Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Linux Support To End
Orbital Sander writes "Received a missive this morning from the Red Hat Network, stating that they will discontinue maintenance on Red Hat Linux 7.x and 8.0 by the end of 2003, and on Red Hat 9.0 by the end of April, 2004. And, more ominously: 'Red Hat does not plan to release another product in the Red Hat Linux line.' [The full text of the email is on Newsforge.] Kind of the end of an era, and the new king has already been appointed: Red Hat Linux is dead! Long live Red Hat Enterprise Linux! Looks like they realized that only their support contract-based version of the product was making them any money." Readers also note that Red Hat is pointing users to the free Fedora Project.
so long, and thanks for all the RPMs.
Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
By far my favorite desktop. Redhat + Ximian Gnome = Goodness.
Hopefully Fedora will keep pace with things.
The more you know, the less you understand.
From where I'm standing this looks like a very silly step on Redhat's behalf.
I have two Redhat boxes at the moment, one running 7.1 which handles mail and DNS for me a half a dozen friends/family, the other running 9.0 which is purely a remote backup server (rsync copies data to it daily).
I use Redhat because despite the fact that I installed 7.1 a couple of years ago I pay my $60 a year so that I can run "up2date" once a day to keep my security patches up to date. I pay my $60 for both systems.
I also buy a copy of Redhat every 18 months or so.
Now that they have decided to stop updating 7, 8 and 9 they are forcing me to migrate both boxes. I don't have time to scan the web looking for security updates for hundreds of packages, so I need an update service. Hell, I only installed the 9.0 box 4 months ago and come next April updates stop !
So it looks like they are forcing me to either move to Redhat Enterprise to get security updates from them. It looks like I would have to stump up two lots of $379 just to get a two copies of Enterprise and 12 months of update for my two boxes.
I obviously don't want to pay that much...
So I guess I'm going to have to migrate to Debian or something instead ?
The end result for Redhat, no more income from me.
I hate to say it, but even Microsoft gives better support guarantees than that. On the plus side, however, I never needed support from RedHat when I did use their products, and now that I've switched to Gentoo, I don't have to worry about it at all!
Best of luck to you, RedHat; hopefully this move won't anger too many large clients of yours...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hey, there are other companies distributing Linux. Who needs Red Hat? Sure Linux has a little less supporter now. But we still got several supporters backing us.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Oh noes, only 59818932 distros left! What will we do?
(2) Fedora is still going to be around, which will most likely fill the gap left by the death of non-enterprise RedHat
I use Red Hat 9 at home. Because of this, when time came to roll out some Linux servers at work and my boss asked me which we should use, I told him "Red Hat Enterprise" (we wanted support and had the money to pay for it).
I suspect that for a reasonably significant portion of their market, Red Hat Linux (and cooresponding useful items like RHN) is the primary reason that their customers buy Enterprise. I hope they've considered this...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Before anyone here prophecize the end of Red Hat and persuade people to move to other distributions let me say this. Well!!It definitely looks like just a re-branding move to avoid any confusion. They are just branding enterprise solutions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the non-commercial line becomes Fedora.
To me it looks to be a smart move. Others might disagree
...it's not like there aren't any other Linux distros.
This info has been around for a long time. Red Hat Fedora Core 1 was due to be released today, but they found an issue so it's delayed, as you can see from the Fedora schedule. You can read the mailing list post about it here.
is that it leaves us without a really easy to install distro for new users.
I think Mandrake fills that hole to some extent, but they're largely a repackaged RH, and I can't help wondering whether they'll be able to maintain rpm, cygwin, and all the other widely used RH products on their own. Will RH still be employing Cox?
It *is* possible to make money off free software - look at Hans Reiser, or MySQL. For that matter, Slashdot and LiveJournal use totally open source software, even if the software isn't where they make their money.
Why hasn't RH been able to do the same?
This is a bad situation for those of us using RedHat Linux, but there *is* hope.
Check out my eclectic infosec blog at InfoSecPotpou
Just another MSFT nail in the coffin to prove that
1. everybody's got to eat, which means, someone's got to pay
2. going opensource is not for every company.
It's a good day in Redmond.
It means Red Hat isn't going to sell a product in the Red Hat Linux line.
...
It doesn't say there won't be a distribution in the tradition of Red Hat Linux. In fact, Fedora Core 1 is about to be released
You don't have to worry about them making money.
The server line only is so successful because of the branding of the desktop line. If they drop one, they'll lose the other. Not to mention that it's Almost to the point that corps will be willing to pay for it! That's great, drop the OS just as it's about to become functional!
The main problem I had when I received this is they seem to be really focused on the "Enterprise" aspect of this. I am a happy subscriber to the update service with a handful of servers. However, none of these boxes are really "servers" in the heavy duty use sense. We use them as firewalls, and one as a light duty PHP/mysql/web server for doing bug tracking, design documents, etc for the developers.
Under the old scheme, I was able to purchase the low end version and run it as a light duty web server. Now, looking at the product mix, it looks like they are taking the Microsoft 'your workstation isn't a web server' approach to stratification.
Sig under construction since 1998.
Fedora 1.0 will be basically RedHat 10. The Fedora project is sponsored by RedHat and took over the codebase. I am currently using Fedora Test 3 (upgraded from RedHat 9).
But you need to offer a service that someone wants in order to make money. I think people would pay for linux, it's a great OS, but when its perfectly legal to just download it and install it for free why would you pay for it? Only if the incentive for purchasing it was good enough. There's been plenty of companies that have tried to make a profit selling linux, but only a few have come out ok. I know everybody is going to bitch about the spirit of free software and all that crap, but the people at Red hat have families to feed too. Sometimes I wish linux was cheap not free. $50 for an enterprise class system is a damn good deal.
A possible side benefit from this might be that, without the perceived dominance on the linux desktop, 3rd party vendors who produce closed source linux solutions may offer something other than RPMs for those of us who don't run Red Hat, Mandrake or Suse.
Yes, I realize that Debian can be made to use RPMs but frankly fooling a 3rd party installer into thinking I'm running Red Hat is not my cup of tea.
BUT They still have and fund the Fedora Project. This is essentially Red Hat linux. It's just no longer commercially supported. Just like debian.
Red Hat will have to continue releasing any GPL'ed code in the same way they always have. You may not get any proprietary software, but I can't think of anything that was, in base Red Hat.
