of Windows. But that can't be right, cuz then there would be a windrake distro and anonymous ftp access to the source.

    answer: no

  89. Correction by achurch · · Score: 2

    You are exactly wrong. You have *NO* right to use/distribute/sell code that isn't yours. The GPL *gives* you right to do that, which is quite different from a eula which restricts your rights.

    Mostly correct, except for one thing: you don't have to agree to the GPL if you only use GPL'd software, since the GPL only covers (copying and) distribution. You can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license and still be within the bounds of copyright law. Of course, this distinction is irrelevant to companies like RedHat which make money from selling GPL software, but it is an important one for users of the software.

  90. Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by antirename · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but I LIKE redhat... I paid for 6.2 (about $50, IIRC). Oohh... now I see. I've been brainwashsed... that friend that gave those disks way back in college wasn't a friend after all... or what? This article is pure FUD. I use redhat linux because a) I'm used to it b) it works and c) because I haven't had time to experiment lately. Is there something better? I don't know. Have I thought about trying Debian or Gentoo? Yes. Will I get time in the next month, being realistic? No. Not to say that I won't eventually, but calling redhat the MS of linux is bullshit. I'm used to it, it works, and it runs just fine so I'm not in a big hurry to swap the servers. Do I feel locked in? NO.

  91. RPMS are universal by amorsen · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Linux Standard Base mandates that all compliant distributions must be able to install software that comes as an RPM. There is more information here. RPM's are universal.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:RPMS are universal by stevenbee · · Score: 2
      To add to this, RPM is now RPM Package Manager.
      ( (Recursive Package Mangager)Package Manager)) Package Manager) ) ?
      --
      Don't read this!
    2. Re:RPMS are universal by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Let me address just one of your fears.

      The beauty of Free Software is that you never have to worry about 'distancing' yourself from some other Free Software system, because any Free standard you adopt can easily be either adopted or transformed to the other system.

      In other words, since both RPM and Alien are open source, nothing stops FreeBSD from using .rpms as they wish (I'm too lazy to check, but I'd imagine that RPM and alien already were ported to *BSD, if there were any desire to do so) Now, the -contents- of binary packages may be unuseable, but that's true of any package format. As far as source packages go, .rpm should be nothing more than a variant on .tar.gz.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:RPMS are universal by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2

      RPMs are almost equal to Debs. The only things that makes Debs so easy to install are 1) APT (which is also available for RPM) and 2) it's not as widely used as RPM.

  92. Redhat? by inphorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, who threw logic out the window here. First goal of any business: - make a profit in order to achieve that: - market your product - try and "lock in" your customers, it is much easier to sell to an already happy customer than it is to create a new customer. - provide useful support that will keep your customers happy. - have a leading edge on your competition. Since when has it been a crime to be successful in the IT industry? Who made it illegal to make a profit? Nobody forced anyone to buy Microsoft Windows, nor has anyone forced anyone to buy Red Hat Linux.... - inpho -

    --

    Pmp @ DeviantArt
  93. Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by slamb · · Score: 3, Informative
    Personally, I was REALLY glad to have 2.96. It was the best, most stable g++ at the time. I'm not saying that people were wrong for hating it, I'm just saying that it suited me.

    Why not? I'll say it: people were wrong for hating it. RedHat made the best decision. Their one mistake was not explicitly marking the compiler as their own - people thought it was an official gcc release.

    Anyone who thinks the gcc 2.96 compiler is buggy should read this page.

  94. Uhhh.. heard of Mandrake by electroniceric · · Score: 2

    Given that an entire distro was founded by forking RedHat's product, they seem pretty committed to playing by the terms of the GPL.

    Sure, you could imagine scenarios where RedHat added some proprietary extensions that closed their systems, but nothing they've done, from their sales pitches about open source and open standards to their kernel contributions indicates that they want to do that. I'm sure RedHat may capitalize on its opportunity to do dirty deeds somewhere along the line, but that doesn't equate to being a true bully.

  95. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2

    Then that's because those companies are stupid and do not investigate things further, not because RedHat is trying to lock them.
    RPMs are not universal, tarballs are universal. And tarballs are truly universal, perhaps even among other Unices.

  96. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2

    Use rpm2cpio to convert an RPM to a cpio archive, then use cpio to extract it. Not guaranteed that it will work (because of the libraries the app is linked to) but at least you can extract it.

