Slashdot Mirror
UnitedLinux Ready for Official Launch
Anonymous Coward writes " PCWORLD has the word that UnitedLinux has completed beta testing of the first release of its open source Linux operating system and is ready to launch the product as planned next month, said company manager Paula Hunter Tuesday at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in Frankfurt, Germany."
I wonder what benefits it will actually give users...
Let's get Ellen and Natalie to do commercials for it.
NOT using my +1 bonus...THIS TIME ;-)
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
as opposed to what? closed source linux
Why is Slashdot wasting time with pre-hype about some vaguely defined 'product' that may or may not be released soon when there are so many much more interesting free software projects which are releasing code _now_?
What is this, marketspeak press release of the month competition?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
UnitedLinux.com has no information about this release however?
/really/ means?
From the article:
Apart from price, UnitedLinux is introducing new features, such as larger memory support, to differentiate itself from the competition, Hunter said.
Uhh, large memory support is standard in the kernel? Any idea what this
-- Azaroth
I predict that United Linux is going to become the Most Popular OS ever!!!
-Everyone is going to use it.
-Windows Will become Obsolete
-It will revolutionize the computing industry as we know it
Then we will find out that the Secret Owner of the Company is Bill Gates
How many months ago did they announce this happening? Now they are already set to release a real product. If this was a collaboration of a bunch of proprietary software companies, they'd still be hashing out legal agreeements. United Linux itself doesn't interest me that much, but the fact that such things are possible does.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I have beta tested SCOs version of UnitedLinux. UnitedLinux is basically Caldera mixed with SuSE. It's not hat great unless you really like SuSE stuff (YASTA, etc).
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
What is it uniting? Or is it an airline?
Who beta tested this? I never once heard of anyone running this and they are ready to launch a production version of it? Maybe I should take my blinders off if I somehow missed this but I never heard of any beta versions.
UnitedLinux has completed beta testing of the first release of its open source Linux operating system
(emphasis mine)
Given that United Linux uses YaST as it's installer, the operating system is dependant up on that non-free (and hence non Open Source) program, which renders the whole thing non-free.
United Linux, like SuSE, is not Free Softwae, so it is not Open Source.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
I'll stick with RedHat myself. And let me tell you, corporations will do the same. Why? RedHat's proven. UnitedLinux (I thought it was just supposed to be a body of standards? Eh?) isn't. They'd best hope they have the venture capital to stick it out.
That said, what ever happened to Random Love or whatnot?
PCWORLD has the word that UnitedLinux has completed beta testing of the first release of its open source Linux operating system
I've heard things about this upcoming open source Linux operating system, but it seems that bazaars are less functional than cathedrals. After all, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
My second wife was a beta tester for the latest version (release candidate).
She told me all about it to stuff it in my face. One of the differences for us that caused the divorce was that I was a big Windows user (although I did run Linux on one of my machines, which she took through the divorce), and she was a big Linux and BSD user. I can honestly say that I am strictly a windows user because she took all the boxes with Linux on them.
Anyway, she said it has some features that will 'blow windows AND linux users away.' I'd say more, but don't know if I'm allowed to tell the info legally (trust me, she's already taken me to the cleaners, once).
Yeah, I'm a Republican AND a geek. It is possible.
Reminds me of the uproar about licensing. Without undermining the need of cash for OSS projects, can we suggest them to provide differnt packages? Do not wish to start a flame war, but does anybody think that Apache license provides leverage here if somebody wishes to go commercial? View please.
Hmmm... Ok.. Chivas on the rocks.
With Caldera and SuSE each having a stake in UnitedLinux, which one actually does the "steering" (for lack of a better expression)? It seems that even when companies cooperate, someone ultimately emerges at the leader.
I get this feeling that, like a lot of other cooperative efforts, there will be a split between the involved parties down the line (different business models, philosophies, goals, etc) and there will be separate paths taken by the different companies, and the end result will be that no one has really gained too much in the way of progress. Am I alone in this line of thinking?
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
The main benefit of UL is that it will present a united spec to compete against Red Hat. From the ISV and hardware vendor perspective, this is good, because there will be only two Linux distro specs being used in the business world where they will hawk their goods. Debian ought to count as a third but it doesn't have the marketshare or mindshare (except among diehard admins, of course).
Only good can come of this, though I really don't see UL being able to overcome Red Hat.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
free=!Open Source
I thought they'd be long gone seeing how they don't know what the GPL or the community is all about... And no, I don't accept there mea culpa NDA after the fact. They spit in the face of the community with there closed beta and they now deserve the fruits of this behavior. I'll be suprised and dissapointed if the community takes these jackals seriously.
So four companies merged to create United linux. I'm still confused as there's still Lycoris, Lindows, Mandrake, Redhat, etc.
