Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Enterprise 3 Beta Reviewed

Posted by michael on from the marooned-on-taroon dept.

viewstyle writes "eWEEK has got a review of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 Beta, code named Taroon. It now has the new Red Hat Bluecurve interface. New important stuff includes: logical volume management and access control lists in the file system. The access control list feature is something that has been in Windows and Solaris for some time. If you're interested, you can download it here."

8 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Doo? by rylin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was under the impression you had to buy a support-license to be able to use RH Enterprise?
    Have I been smoking something, or is there another explanation for this?

  2. ACLs by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know if ACLs are included in the Red Hat 10 Severn beta or is it strictly for Enterprise?

  3. What review?? by Broken_Windows · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We are currently looking at 2.1 vs SuSe enterprise for an upcoming application so I though this would be worth a read, not. Looks like a local review is in order.

  4. Red Hat ES license Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You have to pay for support even if you don't need it on a development server:

    4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System.
    http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2- 1.html

    You have to abide by the above agreement if you buy a server. So this means if you install it on additional servers, you have to buy support even if you don't need support for a development box.

    That sucks. This is even ok with GPL

  5. Its things like this.... by windex82 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CON: Distribution channel for vital, for-cost add-ons such as Java virtual machine and Flash Player remains unclear; on the desktop, lacks range of application availability enjoyed by Windows.

    Please correct me if im wrong but the Red Hat Enterprise releases are ment to be used in the server environments, I couldnt see but a very few cases were a workstation might need an enterprise version.

    Assumming im correct its statements like this that really get to me --

    CON: Distribution channel for vital, for-cost add-ons such as Java virtual machine and Flash Player remains unclear; on the desktop, lacks range of application availability enjoyed by Windows.

    As a server it dosnt NEED this range of application, i would wager that if theres some kind of strange deamon you need that linux dosnt have available, windows definatly wont have one available.

  6. Exactly what is beta? by uberdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't the file systems long out of the beta stage? It's not like their using newfs0.0.1b to format the disks. I'm sure that a *huge* portion of the OS, is in the "it's been stable for years" end of the spectrum.

    --
    "I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
  7. Re:Doesn't look compatible by etymxris · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yes, you can of course install as many as you want w/o cost. But, they will refuse any support if any boxes aren't covered. Large customers can probably negotiate this point though.
    Well, if that's true, then it's fine. Then it's simply a matter of "the support contract is nullified if such-and-such or so-and-so." But the quoted language of the license is different, it says the customer will buy additional support contracts if the software is installed on additional machines. That is placing restrictions on redistribution, which is a big GPL no-no. I think they should revisit the language of their license.
  8. Re:Access Control Lists suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What if GROUP A needs READ access to a certain directory and GROUP B write access ? This is often needed in large environments !