    Getting rid of RPM doesn't solve the problem. The real problem is incompatible library versions an app is linked to, and perhaps directory structure (although this becomes a non-issue when all distros conform to the LSB)

  97. They already are LSB compliant by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Informative

    Checkout the LSB website. RedHat 7.3 is LSB compliant.

  98. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Informative

    rpm is a free tool. You can build it on most any POSIXish system. The format of rpm files in cpio with a few extra bits. It is trivial to get files, scripts, and whatnot out; it is trivial to build and install and use rpm on Debian, AIX, Solaris, what have you.

    The vendors of those commercial applications are unlikely to support you using rpm on Debian to install their product, but that's because they probably don't support Debian, anyway. In which case it doesn't matter how they ship it.

    If you're too fucking stupid to understand that rpm is no more "proprietary lock-in" than using newfangled gzip instead of real Unix compress on your tarballs, you shouldn't be working with computers, you should be scratching in the dirt with a stick.

  99. Oh for the power of Moderation by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 2

    Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Total=2

  100. One way or another by forgoil · · Score: 2

    It is the worst Linux distro that I have ever had my hands on (I don't get impressed by installations or weak admin tools to doesn't fix the underlying mess), and they have a history of really major fuck ups, for example the gcc 2.96.x stupidity. I will never trust red hat on a production machine ever.

    I long for a stable server distro for linux, completely free from X and non related software. A pure, secure, highly supported, well managed, and tested distribution. One were every API shipped is correctly and fully documented, where all the horrible bugs are removed, where each package is tested and fixed and is done in time for each release.

    Heck, if it was me, I would take a serious look at *BSD instead of linux when running servers, but since linux and *BSD are different on some accounts, it can be a bugger to make it work on both platforms, and it takes too much time unfortunatly. It would have been a different sitution if it had been my own hobby project.

    Another thing about Red Hat, there are an alarming number of releases from large corporations (drivers for instance) that favors Red Hat. Why oh why can't there be a single package file format so that the same package works for any distribution? The first one who says "freedom of choice"... Yeah, tons of freedom if you choose to have '\0' or '\n' as a delimiter. Get real.

    1. Re:One way or another by Marasmus · · Score: 2

      Much agreed. Beyond the quality concerns of RedHat, their rather exclusive and standards-strongarming tool sets, I have really just one concern that drives me completely up the wall with RedHat: Hardware Vendors.

      RedHat either largely supports or fails to discourage the act of Vendors creating proprietary, closed-source hardware drivers that run only on RedHat. This action may not last forever, but it lasts long enough that someone using a particular product with proprietary drivers is forced to use RedHat for a year or two before the driver goes totally open-source, thus locking-in that customer on RedHat products.

      First case in point: Adaptec AACRAID support. AACRAID drivers were formerly only available for RedHat. For two years! For two years, if you wanted to run a system with AACRAID (which includes Dell PercRAID cards), you had to use RedHat. It wasn't until after Adaptec's drivers were leaked and some employees fired that Adaptec broke down and neglected to sue the pants off of people distributing open source drivers. Even after that, it took a good 9 months before those drivers were mature enough to use on anything remotely close to production hardware.

      Today, Promise Technologies is doing the same thing with their FastTrak controllers. Yes, there IS kernel support for FastTrak software RAID. NO, it does NOT work with the new Promise cards on the market. Promise's binary drivers for RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera are the only ways to get the newer cards working. The situation for the SuperTrak series cards is even more annoying! They put out open-source drivers, but specifically send them out so that they'll only compile on RedHat kernels. Their documentation tells you that you can compile the driver on custom kernels, but leaves that entirely up to the skill of the person implementing the driver. They try to make themselves look good by open-sourcing the driver, but continue to lock-in customers to one OS vendor choice.

      The Microsoft-ish behavior of RedHat is how they allow this closed-source driver lock-in to occur on their open-source platform, and don't encourage companies to support the entire open Linux platform. THAT is what gets them compared to Microsoft.

      --
      .... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
  101. Re: I dont agree by fferreres · · Score: 2

    You are basically extrapoliting todays situation. They don't need to hide the sources to take advantage of the market share thing. For example, we use an antivirus that is ONLY supported on Red Hat (we installed it on our Slak server, but it was a pain due to the inslation program, etc.)

    Ximian Gnome requires you to have certain distros as well. With slakware you are out of lack. Now, extrapolete in whose directions and you'll see the point.

    It's the chicken and egg thing. At some point companies may not care about slackware, gentoo or whatever as long as it works under Red Hat and some other widely used distro. They will not be supporting all distros, just as _most_ companies do not support more than one OS.