I'm less concerned with the "no new Red Hat" than with "You've got two months to upgrade". Many vendors only support what RH supports, so vendors may no longer support their products on the free system, and that's a big headache for SA's.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
They aren't worried that you don't pay them anymore. Even if there are a few people like you out there who pay them, they are losing more money than they make from the RedHat Linux product line. In short: they don't care about your money.
Anyone with an elementary school understanding of arithmetic and a lick of common sense can tell you that Red Hat's business model was unsustainable.
A free product, free downloads, free support?
Enterprise linux support? Sure, until it's profitable enough that Big Blue decides to take it from 'em.
Big Blue is the only company around poised to profit from Linux. And we all tip our hats and give them our full support. Hip hip hooray.
Does noone see that the open source community is nothing more than a source of free labour to IBM?
They'll milk Red Hat for free code, and when the work is completed to their satisfaction, they will have the might to succeed where SCO fails - "owning" Linux.
Why do people think IBM is a "good" company? Their track record makes MSFT look like a care bear convention.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Open source software doesn't feed the family so what do all those out of work developers do? It seems to me that OSS is like a virus that eventually consumes its host, thus ending its own life.
This is a serious question from one who seeks to be educated.
Oh yeah, I already know that I am an idiot and most likely a facist, capitalist, bozo, insertyourlabelhere so save those type of comments for your high school classmates and please seek to address the question.
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm running RedHat 7.1 on the server for my small business, and I even know that I'm not running version "7.1" of Linux. Although I must confess that I can't remember which kernel I last installed...either 2.2.X or 2.4.X. I was considering purchasing one of the 9.X versions of RedHat, but I've been teetering on the fence between that and Mandrake. I'd like to give special thanks to RedHat for helping me to make the decision.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
New Coke.
Probably not their best move to date.
This promises to be interesting. I like RedHat, but mainly because of inertia. I've been running it since 6.2 and haven't been sufficently motivated to change. As a result, when asked what distro to run for professional applications, I say "RedHat" due mainly to farmiliarity.
Microsoft has been rumored to almost encourage "piracy" of their office suite because it leads to adoption by paying customers. RedHat is obviously a stepping stone to RHEL. Without providing a "personal" version, RedHat will be able to devote much more energy to large dollar corporate customers, but the lack of grassroots support may offset the increase.
Whats to stop someone from passing around RHL Enterprize CDs? Surely the GPL allowes you to do that? Or is it so laced with proprietary stuff that stripping it out would be as hard as just creating a new distro?
IANARU btw.
I'm using Mandrake as well. I used RH 7.3 & 8.0 but switched.
/. story, source RPM's for RHEL are available for download so that they are in compliance with the GPL.
However, as commented on in a previous
The comment I am referring to is a couple of posts down on the first page of comments.
... the sooner we can all get back to making backdoor-filled proprietary systems and charging the masses an arm and a leg for them. Viva la Pomme!
Buy Slack distros. I do.
If you don't like Slackware, there are many other distros out there ...
I see a lot of people posting "time to learn the debian install." Perhaps not (even thought its not hard folks) since anaconda has been ported you might soon see Debian install ISOs with a familiar face. I think Debian + Apt + Anaconda destroys redhat as a desktop distro, as the only problem I had with Debian usability wise was the install, keeping updated and secure is as easy as a cron job. Forget a good day in redmond, I think its a good day for Linux not to be tied by ignorant people to the Red Hat name. Then again, I can't wait for the FUD C|Net, Dvorak et. al spew out.
Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
My company has over a dozen Red Hat servers, about $900 a year in RHN seats. That's $900 a year Red Hat's getting just for providing us updates, no support.
We're migrating slowly to Debian since this latest Red Hat policy change was announced.
This article pretty much sums up what I am facing.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
What I worry most about is how this will impact corporate perception of "free" software. Even if RedHat decides to back down from this policy, the MicroSoft marketing drones will almost certainly use this as an example of: "Look how crazy those open source nuts are! You never can count of the product to be around long term." Obviously this would be the pot calling the kettle black given MS's record of forced upgrades, but a little hypocrisy seldom gets in the way of an MBA on a rant. :)
Red Hat is moving away from community releases and moving toward enterprise level releases not only for servers but workstations as well.
To view information about SUPPORTED workstation offerings goto:
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/
From the website: (http://fedora.redhat.com)
The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.
The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Development will be done in a public forum. The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core about 2-3 times a year with a public release schedule. The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in the building of Fedora Core and will invite and encourage more outside participation than was possible in Red Hat Linux. By using this more open process, we hope to provide an operating system that uses free software development practices and is more appealing to the open source community.
This is the dumbest thing they have ever done. In fact, they should have done the exact opposite...put their focus on making base RedHat CDs as ubiquitous as AOL cds (well not *that* ubiquitous, but you get the idea).
Free RedHat cds at frys, bestbuy, target, circuit city, office depot....just the sales of support contracts from doing that would have made it worthwhile.
Instead they shoot themselves in the foot with fedora and will now be going toe-to-toe with IBM, Sun and Microsoft.
If any other company has the money and the guts to do it, they should embrace this idea and run with it. Maybe the mp3.com guy or IBM (they had a retail presence before) or even Sun or SGI might do it...hell, SCO should STFU and do this.
Linux has always been grassroots...the problem is the seed never spread far enough for the lawn to grow up healthy and green. Some company needs to spread the seed, spray it all over the country, in the form of free CDs with $1.99/minute support or yearly contracts...that is the way to make linux happen.
I'd played around a lot with the Fedora Core beta (Severn) over the weekend, and wanted to describe my experience a bit for those thinking of going that route. Purely anecdotal, your mileage my vary, and all that stuff.
I initially installed over an existing RH9 install, and also tried an install on a fresh partition. The install process was very similar and it upgraded my existing packages nicely, and did a good job of preserving configuration.
Fedora also has a couple channels on redhat.com for up2date, they work a lot like the one from RH9, but with newer versions of the software. Initially I was subscribed to the Rawhide channel, but after updating up2date itself, it changed to a Fedora Core channel that offered the same stuff. Four of the packages (the desktop backgrounds, indexhtml, and some http configuration package) did not have the right GPG signature, which causes up2date to prompt you (annoying during a very long download that should be able to complete unattended), and can also make up2date hang when it goes to install those packages.
On a positive note, Fedora can recognize my Broadcom ethernet on its own now, with RH9 I had to download and install a separate driver.
