Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Released

Posted by simoniker on from the how-enterprising dept.

OrenWolf writes "CNET is running an article on the release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, which is Red Hat's shiny new 'enterprise' version of Linux. Major changes include more IBM Mainframe support, support for AMD64 (x86_64) processors (aka Opteron, Athlon64 and AthlonFX), changes to support options, integration of Stronghold Apache, and much more."

15 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. GPL compliance... by chill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since a discussion about RH's licenses with these seem to pop up every time they are mentioned on /., I thought I'd point out that source RPMs for RHEL 3 are located on Red Hat's FTP server. .iso images are not available.

    No one said they had to make it EASY...

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:GPL compliance... by nzkoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'll give you the CDs if you buy the software. Judging by your response I'm guessing you're not their target market?

      How many MIPs do you have on your zSeries?

      --
      Cheers Koz
  2. Threading by herrvinny · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The scalability of the threading has gone from being able to support 1,200 to 32,000 threads. The impact on Java is just amazing," said Brian Stevens, vice president of operating system development at Red Hat. "That was probably the most significant engineering effort and the most profound impact on customers."

    Excellent. Multiple concurrent downloads of lots and lots of pictures, if you know what I mean....

  3. Redhat is good for business by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't mean to sound like some astroturfer, but RedHat has definitely brought Linux to the fore of server operating systems.

    With the rapid decline of AIX and Solaris, Win2K and RedHat Linux are making steady gains in the server market.

    What's more, with Linux you don't need to have a server farm like NT requires, so in the long run you save your company money by choosing to go with RedHat.

    1. Re:Redhat is good for business by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't mean to sound like some astroturfer, but RedHat has definitely brought Linux to the fore of server operating systems.

      I'm with you as far as this goes.

      With the rapid decline of AIX and Solaris, Win2K and RedHat Linux are making steady gains in the server market.

      Ok, I can still agree with that. When most people think linux, they think redhat linux.

      What's more, with Linux you don't need to have a server farm like NT requires, so in the long run you save your company money by choosing to go with RedHat.

      This is where your post breaks down. Redhat is DAMNED EXPENSIVE. The server stuff is like $699 for even the cheapest variety, and that's with limited support (which is what I thought you were paying for).
      Of course, this was no big deal when you were content to do your own tech support. HOWEVER, now, they're not even supporting their own stuff!

      I remember, does anyone else remember, when Microsoft stopped supporting windows 95 in 2000? That caused a big stir in the slashdot community about all those millions of computers out there still running windows 95 who are going to have no support! Well, I advise you to take a look at the end-of-the-line dates for RedHat. Redhat 8 was release, what, about a year ago? Mabey 14 months? And it's end of the line is December 31st of this year?

      See, another problem that's going to hit redhat is that, until now, they had planned on releasing a free product called redhat and a pay-for-support-in-order-to-get-the-CD's product, also called redhat (enterprise). But, the way I understand it now, it's looking like the enterprise product is going to be called redhat and the free one is going to be called something else (fedora?). Well, that's just great for redhat, but what about me? I'm in the webhosting business. What do I say when customers call and ask about the $119/month dedicated server? Does it come with redhat? And I have to tell them No, becuase it quite simply costs too much. In fact, sir, it's more expensive that windows server 2003, if all you want to do is webhosting.

      Redhat is the sleaze of the Linux community. They are the windows of linux. They have come into the business and made a name for themselves by making a great product, regardless of it's cost. But, then, they got greedy. It's been a while since they put out a good version of RedHat (7.3 being the last useable one for a server platform), and now, in order to get the stuff that actually works, they expect you to pay not $100, but $1499??

      But, we can't jump ship from redhat because that's what everyone wants. When you think linux, you think redhat. So, they'll manage to squeek by for another few years selling a product that they used to give away, because they've got people hooked on the name.

      Just because it brought linux into the public eye doesn't mean it's out to pet your dog and buy you christmas presents.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  4. Red Hat's movin' on up by Qweezle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me tell you; I own stock in Red Hat, I've researched their business strategies fervently...and these people know what they are doing with open source software. Red Hat posted a profit of 240,000 for the last quarter, the first profit EVER for a company mainly based on open-source software. Red Hat is moving forward, and fast, and there is no denying that soon, very soon, they could destroy Microsoft's server market share, and possibly kill poor ol' Sun Micrososystems(who I also own stock in). Red Hat, by the way, is a steal at its current 12.81 price, but I got in at 10.70. ;-)

  5. 3 different versions by Dreadlord · · Score: 5, Informative

    which is Red Hat's shiny new 'enterprise' version of Linux
    Actually, there are three versions of Red Hat Enterprise, WS, ES, and AS, WS is supposed to be a desktop OS, while AS is the most advanced version, WS price starts at 179$, and AS price at 1499$ for the Intel x86 platform.

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
  6. No software death here by 693746 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's interesting that while Microsoft is praising their new products at the expense of their old ones, Red Hat is still pimping their old Enterprise Linux, version 2.1, even after they've rolled out a shiny new offering. From the RHEL 2.1 page, which is linked directly off of the RHEL 3 page:
    While version 3 provides many compelling new features, some customers will wish to continue to use version 2.1.
    And then they go on to detail three reasons why you would want to stick with the old version!