    And Red Hat may well make the cost of supporting other distros higher (if they ever want). There are thouthand ways to do it. I am not saying they will try that, but they could (but not yet).

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  102. Re:Smaller distributions by fferreres · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  103. Re:It's SuSE, if any by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    YaST is a big front end for an RPM based distro. Shit dude mount a SuSE disc, it is loaded to the brim with RPMs and SRPMs what is so proprietary about that? Neither is rc.config a registry-like (sic) mechanism. I traded SuSE for Debian a while ago but I used it for a good couple years. While they might not be much better than RedHat in some ways they are certainly no worse. Lately they've shown a lot of initiative unifying their layout with other distros.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  104. Re:Dumbing it down by rseuhs · · Score: 2
    Success of 'user-friendly' OS (MS)

    This delusion is amazing. You hear it so often people started to believe it.

    Fact remains that Microsoft was very late on the GUI and literally slowed the industrie's adoption of GUIs. (Unix and Apple had it long before MS)

    The same goes for the internet. Bill "Internet will never be popular" Gates fought the Internet for years and slowed its adoption while trying to put proprietary MSN down peoples throats.

    Or what about PenWindows? A project which sole purpose was to kill a innovative company (Go). After Go was dead, PenWindows has fullfilled its purpose and was dropped, too. (Then Palm came along and picked up the ball.) The whole PenWindows thing threw back PDAs for years.

    Microsoft was never an innovator, they are the biggest roadblock in computing

  105. Monopolies by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

    I don't use Microsoft Windows, or Office, or Developer Studio. I choose not to use their software, not because they are a monopoly or a horrible nasty company, but because their software doesn't suit my needs. I want software that follows standards and open formats, and runs without degrading over time. Red Hat provides software that does this. My Red Hat CD has several compilers, Perl, KDevelop and some office apps, a browser and mail client. And what's more, they all do what they're meant to and still provide compatability. I like the software Red Hat provides much more than I like the software MS provides. Even if Red Hat behaves like MS, they still provide good software that does what I need it to, so I'll still use it. Some people say Apple has a monopoly, but I'd have nothing against using a Mad with OSX and OpenOffice (if they do it for Macs).

    --
    Follow me
  106. Re:Actually.... Yes, they are by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

    "I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad."

    Why is Windows bad?

    Windows is designed to enable MS's predatory practices. In that sense, it's very bad.

    From a tech pov, Windows represents a huge step backwards in computing.

    Multitasking/multiuser OSes go back to the sixties (maybe even earlier). The pdp8 we had in high school in the seventies even had virtual machine capabilites. These are fundamentals of a general purpose OS, yet versions of Windows as recent as ME don't have true multitasking. Multiuser is an add-on to the NT line.

    Throughout MS's history in the OS business, competirors have offered superior products. Digital research had a better DOS than MS. Several companies had better GUI-over-DOS solutions than the early versions of Windows. OS/2 was better than Windows. MS themselves had a good OS back in the mid-80s with XENIX, but they didn't own all the rights to it, so they abandoned it.

    Anyone who's too young to remember what computing was like before the mushrooming of wintel won't get to see how really bad Windows is until it's forced to compete on a level playing field.

  107. Re:Surprise??? by rseuhs · · Score: 2
    Redhat doesn't force you to run Gnome. I run KDE just fine on my Redhat 7.2 install for Kylix work.

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

    And that's the reason why Linux-desktop-marketshare in the US sucks (~1%) and in areas where RedHat isn't dominant isn't bad at all (for example in Germany about 5%)

  108. Re:Isn't it interesting.. by Znork · · Score: 2

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

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

  109. Not sensationalism by Nailer · · Score: 2

    I don't think eweek / zdnet's articee is wrong at all. As much as many people who read /. believe Microsoft to be an monpolistic choke hold on the computer industry, people in the wider community just see Microsoft as a dominating force in their field, which is exactly what Red Hat is. According to Netcraft, IDC and most other sources, Red Hat has more market share than every other Linux distro combined. It also has the largest professional services organization, hardware support, and influence over the future of Linux, as well as the healthiest balance sheet. And more power to them, they make and integrate quality software.

  110. Around here, that's worse... by Nailer · · Score: 2

    Why not "The Starbucks of Linux?"

    You obviously haven't lived in Melbourne, Australia. We has real Greek and Italian baristas making high quality world class coffee for decades.

    Mention Microsoft round here, people will tell you Bill Gates has a lot of money, but boy doesn't Windows crash a lot.