In my PERSONAL experience in futzing with Lycoris, I went out and BOUGHT Redhat.
Redhat seems to suffer from Microsoftitis, that is, if it's a Un*x app, it's running on Redhat first.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
So which part of the Open Source Definition allows software that is barred by the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or vice versa?
(Hint: they're practiaclly word for word the same document, with a little editing done by the OSI since they based their definition on Debian's)
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
A subarctic creature, through a window slides,
A fractured system is united,
The Gates of hell opened,
A dot is slashed with the multitudes in great debate.
It is neither Free Software nor is it Open Source. Notice the caps! These are well defined terms and UL does not meet either one. This is closed proprietary software. Move along.
I would have said, "United Linux itself doesn't interest me that much, but at least it's better than using any Microsoft product" :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The trouble is not the Open Source Definition but the very lax way in which the self-appointed guardians of Open Source interpret it. For example they passed Apple's APSL despite it allowing Apple to revoke your rights to the software at any time.
RMS and the FSF take a much more worst-case approach to evaluating licences: 'assuming the nastiest possible lawyers, would I still have the right to use, share and change the software?'. Irrespective of RMS's political views, I find this approach to classifying licences much more reassuring than the press-release-driven OSI.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Why is that everytime we read about Linux - people mention how Linux is going to get users to convert from Solaris, HP-UX etc. and here the thing is that this distro is designed to get users from RedHat.
Shouldn't it be that the goal is to get users to switch from Windows? Who cares if they migrate to RedHat or Solaris or SuSE or United Linux? As long as its away from Windows. This is great that there's yet another distro (I guess), but I think they ought to target Windows users rather than existing Linux/Unix users.
A house divided...
Well United Linux has gotten quite a bit of hype, a friend of mine has been keeping track of some of their add campaigns at his homepage (he is a big fan of the idea, and like me detests Red Hat). I have a question though, if SuSE is involved (I think they are), will United Linux have the SuSE installer Yast? If so I think it will blow Red Hat out of the water, considering how much the Red Hat installer sucks (especially for inexperienced users).
So, will next year be : United GNU/Linux Year ? :-)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Cool! Caldera v.4! or is it RansomLovix v.1? "In keeping with the Ransom Love tradition, your ISP will automatically bill you for each attempted and completed ISO download." >
Well, if SuSe definitely is a part of this, then why will they offer their own distro, otherwise ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Our company has been using (and buying) SuSE distributions for years now and we were pretty happy with it until they got to 8.0 when so many things were broken/changed that we couldn't use it any longer as a server OS. The big changes were the loss of the ability to edit the configuration files; especially in regards to selecting which services start during boot. It proved almost impossible, for instance, to keep portmap from starting without mucking about in the bowels of the boot sequence. It seemed to us that 8.0 was aimed squarely at the desktop market and its functionality as a server was reduced.
Since most of our installs are servers, we stopped buying the 5 or 6 copies of the distribution we normally buy and instead went back to using the single copy of 7.3 we had laying around the lab.
What I'm afraid of with United Linux is that SuSE will have moved their own distribution (which I liked to call "The Lego Set of Operating Systems") from an all-purpose distro (at a great price: $79) to a desktop-only solution. The UL distro will be moved in (at a significantly higher price point) to fill the server niche. Thus we will have to buy two distributions from SuSE (a la RedHat) whereas before one did everything. (And yes, I know they had a $39.95 "personal" edition but that always looked to me to be the loss-leader for ads that brought people into the store to turn them for the higher value product.)
This makes me nervous. Our comapany's future depends on the solidity of the distribution we choose. Our competitiveness rests on our ability to buy the OS at prices that put our MS rivals out of the bidding. I am not comfortable with distributions that tinker with what I thought was a winning recipe.
Our move to SuSE was away from RH during the glibc debacle (version 4 or 5 of RH, I forget now). Our move away from SuSE (to Debian, perhaps) might be imminent. It will all depend on how they price this new United Linux offering and what it offers our customers.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Yeah, it's a real shame that they passed the APSL, because otherwise you'd be able to say the two terms were exactly equivalent, rather than having to get into complicated caveats.
I imagine that OSI will comit the same sin, and pass the Real license recently mentioned in TheRegister, since that license seems to have been inspired by the APSL, and has the nasty 12-month forced publication drivel.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Why do people try to put UL and RH against each other? UL is een open initiative in which Linux distro's can participate. This includes RH. So i don't understand the fuss.. what i do know is that people are still thinking that RH is big in the entire world. IT'S NOT!!!. Here in Europe SuSE is one of the biggest distro's and RedHat is, although known to most, over here what SuSE is to u in the US.
Furthermore, the fact that this UL distro looks like a mix of SuSE and SCO's linux distro is because they put the most effort in this for the moment.
