Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat 8.0 Reviewed
Jon writes "Eugenia from OSNews is giving Red Hat 8.0 a run for its money. She posted a very detailed and balanced review for the new version of Red Hat, which aims to be a "business desktop". Very interesting article and discussion over at OSNews." Several people also sent in the stories from InternetNews as well as LinuxPlanet.
Firstly the review advocates Windows users not bothering to switch unless they absolutely have to, but also the FUD about Linux + Apache being insecure due to the (now patched) OpenSSL vulnerability was ridiculous. Sounds like a MS shill to me...
Then, to cap it all, advocating choosing RH7.2 over RH8.0 was ludicrous. The reasoning goes along the lines that 7.2 has been in development longer than 8.0. WTF? That doesn't even make sense.
I've downloaded 8.0 for my home network and installed most services, and it all works fine for me. Whoever wrote that article doesn't know what they are talking about.
Wouldn't it be nice if developers in the free software community read things like this and took the criticisms to heart as seriously as if someone had knocked them for not using a free license? That is, the community has some peer pressure for acceptable software: using a free software license (GPL, LGPL, BSD), sharing code but with appropriate attribution, using open standards and tools (autoconf, etc), and so on. The openness of the community and this system of taboos have arguable produced better software and certainly gotten us closer to a free software world. Could the same pressure potentially lead free software application developers to enforce good GUI design habits as well as good programming habits? When users give feedback like the above that says "hey, your program may be cool, but you aren't following good UI design principles" and this criticism carrys weight similar to telling someone that they should use a free software license, then perhaps free software can really evolve past its geek-oriented roots to something that the masses can embrace.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Fair enough, but are you still allowed to call it KDE then?
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
I refuse to take *any* design advice from anyone who thinks a "More Preferences" folder is a good idea.
Umm I thought KDE was open Source (I could be wrong) so how does hacking it suck..
I thought that too, at first. I thought that some of the mistakes she made sounded like English wasn't her native language. So instead of choosing to be a smart ass and make some "clever" comment about it, I chose to educate myself. I looked up the info on the author (by simply clicking on her name at the top of the article). She is Greek, so English isn't her first language. While it isn't perfect English by far, it got the point across. In the author's own words:
I am Greek and english is not my native language. We do OSNews for fun (however, OSNews takes most of my time every day), so if you have a problem with my spelling and grammar either a) do not come back (spare us and save your time too) b) send me a proofread version of the article in question. Whining about something I can't radically improve overnight, is not an option.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"And please don't tell me to dive in to the code and fix it, I am not a device driver programmer, neither I want to be one. I am a user when it comes to Linux and I expect things to work as nicely as they do on Windows XP and MacOSX"
Mod me down as flamebait, call me a troll, do your worst. But...
I've been saying this for a long time. If you want to keep Linux small, and only accessible to the enlightened (read that as "Lucky enough to know how to code, or content to run no exotic new hardware) few, then ignore that statement.
Wanna play in the business world? Read this article, and understand why she's dead-on with her complaints.
XP, for all that it's produced by Microsoft and has security holes, DRM issues, and privacy problems, works out of the box. It has been rock solid in EVERY implementation I've done. I can give my Mom a copy of XP, and she can install it and run it. She won't have to worry about having java support, or plugins. I will not have a call from her in the middle of the day complaining that she can't install an application because she hasn't met her dependencies. This is the "Mom-Test (tm)", and XP passes.
Just because I don't run it, doesn't mean that I don't respect it.
where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
is there a compelling reason to install 8.0 instead of 7.3?
For a server install I wouldn't bother. Usually what happens when any new distro comes out there are a flurry of bugs/security issues noticed in the first few weeks and loads of patches released. This is a natural process due to suddenly having a much wider test base that the Redhat 8 beta had. Also, since this is a new major version the are likely to be even more problems. Redhat 7.3 is stable and as long as you have applied all the updates it is adequately secure. I can't see that there is anything in 8.0 that is desperately needed for a server install. I would wait for the storm to calm and then take a look at it. Just my two pence worth.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
Here's a comment I made on another list:
I doubt if the changing of the themes and such was the problem. I would not lose any sleep over single vs double-click or a few icons and bitmaps. This would not justify Bero quitting and claiming that KDE was "crippled". Part of the real problem, ironically, is that the changes Red Hat made ARE merely skin-deep. This is exactly what the KDE project is not.