    A company offering an honest assessment of their new product offerings? What's going on? Is it April already?
  7. Re:Important question by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Funny
    Does it come with a SCO license?
    No, but it does have a copy of a SCO Invoice overlayed with Alan Cox's raised middle finger...

    ;^)

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  8. Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? by leereyno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok so Redhat is charging $149 for their spiffy new version of Linux. Fine. Unlike some I'm not under the influence of mind-altering ideologies. But that doesn't mean that I want to pay $149 for EVERY system I install it on. I'm THE Linux support for ASU's Fulton school of engineering, and we've got almost two hundred systems (that I know of) running one version of Linux or another. I'm the person who has to keep these systems running, and that means it's my job to keep them up to date and make sure they're running a version of Linux that we can expect to see vendor supplied patches and security fixes for. Lets just say I'm not happy about the fact that after the end of the year I'll have to create my own update RPM's whenever a remote vulnerability is found in some package or another. And now I find that even updates to RH 9 are going to end in April of 2004. What does this mean for the school? Either we move over to the new enterprise version, or we start looking real hard at Mandrake, SuSe, etc.

    Which brings me back to my original question. Does anyone know if there are non-GPL'd components included in the new Enterprise version and if so what they are? I'm not going to go around installing proprietary for $$$$ software on people's system illegally, and I'm not going to be able to ask them to pony up $149 per copy when the copy of Redhat the system is already running didn't cost them a dime. So if anyone knows anything, even rumors, I'd really like to know. If I can surgically remove the proprietary components from the system I will as long as they are not critical to its operation. Of course if Redhat is simply charging $149 for the service of being able to download their distro and aren't looking to prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you'd like (sans support obviously), then I'll be more than happy to pay the money to get those ISO images. I've never contacted them for support yet, so why should I need to start?

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Informative


      Of course if Redhat is simply charging $149 for the service of being able to download their distro and aren't looking to prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you'd like (sans support obviously), then I'll be more than happy to pay the money to get those ISO images
      This is the question I had. The sales guy on the phone said this is exactly what they're doing. It's still open source software, so you can install it on as many machines as you want, but you can't buy one support contract and install the updates on 100 machines. They still have to provide the source for the updates of course. So you could DL each source update RPM and compile it yourself.

      I'd encourage you to call them though. For 100 machines they may have a better option for you (they also have some kind of satelite service where you can sort of create your own distribution and updates).

      --
      AccountKiller
  9. You're a crack smoking moron or charitably a troll by abulafia · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Who cares what a company runs? Redhat could compile under MSVC++*, and they'd be different than Yahoo. Either you're a troll or you simply don't get the difference between companies who build software and companies that offer services. Given your last sentence, I think you're a troll, but I'm trying to be nice.

    *That would be a problem in a different sort of way (and of course would not work), but doesn't detract to the point I'm making, which is that there is a difference between offering software which is licensed under terms considered free, and offering services using free software, which can be licesnsed any which way, modulo some restrictions with some licenses.

    More crack, anyone? I've got a great patent-vs-trademark discussion over here...

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  10. Re:Gee... by LDoggg_ · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's no webserver in WS.

    Hmmm... if only there was a website where you could download a free webserver that would work on linux.

    --

    "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  11. a few applicable points from the GPL by xenotrout · · Score: 5, Informative
    GPL'd software in a proprietary system: Free and non-free parts of a system must be clearly distinguished.
    If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
    Can GPL'd software require a per-user/per-machine price? No.
    The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
    It seems to me that if installing RedHat on multiple systems (making a "good faith" effort to not include proprietary software) is copyright infringement, that's RedHat's fault, and they should be legally responsible if anyone tries to collect.
  12. Time Warp by Per+Wigren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're using RH ES 2.1 for a few servers at work (a big hospital in Sweden).. Most servers are still HPUX and NT4 but we're slowly (too slowly IMHO) migrating to Linux. I had been praising Linux for a LONG time when we finally got our first copy of RH ES to install on a production-server. It was a big surprise for me.. I have been using Linux since 1996. Started with RH 4.2, then Debian and have been running Gentoo for little more than 2 years now.

    RH ES 2.1 was like a time warp back to the 90s. Only ext2/3 filesystems. Where the hell is LVM?? It was hard to convince my fellow coworkers (HPUX and Solaris fanatics) how a Unix without LVM can be considered "enterprise"... But eventually I convinced then. :) We now have 3 production servers running RH ES2.1 (two running webservices with apache+tomcat, one running Sybase).

    We've had a lot of problems with them though.. They start to become SLOOOOW after a few days of uptime under load.. Load avg is 0.0 to 0.1, cpu is 99% idle, but they are so slow it takes a good minute or two just to start "top". I think I tracked the problem down to the cciss-driver and upgrading to the latest kernel (e.27) seemed to fix the problem somewhat (still slow but not nearly as slow as when running e.16).
    I really hope ES3.0 will fix our problems! Otherwise my dream of someday running Linux on all of our servers just went down the drain because I don't think that neither management or my fellow coworkers will let me install another distribution (oh no! not ANOTHER set of commands/configfile-system to learn!)

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.