It remains to be seen if this initiative attracts ISV though. And that is not because of lack of support but more an economical reason. Since it is not easy in this economical climate most ISV would rather stay on the beaten path then try to find new roads..
Because, after all, developing a new Linux distro really is the same thing as developing some private software from scratch.
Because, after all, it's not like those private companies would have to start from scratch, while the Linux distro has half the work done for them already.
Because, after all, the private company would have to release a fully feature complete and bug tested piece of software, while all United Linux has to do is release something that boots.
Nice analogy there. Apples and oranges, very nice.
Don't you mean the 1st wife was the Beta test?
The new version should be at least 1.0 !!
Seriously, migrate to Debian. It's rock solid stable, you can choose exactly how it runs and it won't cost you a dime.
You could download it over the net and start playing with it on a beta machine today if you wanted.
...but the Linux distro companies have the exact same goal as, say, Microsoft: to bring in the profits, whatever it takes.
Just because it took up until now for one of them to figure out a new profit scheme doesn't mean the desire for it hasn't always been there.
Maybe you've noticed the price variants on different Microsoft OS's... who is to say multiple distros won't follow that route? One desktop OS, one server OS, one database OS, etc? It worked for Microsoft, why not for Linux?
They can still be cheaper and better than Microsoft, but that's not to say the tiered system isn't financially viable.
Because it's worth it.
I would like to clear up this common misconception regarding Christian dogma. THe above saying is in fact incorrect due to poor translation and time. The eye of the needle was in fact a gate to the city of Jerusulm. The reason it was difficult for the rich to pass through it was because they oten rode camels and the height of the gate was not such to acomadae a camel with a man riding on it. Jesus had nothing agaist the wealthy. Just wanted to let you know. sorry about the poor spelling as well.
It looks to me that there will be three broad catagories of Linux distribution:
Home use - Low cost / Freely Dowloadable e.g. Debian, Gentoo - Comminity Support
Desktop - Medium cost e.g. Xandros, SuSE - Commercial Support
Commercial Server - e.g. RH Advanced, UnitedLinux - Commercial Support
The Commercial Server versions will be competing against Solaris/HP-UX/AIX Propriatory Unix operating systems. Intersting to sree how it will all shake out
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.....my life is my own.
It will be harder to get Windows people to migrate to Linux if the trend of adding more flavors :) I've only tried out Red Hat, but I won't migrate away from Windows until I've :)
continues. To me it's like they're making coffee from the same set of coffee beans, and then add
their own special flavor to it, like milk, sugar etc. All these different versions makes a beginner
rather confused. I bet a lot of people ask themselves "Which Linux shall I choose???"... Well,
at least I do.
figured out why there's so many different flavors of Linux. I don't think I'm alone in this quest for
knowledge. Anyway, I'm not in a rush... I'll waste the time to STFW.
I think you meant:
free!=Open Source.
Because if free=!OpenSource then !OpenSource=free, so Windows must be free...
graspee
Am I missing something? Seems like the PHB's at Suse are spreading themselves thin. Just a few /. articles down Suse says they're introducing a desktop version. Is this desktop version going to be Suse? is it going to be United Linux? Is it going to be a bit of both? or will it be Desktop Suse, built to UL specs? Seems silly to me to be doing much the same thing in two different places.
=U= "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
If what you need to use is closed-source, then use it. If you can find an open/free alternative that works just as well, then use it. If you find something which costs nothing but doesn't offer source, then use that if you need to. Saying "use the right tool for the job" doesn't necessarily have to involve any discussions about openness or freedom if you have an open mind to begin with.
I've never understood why some people consider having a choice to be a bad thing. I suppose I've always valued liberty over equality, I guess.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Why the blatant dislike for RedHat? It's the distro that most newbies cut their teeth on and gets them ready to move onto more complex stuff. SuSE is OK, but it's not really that much better than RH. Especially where standard hardware support is concerned.
A freind of mine has tried Linux on and off the past few years. SuSE is the closest he said that he came to feeling that it was made for him. But his major gripe (well placed) was that it didn't have out of the box support for his PCMCIA WLAN card (Linksys), his CD-R/RW/DVD drive, or the ability to play back DVDs. These are pretty standard features on most laptops these days. When he tried RedHat, the installer wasn't as easy to use as SuSE, but at least his hardware worked. So that's where it falls apart... RedHat is "six of one" and Suse is "half a dozen of the other". All the blatant in-fighting and competition is doing nothing to further the cause. The only way this is ever going to work is if everyone cooperates. SuSE should open up YAST and RedHat should use it. RedHat should let other distros have access to their kernels, and SuSE should use them. That would go a long way to getting Linux out there. To hell with the businesses, it's the software and the users stupid.