Red Hat Graphical Boot (rhgb) is pretty hit or miss, I had it working briefly but it broke again. Looked pretty good while it was working, but was hard to keep working. Also didn't appear to have much in the way of man pages.
The system would sometimes slow way down when booting as it got to probing modules and/or detecting new hardware. I got errors about it trying to install the floppy.o module (floppyless system), and sometimes lots of stuff scrolling by about other block-major devices not being found.
The Linuxant Driverloader program I need to use my WiFi card installs under the 2.4.22.2088 kernel, but after doing up2date and getting the latest (2.4.22.2115, iirc) it would not install. Even under 2088 it gave me problems I had not encountered when running it on a RH9 system that had been updated to the same kernel.
When doing an update install, it adds a new entry to your existing bootloader, as would be expected. When doing a fresh install, it seems to only let you use GRUB, which could be an annoyance to those who prefer LILO. Of course you could change it after the fact.
To sum it all up, Fedora Core is for the most part quite slick and I really liked that it has more current versions of the packages than RH9, which has to play it safe for the corporate world. However, I experienced enough frustrations to have doubts as to whether Fedora Core is really as ready as it needs to be to take over from Red Hat 9.
Since it *owns* Linux, maybe SCO will pick up support for the RH family...of course you'll need to send in your $$$ before SCO will "activate" you.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
"- Open source healthcare"
/.?
Is that going to be anything like the Open Source legal advice you get here on
geek#1: I have this rash on my ass and I can't find anything in the man, wiki or google about it. Anyone have an idea what this is and what I can do about it?
geek#2: IANAD but...
Once you go black, you never go back.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
I used mandrake for years but finally decided to give gentoo a try. I took me a couple of tries to install gentoo without a script (stage 3) but it was definitely worth it.
I learned so much about how the OS works. The partitioning, mounting and all the really basic stuff was all black box to me. I had only used mandrake's installer before. You will learn so much installing gentoo by hand that it's worth the effort.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
I am a RHCE (7-2000) with 16 RH 9.0 servers, routers, firewalls and laptops in the Enterprise. As soon as our 4 figure up2date contract expires, I will rebuild each and every box with either Slack, Debian or SuSE. This behavior is corporate suicide. I would like to thank RH for significantly devaluing my certification. *sigh*
Actually you grazed on something I hadn't thought of ... this could be a serious nail in the coffin for Linux of any sort, for exactly the reason you described : perception. Sun, HP, IBM, Microsoft ... these are companies dedicated to the long term survival of whatever OS and platform they propose - and RedHat is dropping their Linux platform.
Yes I hacked out most of the facts and worked a lot on perception. To many, RedHat -is- Linux. No distinction between Linux9.0 and LinuxEE or whatever, Linux is RedHat and RedHat is Linux in the eyes of those one step behind the rest (like me, with regards to Linux.) This is more than just losing support from RH on the desktop version of Linux 9.0, this could be losing support from your CIO, he could see this as easy justification in going back to mandating (IBM/HP/Microsoft/Whatever.)
I would worry less about the particular version of RH and worry more about the viability of the Linux Movement as a whole based on this recent change in the wind.
Disclaimer : I have one RH 9.0 machine and am still fairly new to the scene (heavy MS user, but open minded and branching out to explore my options.)
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Bye, bye Red Hat the distro - thanks for the memories. I guess your time had to come as a conventional, any one will want to use, let's me borrow the CDs from a friend, find it available at any hosting ISP distro.
P.S. I picked up a copy of Slackware back in '95 and used it until I was able to get our PHBs to look at Linux in '99, which was Red Hat. I am now using Gentoo at home, yet I am slowly moving my systems at work and on the net to Gentoo - thanks Gentoo!
(I just googled a bit and an ssl'd apache is included,
anything else?)
By saying they are no longer supporting standard rh standard does this translate to just no iso's or just alias fedora rh?
-bloo
I think the biggest problem with Fedora Core is that it doesn't associate itself by name either to Red Hat or to Linux, the two biggest branding assets in the Linux world. D'oh!
You say "Linux" or "Red Hat" to the electronics store geeks and they finally know what you are talking about these days. You can tell your boss that you want to run "Red Hat Linux" and he'll consider it.
Now you have to go to the electronics store and answer the "What kind of computer do you have?" question with "I use Fedora Core." Will your boss consider letting you use "Fedora Core 1" even if you promise him that it's really "Red Hat Linux 10" in disguise?
Why not "Red Hat Fedora 10?"
Why not "Fedora Linux 10?"
Why instead the relatively obscure "Fedora Core 1?"
And it's a very awkward phrase... Think of the authors of "For Dummies" books who will how have to say "in Fedora Core, XYZ" over and over in their books instead of just "in Linux, XYZ" so as not to confuse the reader!
And will readers that set out to buy books about Linux even figure out that they now want the book about "Fedora Core?"
Similarly, most of the people that I know who have considered toying with Linux know only about Red Hat Linux. When they finally get a free afternoon and try to locate it, will they make the connection and figure out to download Fedora Core 1 over their broadband connection, or will newbies be downloading Red Hat Linux 9 for the next four years because it's the highest numbered Red Hat Linux they can find?
Seems like a dumb marketing move, as far as I'm concerned.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I think this will slowly end the free linux craze. No matter what, Linux did not really take off as analyst said. Free is good, but no support is like paying for it. Rather have some money to pay and get some support too.
It looks as if Red Hat is tipping its fedora to the Debian way. They will, I'm sure, continue to put quality free software out, but they are going to leave it to other people to distribute it. In fact, lots of great Red Hat tools have been finding their way into Debian already and it did not cost Red Hat a dime. Fedora will give you your free beer and keep you in the Red Hat family. Red Hat, it seems, is going to rely on you. Go make it happen.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Okay, I had a nice example from my bash scripts on how I keep SuSE 8.2 updated automatically using rsync on the file server, NFS exports on same, and pointing my 8.2 machines to an nfs mount to pick up the updates from, but it just won't make it past the lameness filter.
:-)
/etc/cron.weekly, edit /etc/exports on the files server to export that tree, make SURE your local tree matches the remote tree so Yast Online Update doesn't get confused, and you should be good to go. It works for me.
Seriously though, SuSE 8.2, Yast Online update, and you can rsync the SuSE distributions from any of the mirrors listed via ftp.suse.com - just fine one that's rsync-friendly.