    Mention StarBucks, and someone will mutter something about poor quality south American coffee, fake italian words, sugary `flavored' coffee, and their bizarre adherance to the USAmerican `let's fill it with cream and then eat it!' philosophy. Then they'll spit in your coffee :).

  111. how about a big 'duh'? by shren · · Score: 2

    [the article] quotes an IBM VP who says, 'There is a backlash against Red Hat from many consumers and government agencies, who fear it is increasingly becoming the Microsoft of the Linux world with respect to its dominance and attitude,'

    IBM and Red Hat are competitors, so IBM has some hefty motivation to say not-nice things about Red Hat. Both companies provide Linux services. Call back when Red Hat's employee count and profit margin competes with IBM and I'll consider taking you seriously.

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
  112. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by LightningTH · · Score: 2

    Companies like to issue rpm's because the majority of people are using rpm-based distros.


    This right here is what can make RedHat a monopoly as RPM's are the the standard way to install things in RedHat. Just like DEB is the standard way to install in Debian.

    In the past, it has been proven that .deb is much more functional than the rpm counterpart yet .deb never picked up and took off. You can try naming off alot of reasons but one reason is that RedHat went commercial while Debian has continued to stay completely free.

    So, does RedHat going commercial help or hurt linux? That is completely dependent on wether or not it tries to adopt practices that other distro's use, or, if it tries to implement things and ends up forcing other distros to make changes as a side effect.
  113. We've found a witch! by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    May we burn her?

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  114. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · · Score: 2
    And yet again, my point is missed. Shall I try again? No... I'll let someone else explain it for me. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I. Here's a link to another post elsewhere in this topic which expresses the point better than I ever could have hoped to.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38735&comments ort=0&tid=110&mode=thread&cid=4145592

    Now note, I do acknowledge that it is not entirely fair to blame redhat for this, and it's not my deliberate attempt to do so. This is really the fault of the 3rd party companies that assume the universality of rpm. However, it may be interesting to note that if redhat was not _so_ dominant, these companies probably wouldn't have made that mistake to begin with.

    Now... rather than waste slashdot bandwidth hurling further insults about my intelligence, may I suggest that you email me next time? Slashdot is a place for expressing opinions and thoughts on the stories therein, not on the level of intelligence or character of other posters.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  115. Re: I dont agree by jmu1 · · Score: 2

    Generaly, if you are using one of those "compile me" distros, you won't bother with the installer anyway. You're making a point that doesn't matter in 99% of the time.

  116. Backlash against business? by oldstrat · · Score: 2

    I've got to say right up front. I own stock in Redhat.

    I won't say I've agreed with every turn the company has made in it's business decisions.
    However, How many distros out there have Redhat as thier base?
    Who is the base for the K12 Linux Terminal Server Project (K12LTSP.ORG)?
    Who gives me the source code to do with what I will, and allows me to put the OS they sell on every boxen in sight(and without a registration code when I change out MY hardware)?
    It sure isn't a company from Redmond, It's Redhat.

    To compare RH to MS is to elevate MS, and denegrate RH.

    1. Re:Backlash against business? by oldstrat · · Score: 2

      And the topic was "Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?".

      The response was "Backlash against business?"
      It appears you are happy being part of the problem.
      FreeBSD is not commercial, nor is it Linux.
      I'm not saying it isn't good, it just has nothing to do with the issues.
      Linux and BSD have nothing to gain from, "My NonMSOS/Nix is better than your NonMSOS/Nix" childish behaviour, and MS has everything to gain.

      If I had to work in a computing world where there was only room for one OS vendor, I think I'd become a street mime.

  117. Anarchists and crack smokers. by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    The only people who accuse Red Hat of being the next Microsoft are anarchists who rail against anything that looks remotely authoritative, and crack smokers who believe every conspiracy theory they hear. Red hat has nothing in common with the Bill Gates mafia.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  118. More like Old Hat by alext · · Score: 2

    I'm sure I'd be more of a Unix fan if I'd not worked with something like VOS. All the components in these fault-tolerant machines were hotpluggable, and all device drivers dynamically loadable and reloadable.

    I think my favourite feature was the utterly predictable naming of commands - no umount here.

    VOS was designed in the late 70s, based on the legendary Multics.

    Anyway, the important thing is not to make excuses for the various problems we've inherited but to organize and develop something better.

  119. Re:Surprise??? by GauteL · · Score: 2

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

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

    Otherwise you are spot on.