A mac is a great compromise, 'cause she gets pretty eye candy, iTunes, iMovie and lots of neat stuff while you get a unix OS to play with. It comes with gcc and a great ide. Plus when she needs help with her computer your unix knowledge will be of great help.
Buy her the mac, it will save your marriage.
Time to dig in and stand against companies who are treating the spirit of Linux like an afterthought.
There is plently of BSD code out their so I wish these companies would just stick to that instead of using mostly GPL code and then throwing in their "special sauce" thus polluting the distro.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
They do allow access to all the code for their distro.
All the code is there on ftp.redhat.com.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
---umm, as a this-year newcompletely 1005 inexperienced linux user, and starting with redhat, how exactly is it "hard" to slap in a CD and boot up and follow the bouncing mouse clicks to install? You can pick a canned default desktop or server or developer, etc, or hit custom and pick and choose, and a short while later you reboot and you are "installed". I found it no different from any windows or mac install from cd I ever did. I ran sndconfig to really get the sound going and deleted and re-ran the modem finder thingee to dial out with and it worked. That's the biggest problems I have had. Up2date seems to work fine for me as well. Now 8.0 I am not fond of, I just switched back to using 7.2, but that's preferences on my part I liked the layout-"feel", etc, much better, and the modem detecting/configuring worked better (worked at all really) on 7.2 over 8.0. Perhaps I was doing something wrong but after putzing with it I just stuck the 7.2 disks back in, got back online just swell and all the packages work. I mean it's rather easy to do and I am really a mac classic extreme ease of use person by background, this ain't that hard. Now learning in's and out's of command line, sure, big learning curve but that's any of the distros.
Anyway, back to "installing", umm, how much easier is this suse to install over that? Stick in cd disk click install whatever. Does it insert the cd for you with a robot arm or what?;, I don't know, really, never tried it. Explain how it's easier and redhat's sucks, I am interested, not so far into linux that I am extremely loyal to whomever's release. thanks in advance.
Use the power that opensource provides and create your own distro and maintain that.
If you are mainly interested in server installs, then you wont have much maintenance to do once its stable and running.. You dont want bleeding edge stuff in the first place.
Or just switch to FreeBSD and forget the distro wars once and for all ( its part of what drove me away ).
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ugh, This dude should be locked up
>wife beta
The guy above is a fucking troll. And a stupid one at that. Mod him down while I shit in his mouth.
considering how much the Red Hat installer sucks (especially for inexperienced users).
Eh? You are kidding me right? I started off with Red Hat back when it was at version 5.0 - and even then I could work out the installer having come fresh from Windows.
The Red Hat installer is now easier than ever.. in fact I would probably consider it easier to use than the Windows installer! Whats so tough about it?
Pick your keyboard + mouse, pick a place to install to, pick your timezone + location, pick the type of install you want (server, workstation, etc) and off you go! It ain't exactly rocket science!
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Also always had problems with arithmetixs
According to Linux Planet:
"UnitedLinux 1.0 is not a completely new Linux distribution. Instead, it's based on SuSE Linux Enterprise Server."
Other members contributions:
"While SuSE developers are taking the lead in developing UnitedLinux, they're not doing it on their own. Even before UnitedLinux was announced on May 30, SCO, then Caldera, according to Ransom Love, former Caldera CEO, was transferring its Linux development team to SuSE to start work on UnitedLinux. Today, SCO's main contribution to UnitedLinux development is financial support.
That is also the case with Turbolinux and Conectiva. Turbolinux did contribute technology from its Turbolinux Cluster Server product. And, Turbolinux, as it moves away from the American market and focuses almost all its attention on the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese markets continues to contribute language support. Conectiva's main technical contribution has been to the Spanish and Portuguese versions of UnitedLinux."
You can bet, YaST is in there! SuSE ROCKS!
One of the intended of GNU/Linux was to great a good replacement unix system, and so it is not surprising was the focus on making linux easier to migrate to from unix.
Though I can't say for certain, I'd like to think that Linux was not originally intended for widespread Desktop use like operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and MacOS, and it is kind of a fluke that linux has won as much of a share of this market as it has, however small.
Linux, like any other unix clone, was designed to be used for the same purposes as (you guessed it) unix, not windows! ^^; Linux does compete *more* with operating systems like, HP-UX, Solaris, and BSD than windows. This is true simply because of the fact that, in the standard biology definition, that these organisms (ie operating systems ;) are competing for the same niche.
Let's face it, the bulk of the windows user base consists of bitter hating people who spit on linux (because microsoft told them to) and Apple computers (because...well things went downhill after Apple ][, didn't they?). I don't think they are interested in switching, so lets focus on converting the people who are actually open to the idea..