Rsync via an entry in
I never like Redhat Linux anyway. After using Slack for so long, I tried playing around with Redhat 7.3 thru 9. It just didn't feel right to me. Too much eye candy and wizards. I guess I am a real techy but I love my Slackware ;)
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Fedora 1.0 will be basically RedHat 10. The Fedora project is sponsored by RedHat and took over the codebase. I am currently using Fedora Test 3 (upgraded from RedHat 9).
;) and up2date). After going over to the Fedora web site, I don't think I would recommend it to anyone. It sounds like it is going to be beta level software rolled into a distro so RH can test for RHE. No thanks. I wish RH all of the luck, but unfortunately the clients I have can not afford to pay those prices, but require stability. IMHO, I don't think Fedora can provide that stability. I guess I'll be switching to Mandrake.
The only problem with using Fedora, is that it seems to be a way for RH to test out bleeding edge software. I've been using RH since release 4, and have deployed and recommended it to many small to medium sized businesses. It is a rock solid distro, with great support and easily updated (Gotta love RPMs
The worst part of EOLing the RedHat line is that there isn't a real migration path from RedHat to RedHat Enterprise. Basically, the migration path is 1) back everything up, 2) install RedHat Enterprise, 3) restore user data such as home directories, databases, mail configuration, etc. 4) spend the next week getting the server to work as it did before you installed RedHat Enterprise.
If you're trying to migrate a critical installation that can't be down for long periods of time, I guess you're SOL.
RH just charged me $60 for another full year of RHN. Anybody know if they will be rebating part of that?
If you call RedHat their customer service recorded message is still trying to sell the old business model products like RHN and RH9 Professional. NICE! A few weeks ago they sent me a nasty past due notice and I renewed my RHN account till Dec of 2004. The past due notice was because they implmented a new billing system and were sending out email notices for the first time. Kind of funny that they went and collected as much RHN dollars as possible before they made this anouncement. Only had to wait 10 minutes to get through to cancel it! I don't think keeping my RHN account is worth it for an eval copy of WS. Now what do I do with my RHCE?
I bought their server special edition a while back and ended up with so many holes and broken daemons that I had to rebuild the thing before I could use it.
...just my 2 cents that is all.
In fact. that server ended up as a desktop machine for me and never did see the net other than from behind an OpenBSD firewall.
So I asked myself, why did I pay RedHat so much? Because of the hype?
Next on advise from many folks I bought Mandrake and did install it in a machine. It suffered the same redhat syndrom and I never dared putting it into a DMZ either.
In fact, I never got around to installing it into any machine that was in regular use. I could never figure out how to reinstall that older RedHat boxen without losing everything I had done... years of work. Or weeks of rebuilding.
So later I decided to upgrade and this time I went out and bought a new box and left the RedHat machine as it was and still is...
Then I put Debian Woody on it and I have never looked back!
As for the Mandrake machine? Well - it got an install of MaxOS (www.maxos.ca) which is derived from debian and knoppix with lots of great stuff added... and I gave it to my daughter who is somewhat computer illiterate but probably better than average.
She wanted winders too so I gave her a copy of NT and NT2000 and either 98 or 95 (I don'tknow - I don't use them) and a spare drive for her to play with and told her it is a free country and she is free to do whatever she wants.
If she wants M$ support, she can find it on her own or pay M$. IF she wants maxOS support or to try a different distro, then if I can't help her I know ppl who can.
So far, she is telling me she likes MaxOS and I have not heard that she has gone through a reinstall of anything else.
Meanwhile my son is musing about installing debian or macos because he's tired of w2K self distructing every few months. Since he has re-installed it about 5 times he has learned about how to install an OS into a computer. It would seem that M2K is good for something. (an educational toy perhaps?)
But I doubt he'll be interested in Red Hat.
RedHat had some serious issues with broken deamons and upgradability that IMHO were not properly addressed. So the center of the world moved to a new location. They may do ok for a while in enterprise level support. But I've looked at their pricing schemes and we are simply not interested.
There are many very good systems admins in this city that can provide a better level of support at a better price.
Perhaps Red Hat should have looked to work with the consulting community more.
Well, I find that Debian is a breath of fresh air and I'm sticking with it. A lot of this has to do with the idea that Debian is not RPM based.
Another part of it is that IMHO for a server you want a lean mean serving machine and OpenBSD fills this role just beautifully. For a desktop you want a different approach.
Perhaps Red Hat saw these two requirments and aimed for the middle ground.
If so, then really it was two boats... one being the server boat and the other being the desktop boat and Red Hat pisitioned themselves right in the middle... in the drink so to speach... and found themselves having trouble keeping their heads above water as a result.
Where do you think freshrpms gets the errata updates?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
NT is 6 years old though. Red Hat 9.0 is not even a year old?
However, I experienced enough frustrations to have doubts as to whether Fedora Core is really as ready as it needs to be to take over from Red Hat 9.
Think of Fedora Core 1 as if it were Red Hat 5.0 or 6.0, which each burned lots of people who installed them right away (rather than after the first few weeks of major updates came out). It's the equivalent of a Red Hat x.0 release, and I don't have any higher expectations.
The question is whether we'll ever see the equivalent of a Red Hat x.1 release, when instead of spending 6 months hunting down every subtle bug they can find in their current software, the distro developers will be upgrading everything to brand new versions and ditching the "ancient" stuff by the time it's 9 months old. Red Hat (again, assuming you waited before installing x.0 versions) always struck me as a happy medium between having the most brand-spanking new software versions for features and having time-tested old software versions for stability. Now I worry that Red Hat users are going to have to choose between an unstable Fedora version and an outdated Enterprise version. I used to feel bad for the Debian users who had to make a similar choice between "Debian unstable" and "Debian stable" versions of that distro; now IIRC Debian users have a more moderate choice available ("Debian testing"), and Red Hat users may be losing ours.
1. Redhat set it up. Why support a company that just screwed you? Fedor is bound to be different from the Redhat Enterprise distro enough so that you can not test products that require Redhat Enterprise. 2. History. I spent to much time learning Linux and RedHat. I started at this on RedHat Linux 4.0. I know have a RHCE. If I would have picked Debian back then my knowledge would still be useful in a totally free environment and at work. Why would I want to set my self up to be screwed again? 3. Redhat has deliberately screwed its users. Think back to the release of Redhat 9. Why did they move from 8 to 9. May speculated that it was a gcc version change and it was no big deal. Todays anouncement proves that they have been planning for a long time.
Yeay, my first Slashdot post.