  120. Disappointed... by RadioheadKid · · Score: 2

    Well, so many people missed the point of why I posted the story. It wasn't to say the Red Hat is the Microsoft of Redmond, it was to show how rediculous the claims of the IBM VP were and also how UnitedLinux may not be a great thing, if it's members are going to be trashing other distros in the press...Oh well, guess I was much too optomistic.

    --
    "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
  121. Heh by RadioheadKid · · Score: 2

    It wasn't to say the Red Hat is the Microsoft of Redmond

    shit...to early, need caffine..

    --
    "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
  122. RedHat isn't ALWAYS right... by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

    I don't hate them for that. In fact, I only marginally dislike them for the abomination that is RPM. The people I really hate are the ones who decided that following the "Linux Filesystem Standard" meant dumping EVERY SINGLE PACKAGE into /usr!

    C'mon people... BSD has it right here. You put core OS packages into /usr, and you put extras that you install yourself info /usr/local. RedHat (and almost every other linux distro) tries to make everything seem as if it is "part of the OS", which makes it a nightmare to maintain.

    RPM could be nearly as good as the ports system (although rpm -ba blah.spec will never be as elegant as "make install"), but it needs to allow for easier integration with non-rpm'd elements. Besides, it's hard to go wrong with the defacto standard of configure; make; make install.

    Oh, and /sbin is for STATIC binaries... you know, the things you need to have work when you screw up and hose libc? What good are dynamically linked binaries in /sbin????

    There, rant finished, that wasn't so bad. :)

  123. corporations *want* an MS of Linux by mikeee · · Score: 2

    To many, especially in the business world, it's a big selling point to say that you'll be around in five or ten years.

    Yeah, this is huge. Corporate customers want a dominant vendor with just enough competition to keep them honest. If the corporate market takes off - and I think it's beginning to - RH will get 60% of it. That could be nice steady support contracts worth a few hundred million dollars a year within a couple of years.

    At that point the whole market could tip - RH will have enough cash, not to hire as many developers as MS, but to hire as many as it's really worth having anyway. A couple years of that and they could flood the world with GPLed applications.

    The tricky bit will be RH deciding which OS projects that compete with commercial vendors that run on RH they will back...

  124. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think I see your point. But I think you are in error. As has been pointed out -- and used as fuel for some egregious insults to your intellect -- one can easily change an .rpm into several other formats, including .deb and .tar.gz. Thus .rpm does nothing to restrict your ability to access the contents of an .rpm on any system. .rpm is ubiquitous.

    Now, the other post stated that a Java .rpm didn't work on Mandrake... Assuming this person knew how to access .rpms (perhaps therein lies the flaw, but is .tar.gz any less opaque if you don't know about tar xzf?) then the only other reason it 'wouldn't work' is if it made assumptions about where particular files lived, or the system having particular versions of libraries. That has precisely nothing to do with .rpm, and everything to do with the 3rd party targeting a specific version of a specific distro, and is exactly the problem that the LSB was designed to fix. You'd have the same exact problem with a .tar.gz that was built with the same assumptions. .rpm itself does not enforce these assumptions -- an .rpm that I made from a .deb created on my Debian system would have Debian-centric assumptions in it.

    Now, though using .rpm is not a 'fault' of the 3rd parties, the Red Hat-centric assumptions are. In the absence of the LSB, their market position is certainly what caused this -- but what would be the alternative? Red Hat is not so supremely dominant that anyone can pretend it is the only distro. Clearly it is just vendors not wanting to put the effort into supporting many vendors, and thus picking only the largest. If the 'largest' were not so large, would that change anything? I doubt it would instill the vendors with extra energy.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  125. Absolutely by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    I used to point new linux users to Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSe but no longer... If the beginner is even a little bit computer savvy, I wouldnt have any problem in recommending an install of Woody

    I agree 100%, though I am an ex-Debian, now Gentoo user.

    For new users that just want something that works, the distro I recommend depends on whether I will be doing the installation, they will be doing the installation, or we will be doing it together.

    What is more, the distro I choose depends on whether they have interest in learning GNU/Linux, or just want a working computer to do X with.

    If I'm doing the installation, OR if we're doing it together and they have an interest in learning GNU/Linux, I will give them Gentoo, despite its manual installation. I have had very positive feedback from that, the most negative of which was "It's an auful lot of cryptic typing, but the install documents tell you what to do and it works every time!" while the most positive feedback I got was "It might be a lot of work, but now I feel I really understand what's making my computer tick!"