A perceptive Slashdotter earlier saw that the problem was not in the superficial reskinning, but in the integration. KDE is not about being yet another window manager, but was meant as a holistic answer to the desktop problem. A KDE desktop is meant to be a collection of integrated applications with predictable, uniform behavior. You will see the same file dialog (with URLs and bookmarks), print dialog, toolbar editor, font chooser, color picker, help infrastructure, address book, and predictable cut and paste. Sharing of components means familiar behavior throughout, such as the file manager embedded in the file open dialog or the image viewer embedded in the file manager. When you open a file, the dialog remembers the bookmarks and frequently used directories you used in other KDE apps. In other words, the KDE experience provides a uniformity, familiarity and predictability that goes well beyond mere theming or toolkits. This is good for beginners.
Red Hat has in effect substituted other apps for every major KDE app. The KDE apps are not gone, but they are less visible. This means that a typical Red Hat user will install "KDE" and never run a single significant KDE application. What you get is the usual jumble of X apps doing their own thing in their own way. Apps do not remember your favorite colors, your print settings, your favorite directories. It's the familiar X desktop: a Frankenstein collection of apps stitched together by superficial skinning, but not quite fitting together. "KDE" is reduced to being an oversized, slow window manager: nothing more. It is not really KDE. Why would anyone want to use that?
For pros, the best-of-breed approach is the status quo. IMHO, a beginner need not start this way. The default KDE apps may simply be good enough, with the common UI and infrastructure compensating for the individual weakness. Sure, a deliberate decision can be made to pick a better app, now or later. But this should be done with the concious knowledge that this goes "off the KDE ranch", that the various integration, uniformity and usability improvements of KDE will not apply. Starting off a beginner with a best-of-breed approach leaves him with the usual Frankenstein collection of disintegrated apps, all unalike. I.e., this is the status quo that KDE was supposed to fix. Trouble is, Red Hat will not let KDE be KDE.
Your mother is comfortable *installing* XP, or is this just hyperbole?
/etc/rc.d/init.d/network restart and changing settings periodically. Of course, everything works beautifully after a cold boot...just not after restarting the network. I've seen this since at least the early 6.0 days, and up through 7.3.
Linux really isn't hard to install any more, at least to the point of getting it up and running. I'd call the installation process on at least RH simpler than the Windows procedure.
That being said, configuring stuff not-out-of-box is where things get ugly. It's damn easy for an end user to just get a new video card, download their InstallShield program, and use it. And to *uninstall*, simple as that may seem.
Software packaged by your distro "just works" and at least with RPM is really easy to install and uninstall. However, a lot of drivers are not packaged in said manner. Sometimes you can't get a driver to compile, or instructions are written for another distro. Got a laptop with a wireless card, or an Nvidia card, or a weird USB device? If it works in Linux, the install procedure is not necessarily trivial.
A few other things that are nasty include:
* Networking. i swear to God that there's either a bug in the Linux kernel or in RH's networking scripts since time immemorable, since *every* system I've ever used will sometimes, despite the fact that the routing tables are correct, refuse to properly route information. I can pretty consistently get this on a wide variety of RH's distros by running
* Windows has ZoneAlarm. Linux has the amazingly powerful iptables, with *no* really good, really solid front ends (though lots of half-finished freshmeat projects). If you want a personal firewall, Linux can give you an incredible amount of power...*if* you're willing to fight with iptables for a few days.
* Linux has *no* fully working, reliable ICQ program. This is an embarrassment. It isn't really Linux authors' fault -- trying to reverse engineer ICQ is not trivial -- but if I try to send a Windows user a file and can't, the only thing they learn is "Linux can't do IM properly". Yes, I know about Jabber -- which no one uses.
* Linux has, AFAIK, *no* finished, fully featured 3d modelling programs. Someone who likes to dabble with 3d work can run out grab lots of low end 3d modelers on Windows. There are *tons* of Pov front ends, none of which begin to compare to fully blown Windows modelling programs. Oh, and I'm not talking about multi-thousand dollar movie studio packages -- I mean stuff that a home user could use.
* Linux has *no* finished, fully featured vector graphics programs. Yes, lots of projects underway like sodipodi, sketch, kontour...and none of them are remotely usable for a real life production artist.
May we never see th
I'm kind of surprise no one has mentionned this before, especially with the number of sys admins reading this site.
For awhile now, I've seen lots of people saying they think this distro will make it to the desktop seen, and now RedHat 8.0 is aiming the "Business Desktop". I find it hard to believe that RedHat will accomplish that anytime soon.