I would rather see Redhat reorganize its resources and stay a profitable, viable company then start loosing money and weaken by continuing what I assume is not a profitable venture for them. The enterprise is there bread and butter amd it is difficult to critzise them for focusing on that. As long as they are making a profit, they can afford to keep coders on staff to contribute to all the projects that they contribute to.
Are those contributions any less valuble if not released in a Red Hat Personal distro? I think not. The Red Hat funded Fedora Project will fill the space that the old distro.
As far as updates go, possibly urpmi could be included Fedora? ( excuse my ignorance if it is already there ) It keeps my Mandrake box nice and happily updated.
Your notion of "free upgrades" would cost this cat nearly $3000 for the initial switch alone (and don't even mention buying used equipment, not an acceptable option considering Apple's current business model)... not to mention that regularly posted updates piped down from Apple won't cover the majority of his server needs.
Look, I'm not anti-mac. Hell, my old G4/400 is my recording studio and my Lombard is my portable networking tool (YDL 2.3), but switching platforms is not an an acceptable course of action just because your distro of choice forces you to examine an OS move.
RedHat's new business model will not end up with me tossing my RH 7.2 based K6 webserver or my RH 9 based XP2500+ anymore than this cat is going to toss his two perfectly usable systems.
If you want to justify your Macintosh zealotry... do it where it's warranted.
You damned evangelists are the whole reason I don't announce that I own Macs.
Walks off shaking head in disgust
And you... you, you bloody birkenstock wearing GNU hippies!
*pointing and grumbling at the snickering anti-social duo in the corner*
Put down that Mountain Dew, drop those multi-sided dice and pay attention! I've got a few choice words for you as well!
----
#SickNotWeak
I work for a large WebHosting Company. I'm not due to start work for a few more hours, but I can already imagine some of the things that must be happening.
We have thousands of servers, hundreds of them are RedHat Linux. Our Flagship Systems Management product runs on RedHat Linux and FreeBSD. Our model has been very effective and efficient so far, because RedHat Linux had known reliability and cost factors. With Cost about to skyrocket, and a limited migration opportunity timeframe, we're screwed. Many other organizations who chose RedHat Linux for similar reasons and deployed it in similar numbers are screwed as well.
IMHO this is a bad move for RedHat only because of the no advance notice. Had they said this 6 months ago, everyone would be in a better position to deal with it.
My company can not, and does not, just go around upgrading all the servers. We do them when the box fails, customer has problems, or is hacked. This is the only time when the customer feels that a change is necessary. No one has the time to migrate en masse.
RedHat does want our money, I can assure you. Though we haven't paid them much, many of our customers have. Plus, we help give them Name Recognition. Customers come to us for our excellence of service (we are actually that good), and if they choose Linux they get RedHat. They learn more about RedHat and coupled with our quality, they will probably continue on in life very happy with the idea of using RedHat Linux.
Now we have to start figuring out what to do.
Thanks RedHat. Your loyalty to your customers is crap.
Next time, how about just two weeks for the End of Life announcement.
Q: What is the errata policy for The Fedora Project?
A: Security updates, bugfix updates, and new feature updates will all be available, through Red Hat and third parties. Updates may be staged (first made available for public qualification, then later for general consumption) when appropriate. In drastic cases, we may remove a package from The Fedora Project if we judge that a necessary security update is too problematic/disruptive to the larger goals of the project. Availability of updates should not be misconstrued as support for anything other than continued development and innovation of the code base.
Red Hat will not be providing an SLA (Service Level Agreement) for resolution times for updates for The Fedora Project. Security updates will take priority. For packages maintained by external parties, Red Hat may respond to security holes by deprecating packages if the external maintainers do not provide updates in a reasonable time. Users who want support, or maintenance according to an SLA, may purchase the appropriate Red Hat Enterprise Linux product for their use.
I'm switching to another distro. It's not about support for me, but product releases & maintenance etc. I can do my onw support and use (& be a part of) the community etc. I've used red hat and developed software on it for employers for several years.
This has to be the craziest decision ever. I'll probably go SuSe now.
Damn, I just installed this on a friends computer and bought the "RH9 Linux for Dummies" book for him.
If Red Hat don't think this will impact their enterprise business negatively then they are certifiably insane.
Adios Red Hat.
1. "Everything" will never be written. To think that OSS will have written everything, and there's no commercially viable programs left is silly.
2. In-house developments and/or adaptations of OSS work requires programmers. In fact, most programmers today are busy doing in-house things.
3. There's always some things for which there is more money than programmer interest, which simply wouldn't be written unless those with money paid for it. Think uncool, boring, tedious, repetitive programming with hardly any value to the general public.
Besides, there's nothing fundamentally wrong or unique about the process destroying the market. Think e.g. a company that has specialized in automating manufacturing - replacing humans with robots. Once they're "done", they've obsoleted themselves, since their services won't be needed anymore.
Except that for them too, the job is never done. All the time new products go from prototype stage (typically with some or a lot of manual labor) into full-automated production, creating new jobs. Same with programming. This program or that has been "done", but there'll be other programs, other software.
Maybe you think the PC and Linux is like the "final" step. In my opinion it is only the beginning, as more and more embedded devices (everything from cell phones to dish washers to PVRs) are becoming "mini-computers", almost without exception commercial and proprietary (at some level, like OS X over BSD and Tivo over Linux). And all of those will need developers...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
2. The fact that RedHat will not produce a RedHat-branded free Linux distro was also known for a while.
3. Finally, the fact that RedHat's free Linux distro will be developed jointly with the Fedora project was also announced here a few weeks ago.
So, I am not sure why is this even being posted on the Slashdot front page. This is non-news.
I've just read the posts at +3 and it seems like everyone thinks this is a negative, bad thing -- it's not at all :-)
RedHat have found that a free software project cannot be developed in a close way -- it is too expensive amoung other things. So they have opened up development to the community.
If you just follow some of the mail on the fedora lists you will find that the opening up of the project has led to loads of cool stuff starting to happen, the fedora legacy project to support old versions, people offering to do i18n stuff, people working on a PPC version, support for apt and yum -- none of this would have happened without out the dev being opened up.
Also why is it called Fedora? -- well one reason is so that anyone can duplicate CDs and sell it! Before people doing cheap CDs had to remove the Redhat trademark stuff, now you don't need to :-)
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
I have a handfule of servers and found it very convienant to pay $60/year per machine to have a centralized place (rhn) to track updates & perform installations.