    If they are doing the install, or we are doing it together and they just want a machine that works, I will typically give them Mandrake (though knoppix is looking like a good choice these days) so they aren't scared off by the install. Mandrake autodetects nearly every piece of hardware I've thrown at it, which is the one thing missing from both Debian and Gentoo IMHO.

    My sister's husband is the only person I've ever encountered who tried GNU/Linux and chose to go back to Windows (because of some stupid game he was addicted to), and it amuses me to no end how much trouble that has caused him.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  126. Is Sun the Microsoft of Solaris? by kindbud · · Score: 2

    I mean, they're charging twenty bucks again to download the Solaris ISOs for which all my Sparc machines already possess a license (yes download, not a mail order CD). The Mac guy on the next cubibcle is sounds like she's griping about having to pay for OSX downloads from Apple.

    Could you remind me again what does RedHat charge for their product, in downloadable form? Refresh my memory, would you?

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  127. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Tassach · · Score: 2

    If it bothers you so much, write a rpm2tar program. Problem solved.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  128. Actually, there is Resentment against RedHat by llywrch · · Score: 2

    Although I'm puzzled that I can't find any of it here on /. (All the vitriolic RH-bashing posts must have been given misleading subject lines & modded down to -1.)

    As an example, you can take a look at the following email in a flamewar I have gotten myself into:

    http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug/2002-Au gu st/008350.html

    (Sorry for the space in the URL -- it's an artifact due to /.'s interface.)
    And feel free to take a look at the other emails in this thread.

    Quite frankly, I'm dealing with a mindset that I am having trouble communicating with. This mindset believes that all corporations are evil, & since RH is a corporation, ipso facto RH is evil. And twice as evil since RH is ``corrupting" Linux. In other words, for some people, equating RedHat with Microsoft is a religious issue. They don't want to persuade you that it is, they want to convert you.

    Another source was an ex-acquaintence who claimed that RedHat was just another example of ``glitter Linux". He claimed that RH was one of the most insecure distributions in existence, & that the only true Linux distribution was . . . Slackware.

    Shortly after this proclamation, he also claimed that Windows NT was superior to Linux, a claim that I felt proved that either he was seriously burnt out as a computer tech or had sold his soul to Microsoft. (There were other signs that he had been wooed by people at Redmond & was drinking their kool-aid.) So I wasn't too surprised when he declared his intent to sell everything, buy a farm in Northern California & leave the industry.

    None of these viewpoints reflect my opinions. Just trying to document the phenomena.

    Geoff

    --
    I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
  129. A periodic question by HiThere · · Score: 2

    This is a question that keeps coming up. I suppose that it's proper that it does, as we need to keep an eye on the major players, but so far...
    The worst thing that Red Hat has done recently is to remove the KDE and Gnome icons, and make the desktops look more similar. I consider this quite impolite, but it isn't even similar to what MS does on a regular basis. It was enough to cause me to go out and pre-order a copy of LibraNet, but so far I'm still planning to by Red Hat 8.0. If I still remember the issue at release time, I'll reconsider, but that's my current plan.

    However, notice that I COULD have decided to switch on one day's notice, and with little provocation. This isn't the kind of control that MS exerts. This isn't even the kind of control that Apple exerts. I think that a resurgence of control by IBM is more likely than that RedHat would grab the controls. The GPL is pretty good insulation, and Red Hat is better than most companies at using it. (SuSE, for instance, has the YAST2 installer, which is, I believe, proprietary. Mandrake has a bunch of special tools, which may or may not be proprietary, but don't seem to work with other distributions. But Red Hat tools migrate all over the place.)

    (OTOH, I wish that they would adopt apt-get for rpm. That's one nice tool! Much better than up2date. But perhaps they make a bit of money selling update downloads...there's some reason that up2date can't download from anywhere but Red Hat. [I haven't traced it down, partially because I've been using apt-get.])

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  130. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by Tassach · · Score: 2

    FUD. Nothing prevents you from using RPM on another operating system. You can compile and run RPM on any modern UNIX variant, and even on Windows (using Cygwin). Last time I checked, RPM was GPL'ed. How exactly is that a bad thing?

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  131. The Media... by vex24 · · Score: 2
    Eweek, like much of the mainstream computer media, doesn't understand the nature of Free computing. They pick Red Hat to be "the next Microsoft" because Red Hat has a bold color scheme and a distinctive corporate logo.

    It's all about brand identity to the uninformed journalist. They're looking to declare a "winner" in the "Linux war". I don't have to explain how silly that is to slashdot readers. ;)

    --

    People shape laws. Not the other way around.