I work as the systems administrator for my company, and let me tell you one thing about real companies, "THEY DON'T JUST USE MS OFFICE". Almost all major companies have some sort of ERP solution (Enterprise Resource Planning). Over at my company we use Lotus Notes, but some other companies use SAP, PeopleSoft, JD Edwards... Now you know what all these ERPs have in common? The user applcations are ALL BUILT FOR WINDOWS. Some of these companies, like mine, might run Linux (RH) on their servers, but I would never switch my users to linux just because RH 8.0 has a new cool UI with OpenOffice.
For linux to make it to the desktop seen, companies like Oracle, SAP, Lotus, PeopleSoft and JD Edwards will have to start supporting linux in a serious way. If they can provide apps that run on Linux and that can connect and properly function with the accounting system, the accounts receivable system, the inventory system, the CRM systems and so on, then Linux will be able and probably even beat windows in the desktop market.
But I don't see how that's going to happen. I've done lots of research on my part to try and find an ERP solution for my company that can run on linux. But I haven't found anything. Whether it be an OSS or proprietary solution, client-base or web base soltuion, I wasn't able to find anything with the power of SAP or any of these ERPs to run my company's Information System.
If you do know of an application, let me know!
The Linux-based distributions have been under constant development ever since Linux became a popular operating system to actually run and support (hardware and software). To completely discredit the offerings of Linux as an everyday operating system is only fair if you exclude the fact that all other operating systems have all been in a state of flux to develop an easy to install and use approach for the common user.
Windows has had many years to garner the market share and see trends in development to adequately support their users. With this comes innovations such as the driver management system, streamlined interface, overall stability, self-maintaining (semi), and a united Win32 SDK. Through these innovations comes revenue - with revenue comes research and development.
These features are taken for granted considering they are relatively "recent" or modern innovations, even in the Windows world. The rock solid reputation Windows has is as a result of many releases - much feedback (largely from the corporate space). The driver model used in the NT-based Windows releases was pretty good in Windows 2000, but is considered even better in Windows XP because it comes with so many drivers pre-installed. No one would have ventured to make the claim with regards to stability and flexibility with Windows NT 4 and, God forbid, Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.x. Apple touted its MacOS as a vastly superior model to Windows - Microsoft simply learned to put the "good stuff" ("lessons learned" from other operating system offerings) in with its own product and, voila!, we have stable (for the most part), easy to install and use, and widely support Windows releases. Microsoft may not be saintly in its operations - but in a business sense, it is extremely smart to give people something to suckle on - easy to take and get used to. Believe it or not, it is what the majority of bipeds want.
Software innovations come about from much trial and error. Linux is breaking out of the stages of its infancy - catering only to those willing to take the dare and challenge of migrating from a Windows world to a UNIX world. But times are changing, and Linux is changing with it. People who can describe the average Linux distribution in 1995 will tell you that hardware support was hit or miss - and if it was a hit, it often only was a partial (never a bulls-eye).
Personally, I feel that Linux has made HUGE strides towards that perfect operating system for any niche. If you consider how long it took Microsoft's Windows line to fully mature - Linux is ahead of the game. Businesses will just need more time to listen to feedback and implement those features that people can suckle on - and using Microsoft and Apple as references with regards to their own products is a great start - they obviously figured something out to appease the masses.
Members of the open source community (users, developers, and companies) need to pay close attention to the desires of the community as a whole. Many of the projects that make up Linux (and other open source operating system offerings) have the ability to receive feedback to make the project better. Griping is one thing - channelling the gripe to the write email address is better for the whole. The applications that make up Linux thrive on contributions (ideas, source code, and comments [good/bad]). The more feedback - the better the product.
The capabilities in Linux are there - the opportunities for Linux just need to be taken advantage of - users, developers, and companies alike.
Ayup
Here... here's a little troll snack: Don't let your inability to learn newer, streamlined interfaces obscure your judgement of an improved OS. Windows XP Pro is easier to install, use and configure than Windows 2K. It's too bad that it's not fair to consumers and has DRM all over it. Linux distros will have a little catch up to do again. But... this is a constant state in the OS market (the software industry overall). One side is always slightly ahead of the other in some way. Linux still has stability and security, but MS will catch up there too. That's why distro makers should focus on end user things like usability, eye-candy, "geewhiz" stuff, etc... Who can refute that there is a need for something like the stateful sessions that Windows XP has in the Linux world? Go back under your bridge now troll.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o