This wasn't profitable?!?
Fedora's rapid-update cycle ruins it for me, keeping machines on software/releases that are "patchable", without an upgrade, will simply take to much effort
It seems that most dedicated hosting providers currently offer a choice of RH9 or FreeBSD, with quite a few offering RH7 and a few offering other Linux distributions.
What will this mean for them? Although direct support isn't really their problem (once they give you root, anything you ask them about non-hardware costs money), I can't imagine their marketing people will feel warm and fuzzy offering "unsupported" distros.
Do you think they'll just fork over for RH Enterprise? Or maybe switch to something else? I think their profit margins are fairly thin to begin with.
Once again, I don't think many of those providers actually have service contracts with RedHat et al, but shared hosting providers may well have.
Anybody work in that industry and have any insights?
This Like That - fun with words!
For years open-source/Free Software Advocates have been telling us that the way to make money off of Open-Source software is by selling support. It's too bad that the Open-Source community has decided to treat Red Hat like a pariah for doing so, instead of embracing Red Hat as a company that finally built a working Open-Source business model, and gave up on the silly strategies of the dot-com era.
If you want a free and supported commercial Linux distro, do what the Europeans have done with SuSE- use anti-American/Anti-Capitalist/Anti-Microsoft sentiment to sway governments and businesses toward it. But don't get mad because a Linux business needs a business model appropriate to its locale and customers.
The free desktop version is no longer being only developed by Red Hat. It is now a COMMUNITY project that anyone can get involved in. The first release is due out soon named Fedora Core 1. Fedora was a project that provided high quality third party RPM's to the Red Hat community. Red Hat has joined forces with Fedora and now this will be the community version. Infact, Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be based on Fedora Core.
The original Fedora project is here and the new Red Hat/Fedora project is here
I have been using Fedora Core 1 test 3 for a while now and it is really great. The up2date client can now get updates from apt and yum repositories and makes it even easier to get third party products into your Red Hat/Fedora desktop. The release of Fedora Core 1 should be out soon. Go to Fedora and get on one of their meailing lists, they are very active and it will give you a much better idea of what is REALLy going on.
The only real difference now is that if you want paid support, you will have to use one of the Red Hat Enterprise versions since Fedora Core will be community supported.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Why not?
From the perspective of the large customer:
They want to pay someone and have a contract for support. For the same reason "no one got fired buying IBM", No one got fired for buying a suport contract that they didn't fully use- only for not having a support contract for when they needed it.
While support contracts mean nothing to a 10 peson outfit with a linux hacker in their midst, larger corporations see a different story.
They want to cut costs, but they don't want to be left high and dry. This isn't for a working groups personal file server; this is for mission critical applications. They need to gaurantee minimum down times, and support contracts help managers sleep better at night.
Look at IBM... their new pSeries machines are crazy expensive- But you can run linux on them! Red Hat is gearing for the same market that IBM is- cost cutters and those switching from Solaris on the enterprise level.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
One example - Merrill Lynch:7 linux.ht ml
http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/03/27/032
Similar migrations have happened at Morgan Stanley and CSFB, don't know about the rest of the street, but with all the banks bleeding profusely the last couple of years, I imagine Linux was a very attractive proposition, purely in TCO terms.
I know first-hand that Morgan Stanley has deployed around 12,000 RedHat AS 3.0 servers in the last year and a half.
I guess I understand why RedHat is doing what it's doing, but I think it may be shooting a little too high for much of the market. Linux is just starting to make inroads at my company, but only because of the zero cost right now. When we need to throw something up quickly or host a new project, linux is always the first pick now because it's quick, easy, and free. But if we had to pay $799/yr per linux server... well, I hate to say it, but MS makes more sense. We already have a lot of it, so we already pay for Subscription Services. We're mostly an MS shop anyway still.... so why are we fooling with this linux stuff, again?
And just to ward off the notion that we're complete freeloaders, the success of linux at the small server level has led us to consider RHAS for our oracle environment. We'll probably still consider it, but there's no way we're ever going to see RHEL WS corporate-wide at these prices ($299/yr per workstation?). For free workstations, you might be able to convince the folks in the offices with doors that a migration might be worth the pain. Trying to sell them the pain *and* higher prices... well, the best I could ever hope for would be a good laugh.
I've paid my $65 (or was it $60? I forget) for Red Hat Network (RHN) -- what do I get for my $$ after April 2004? Will they automatically stop my subscription? Will they keep charging my credit card every year but give me nothing? Is Fedora going to be part of RHN?
Many questions about all this... all I know is confusion is bad for Red Hat and bad for me (and my small business). Personally, I'm experimenting with Debian.
I think you guys don't get it
I think this makes a lot of sence.
1. Technological advances made in Fedora will make it into Redhat Enterprise Linux.
2. RedHat developers will work on Fedora. (Maybe not as many as before)
3. Non-Red Hat Developers can now change RedHat for the better. If you don't like certain things in Fedora you can now change it.
I think RedHat is saying...
We want to concentrate our work on creating the most
- stable
- secure
Linux OS.
I think this is good. Finally there will be a Linux version that you can trust on an enterprise system. I'll bet IBM will jump into bed with this one.
Fedora may suck. But, it doesn't seem that different from the original RedHat.
Redhat just isn't going to spend effort to make it
Robust
Secure
Reliable
Stable
RedHat 6, 7, 8 weren't very stable or reliable in my opinion. And I'll bet the Fedora community could create some sort of update server as well.
I might still migrate away from RedHat. We will have to see what happens. Its all perception... This name change might hurt there image.
So I guess I'm going to have to migrate to Debian or something instead ?
.sig), and it's all completely free. Of course, I wouldn't mind getting some money -- it would allow me to upgrade the build hardware, and release the binary updates more quickly -- but even $5 from everyone using FreeBSD Update would be an impressive amount.
Switch to FreeBSD, and you'll get a choice of the "always up to date but sometimes unstable" -CURRENT, the "mostly up to date and generally stable" -STABLE, or the "completely stable, security fixes only" -RELEASE branches. All of which allow you to rebuild the entire system whenever you like.
Binary security updates are available for the -RELEASE branches (see
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
You may be reading too much in to the statements on the Fedora site. For instance, the fact that there's no support from the company might seem frightening, but that's been the case with Red Hat Linux for several years now. The Enterprise line is the only one with commercial support available.