    1. Re:The Media... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2

      I think that hits the metaphorical nail on the metaphorical head. The alleged "mainstream" press still can't seem to wrap its mindset around the way open source/free software works...

      While I personally dislike Red Hat's distribution and think RPM is a tool of The Devil(tm), it's still another choice, and I don't see any way that Red Hat could "get rid of" Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Mandrake, Suse, etc, and regardless of any dislike I may have for some of their practices (e.g. GCC 2.96, removing the "differences" between KDE and Gnome [since in my opinion, it is the differences between then that prompt people to choose one or the other - making them the same makes the choice difficult for those not already familiar with them - but it's STILL just a CHOICE], and so on) their presence as an additional choice of distribution can only be a good thing, from my perspective.

      In short, we already HAVE a "winner" in the "linux wars": the users, who have a wide variety of choices available to them. The press seems to have gotten stuck on the "There Can Be Only One(tm)" concept from all those years of proprietary stuff...

      --
      Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
  132. Richard Stallman... by Vengie · · Score: 2

    Just had the biggest boost ever, from every post that actually said "Gnu/linux" and "The GPL will protect us from this."

    *dodges out of the way of stallman's ego*

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  133. Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by tshak · · Score: 2

    Let's objectively review the early History of MS:

    They don't have the money that Microsoft has

    Same with MS at RH's age.

    and given that they aim for low prices

    If you have any recollection to the cost of home office software and/or business software you'll know that MS undercut the competition with Office and that price has relatively held. I remember paying almost as much for Wordperfect then I do now for MS Office (OK, I don't actually have MS Office but you get the point).

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  134. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2

    I never said that RPM doesn't run on other operating systems or Linux distros, or that it was a bad thing. You're replying to the wrong post.

  135. Why there's so much hatred of Red Hat by return+42 · · Score: 2

    Dyslexia...

  136. RedHat Lacks CONTROL by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
    Yep, they're the biggest player on the block. Yep, just about everybody that releases a package for Linux will release an RPM. Yep, they sometimes make silly decisions that cause problems for users. Yep, they're trying to make money off of their name and recognition.

    Nothing wrong with all that (except the stupid decisions).

    Where RedHat can't be a Redmond is in the area of control and ownership. RH doesn't control Linux, and they don't own it. They can't threaten to pack up their ball and go home with it, because they've given us all copies of the ball.

    Unlike MS, RedHat actually has to keep their customers happy if they want to keep 'control' of the market
    They can't sue me for fixing their broken code
    They can't stop me from distributing a version of Linux that has IE instead of Mozilla or Knoquerer as the default browser (but they can tease me mercilesslY)
    They can't sue me for installing 137 copies instead of 130.
    They can only convince me to pay them for support or training or for the fact that, in creating the distributions, they provide a valuable service that I'm willing to pay to support.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  137. Divide and conquer by geekee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no, the Linux community is turning on itself! This must be a Microsoft plot to divide and conquer the Linux community!

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  138. Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power by DeathPenguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree. with RoundSparrow on this one. People always bring down companies like Redhat and Transgaming when they try to make a buck or two. These companies need to earn revenue somehow, and panhandling is not a permanent solution.

    Maybe once Windows is dead and there's no more competition from MS, then we can focus more on ethics. But for now, it's about gaining the necessary monetary resources to fund programmers.

  139. One Word: by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mandrake.

    The concept that RedHat could wield even a whisper of monopoly power that M$ does is a total fiction, trumped up by losers. Why? RedHat IS NOT A MONOPOLY.

    I think it's a good thing that software vendors balk at using RedHat as their supported platform, and more of them should take the extra time to certify against a number of linux variants. Consumers should absolutely demand it.

    I haven't seen a whole lot from RedHat that is provocative or bad-spirited. While I use Mandrake pretty much exclusively now, I don't have anything against RH, except that they don't optimize for i686 and up, don't have as many neat toys and gui thingys as Mandrake, and Linuxconf still sucks.

  140. Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! by mark-t · · Score: 2
    A lot prevents you from using RPM on a system if some or all the software currently installed on it wasn't already installed via RPM. That, my friend, was my entire point. The real crunch comes in when 3rd party software installers just assume that you have always used RPM, and then fail to work properly even if you have all the libraries and other packages installed on your system that it requires. Now while you can always convert the rpm's to tarballs, then the install program would also need to be changed -- and in the case of 3rd party software, you may not always have access to the source code for that.

