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?)

51 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 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 :)

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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!
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
  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. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 _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.
  10. 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.




  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

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

    nuff said

  17. 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.

  18. 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!

  19. 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
  20. 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 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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 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.

    2. 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.
  23. 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 ...)
  24. 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.
  25. 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

  26. 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...

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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
  33. 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.

  34. 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?
  35. 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.

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

    Checkout the LSB website. RedHat 7.3 is LSB compliant.

  37. 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.

  38. 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