The fact that Fedora will incorporate new technology before Enterprise does does not mean that Fedora will be beta-level software. It means that Enterprise is a much slower moving platform, for the benefit of application vendors like Oracle. Fedora will continue to go through all of the QA that Red Hat Linux ever was. (ntp 4.2 was removed from the distro, in favor of 4.1 because 4.2 wasn't working. Just like you'd expect).
You might choose to switch to Mandrake. That decision is up to you. I'd do so slowly, though, and with plenty of testing. I've never really heard great things about Mandrake's stability.
My plan for the time being is to continue using RHL 7.3 (as we have for some time), with support from FedoraLegacy. If that group needs manpower, I'll probably end up involving myself to make sure that we get the support for our servers that we need. We'll continue that for as long as it takes for Fedora Core to prove itself, or to fail to do so. I expect the former, but maintain plans in case of the latter.
Just accept that it is difficult, hence marketing. Bob Young(now gone from RH) said it best. It's all about branding. This will seriously hurt the brand and slow any new blood from jumping on board.
They could have done the same thing structurally and still called it Red Hat Linux. But now people will rightly say, "So why did they change the name?"
Expect to see an attempt at back-pedaling in two years, but it will be to late.
Who will be the next distro king? Who will get all that dirt cheap cross branding for the services their company offers...
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Though todays announcement shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's followed Red Hat over the last year (support discontinuance was announced long ago, Fedora was announced more recently), I think it was a very poor move.
Yes, I do understand producing their "Red Hat Linux" product was expensive, and hurt their bottom line. They should have never split their product in two to begin with. Maintaining both RHL and Enterprise Linux was too much of a burden on the company. It reeks of bad management, much like the Mozilla project does (They are trying to develop no less than three different browsers at the moment, possibly more depending on how you count--and Netscape just cut them lose, so they're severely understaffed... you'd think they'd make consolidation efforts--but this is another tirade).
What they should have done is modularize their base product, and sell add-ons. They retain all of their users, all of their mind share, only have to develop one product, AND it can act as a stepping stone into your Enterprise-level services. Hell! They even had the infrastructure to do a single core product all laid out with Red Hat Network. Sell an Enterprise Web Server channel add-on to Red Hat Linux 10 for Enterprise-level prices, and so on. It would have been beautiful. Really.
It would have also provided their Enterprise customers with ten-times the amount of testing of the core OS. This is not to be underestimated. Much as Linus renames a kernel from e.g. 2.5.79 to 2.6.0-test1 when he wants (free!) wider testing, Red Hat now has a user base one-tenth the size to "test" their releases on. And problems that aren't caught in relase QA (many just can't be) will now HAVE to affect (high-)paying customers. There's no free users to take 90% of the falls.
Red Hat produced the de facto Linux distribution in the United States AND they were in the black. There was nothing to stop them. They provided a free, high quality alternative OS. People were switching to Linux, and switching to Red Hat. It was working. But apparently not fast enough for them.
Windows users have no highly visible, high quality alternative now. (No, it's NOT necessary to chime in with your favorite distribution.) What's good for Linux was good for Red Hat, and this is unquestionably bad for Linux, medium-term, at least.
Fedora does NO ONE any good. It's pseudo-managed by Red Hat, but with no guarantees, no support, no Red Hat Network, no Enterprise add-ons, and regular Joe-Schmoe developers fucking it up (cf. Debian). And the mix of open development and corporate bureaucracy, neither with any vision, is sure to pull and tug at it in no general direction, making it nothing more than a poor Debian clone. I wonder how long until Red Hat cut's it lose completely.
It's a sad day for Red Hat. Up until they split their product line last year, I was considering investing in the company. They had a real handle on the market. Now, they have nothing to drive themselves into becoming a big player. They'll remain a small service-oriented company. If they remain at all. (They kind of remind me of BSDi now. Probably not an association they would like.)
And it's a sad day for Linux. But I have faith the (huge) void will be filled. Will Debian step up? Someone new? It should be interesting, at least.
[Wow. That turned out to be longer than I'd expected. If I wasn't hungover I'd actually invest a little more time and proofread it. Hope it's been an interesting read, if anyone made it this far. Hey, e-mail me if you did! Tell me if you agree, or if I'm crazy, or both. Or just say hi! I'm bored. No one sends letters these days. The Internet's become so impersonal. But that's a whole nother tirade.]
Employee (chanting): Gentoo is faster than the other distributions because software is built and optimized for the computer that it will be run on. I have way more control of my system, as well. Gentoo marks the end to dependency hell because of it's superior package management system, portage. I will never use "b0rked" rpm again. Installing software is as easy as "emerge app," and all the dependencies are installed for me! I can update my entire system with one command, "emerge -u world."
PHB: What the hell are you talking about?
Other employees enter the office, all chanting in sync with eachother. They begin to slowly walk towards the PHB. PHB gets frightened.
All the employees (chanting): Gentoo is faster than the other distributions because software is built and optimized for the computer that it will be run on. I have way more control of my system, as well. Gentoo marks the end to dependency hell because of...
PHB: No, this isn't happening. NOOOOOOOOO!
Fadeout. Credits.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
A recent example of this was Sears. They recently sold off their Novus/Discover unit, which was the only profitable part of the company, to focus on their sagging retail division.
The gamble worked: Their retail division went from crap to profit in one quarter. By focusing their efforts on one thing and doing it well, they were able to create value.
That's typical slashdot bullshit.
:-)
What really happens is this:
Red Hat Inc. will cease to use the "Red Hat" label on its free distribution (previously known as "Red Hat Linux"), and continue using it exclusively on its paid-for distribution (a.k.a. RHEL - "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"). "Red Hat Linux" will become "Fedora Linux", and RHEL will continue to be the paid-for distribution.
Neither of these distributions will change in its inner core and/or "philosophy", with one exception: Red Hat will loose its grip a little
bit on Fedora (previously known as "Red Hat Linux"), which will become more open. Think of it as a combination between the old Red Hat Linux, and a non-corporate free Unix distribution such as Debian or FreeBSD.
Otherwise, the core of the development effort on Fedora will continue to be provided by Red Hat - hence the term "Fedora Core" used for the releases.
Essentially, Red Hat expects to continue as before with the development of the distribution, it's just that they opened the doors for contributions from outside related to packages of a secondary importance.
In fact, future versions of the paid-for RHEL will actually be older branches of Fedora Linux, plus proprietary additions by Red Hat Inc.