    The LSB won't help this problem... in fact, with their endorsement of rpm, it may even make things worse for people that don't always use rpm.

    Now I acknowledge that there's a legitimate case for the fact that the closed source software is really the cause for being "locked in", and not rpm's per se... but as I've said elsewhere, if redhat were not so ubiquitous, they wouldn't have made that mistake in the first place. It may not be fair to blame redhat for being successful, but for someone who is more comfortable uncompressing a tarball, and using the linux mantra of "./configure;make;su;make install", being forced to use rpm's ALL the time just to use them SOME of the time is a real pain in the ass.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  141. RedHat and hardware... hrm... by mactari · · Score: 2

    From the rebuttal, linked above... The point he's making seems to be that, sure, RadHat likes to be a big name in its field, like Starbucks or Microsoft or McDonalds, but no, it's not going to illegally wield monopoly powers. Then we move on to yet another possible reason why people might dislike RedHat and compare it to Microsoft:

    That gets me a bit closer to the fear; a lock on 3rd party ISV support. Folks are afraid that they will only be able to get enterprise level apps on Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Linux Advanced Server. If that's the case, the question should be, "When will Red Hat become the Sun of Linux?".... And it's easy to answer. Right about the time we get into the hardware market. Current estimates put that two days after never.

    You know, that's not such a bad idea at all. What if RedHat did get into the hardware market and wrote open source drivers for hardware that they'd patented -- and then would only provide enterprise support for these boxen? Sounds like a great idea to me, at least from a "free as in I still gotta eat" point of view. Pretty danged slick. I wonder if he just threw that out for some random reason, or if the idea has really been thrown around inside RedHat a time or two.

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  142. Apple reference is BS by absurd_spork · · Score: 2
    Apple tries to move developers to a proprietary windowing system, incompatible with open source applications. [...] More likely, however, they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot, until finally someone integrates X11 into OSX more smoothly than XDarwin.

    This is uninformed and wrong. Apple tries to get as many developers for MacOS X as they possibly can because MacOS X is their platform.

    X11 cannot be "integrated properly" into the OS X at all. In order to integrate, applications have to use the OS X GUI. Any application that uses a different GUI is not integrated. Maybe it runs, but it will look and feel different and awkward. Since X makes no constraints whatsoever on the look & feel of programes, except that it suggests they use windows, most X applications cannot be integrated with OS X at all, except programs such as LyX which have a GUI independence layer or Qt programs as soon as the proposed Qt for OS X arrives, and even these only to a limited extent.

    --

    There is absolutely no reason to panic.

  143. Moderators by xQx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every article about redhat over the last 2 months I've said Redhat was the microsoft of the linux world... and been modded to -1 about it.

    Now, there's an entire article expressing my view.

    I wish moderators could moderate articles, so I could take my revenge apon thee.

  144. It's not about the code or the free gpl versions! by towelboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's about the politics of market share.

    People want balance and choices - not dominance.

    One example of RH monopolism is RPM.

    RH used its muscle to insure that LSB chose RPM over APT even though APT is next-gen by comparison. Everyone who uses APT raves about it and no one thinks RPM is superior. This is one example of MS like behavior.

    I can understand that RH has it's pride and wants to continue to support RPM. But why not offer a choice? We have umpteen desktops? Why not a choice in package managers too? Why punish or deprive your users? Because RPM keeps the customers locked into the RH market. They can't go wandering off to Debian or somewhere else. Ergo MS! Hence fear.

    tb

  145. Aptitude by peter · · Score: 2

    Woody includes aptitude, which does the same thing as dselect, but is much more obvious. Plus, it has minesweeper built in.

    There is also deity (and deity-gtk), which I haven't used.

    --
    #define X(x,y) x##y
    Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  146. Re:RedHat is NOT the problem here... by Marasmus · · Score: 2

    RedHat sells these exact drivers with their Enterprise Editions. RedHat's action is both deliberate and profitable. They are targeting and taking advantage of a lack of driver availability in other Linux distributions. It is indeed extremely rational.

    I have made it painstakingly clear to Adaptec that I will not purchase or use their products again, and I haven't for the last two years. Promise appears to be a bit more cooperative to the driver development process, and I'll give them more time before I flat-out boycott them. Nonetheless, I have already voiced my concerns to them directly.

    In the meantime, Alan Cox and members of the Linux-IDE team work away at open-source implementations of the FastTrak RAID, which is quite commendable... especially considering that RedHat is his employer.

    --
    .... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".