The older RH Linux versions (6.x, 7.x, 8) will become unsupported by Red Hat on Dec 31 2003, while RHL 9 will continue to be supported until Apr 30 2004. "Unsupported" meaning that Red Hat will not provide updates anymore. That's normal, and in fact it was amazing they continued to support 6.x for so long.
Fedora Linux will get a mixed support model: Red Hat will support Fedora releases for limited amounts of time (shorter than the
lifetime of the 6.x releases anyway!), together with support from the community built around the Fedora Project (a la Debian); once the
"official" Red Hat support for a certain Fedora version disappears, its the community support that will continue to provide updates for it.
My estimate is that the support provided by the community will actually last for a lot longer than the "official" support - see the case of the non-corporate Unix distributions such as Debian, FreeBSD, etc. which are supported for long periods of time.
Obviously, Red Hat is trying to draw as much attention as they can to their RHEL product, which is where their money come from. But i feel that, during this whole change, their "market droids" did a poor job of explaining what's really going on.
Hence the rumors that "Red Hat Linux goes away, everyone must buy RHEL or migrate to something else" etc. Oh wait, but then they did a _good_ job!
Fedora Core 1 (or "the distribution formerly known as Red Hat Linux 10") is scheduled for release this week.
If Red Hat wants to be really sneaky, they will break binary compatibility in such a way that binaries compiled on Red Hat Enterprise Linux will only run on RHEL (e.g. trivially changing C++ name mangling, incrementing all kernel syscall numbers by 1). Want to run Oracle 10i? Unreal Tournament 2004? nVIDIA XFree86 drivers? Sorry, they only provide Red Hat RPMs that won't run properly on Slackware, Debian, or FreeBSD.
One could even argue that they have already been doing that, what with GCC 2.96 and custom patches to glibc and so on over the last few years.
Just a thought... :)
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
My feelings on Gentoo are pretty simple: It's a really cool distribution with a great development team, great forums, and by and large a pretty sharp user base.
Same goes for Debian. But remember when you couldn't find a single Linux related forum (including /.) without seeing a Debian zealot post about how "apt" is "superior" to rpm? There is a small section of Gentoo's userbase that likes to run around the internet telling everyong how great Gentoo is, based on completely silly reasons, such as the ones the employees in my parody had.
If you believe what you have just written above, then you have obviously never actually tried Gentoo.
I don't know what you mean, but I do believe that there are zealots who constantly evangelize Gentoo for stupid reasons. Among the reasons are "no more dependency hell" and "building from source is faster." My personal least favorite reason is "Gentoo gives you way more control." Knowledge gives you control, not your operating system.
There are a lot of cool reasons to use Gentoo, and if I were you, as a Gentoo user, I would be upset at such zealots, who only make you look bad by proliferating the opinion that all Gentoo users are wannabe "l33t" zealots. I choose to look beyond them to formulate my opinion of Gentoo, but nevertheless I am still annoyed by them. I don't generally run around bashing Gentoo, either. Remember, this was a joke. My .sig is merely a passive way to express my opinion of Gentoo zealots, not to "bash" the distribution as a whole.
In reality, I respect Gentoo, and understand it's real strenghts and weaknesses, and my own system looks a lot like a lightweight cousin, actually. Most Gentoo users are sharp, knowledgeable, and friendly. My beef is not with Gentoo, but with Gentoo zealots. Please, don't take my attacks personally, because they're not intended for you. Lighten up, and laugh. That was my intention, not to prove to you that I'm "l33t."
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
It is interesting how calmly the majority of posts are justifying this as an "ok" move.
Yet, I STILL see posts about how Dell (and other major PC manufacturers that don't sell Linux to home consumers) is lame because they got rid of Linux as a choice for home computers.
It comes down to support. It is not yet cost effective for a corporation to support Linux on the home desktop. Dell learned it a couple years ago, and now Red Hat agrees.
If you're not going to beat up Red Hat over this (I wouldn't), you should not beat up PC manufacturers for making the same decision.
1) The free version of Red Hat Linux is now called "Fedora Linux", because now that the "Red Hat" brand name is valuable, they're going to exploit that.
2) Red Hat, Inc. is turning it's back on 99.9% of it's installed user base, by pricing it's future "Red Hat" offerings out of reach of normal users. Red Hat is only obligated to give you the sourcecode for RHEL. They dont have to give you pre-built binaries. Good luck compiling it.*
3) Red Hat, in one single memo, has managed to insult every developer who has ever worked on, or contributed to, making Red Hat Linux a brand name. They're taking what we helped build, and making a Cousin Oliver out of it. We put our support behind (and helped build) _Red Hat_, not "Fedora".
Thats about it.
* = How long do you think it'll take for someone to write a little program that downloads the whole bag of RHEL code, compiles it, makes RPMs out of it, and spits out a few ISOs, and undermines Red Hat's stupid ass attempt at a ca$h grab in one fell swoop?
Bowie J. Poag
I'm a smaller shareholder of Redhat stock - owning enough stock that the losses I took (from a purchase at $22/share) could have paid for a lifetime of Redhat commercial licenses (and yes, I've even suggested this - even a free lifetime maintenance subscription as an apology for the loss - not even an email reply from a marketing weasel).
What, Red Hat forced you to buy their stock? Instead of asking for an apology, you should thank them for having the integrity to price their stock IPO at an honest $7 (relative to your purchase after the stock split once) a share during the height of dot-com mania. If you'd waited until after it dipped down to $7 again, and bought it at the price they suggested it was worth, you could have sold it today and doubled your money.
The last time Red Hat offered a stock-related freebie to their supporters (the IPO offer to everyone who'd ever given them so much as a bugzilla report, not to mention code), they took a lot of flak from the confusion of it. Imagine how much fun they'd have sorting out a "everyone who claims to have bought RHAT during the dot com bubble gets a free subscription" policy!
OpenOffice is free, but StarOffice is not.
-- forgive me my poor Engl...
This is, without a doubt, the most horribly incorrect, misleading article I've ever seen.
Real story (a Fedora project member might have additions, but this is pretty close to what's happening). Red Hat realized that Debian was doing something right -- big set of packaged software, auto-updates on 'em, etc. Red Hat was trying to set up their own Debian-style setup called Red Hat Linux Project (RHLP). At some point, Red Hat picked up on the fact that most Red Hat users already like and use Fedora. So they talked to the Fedora folks, and combined RHLP and Fedora. Basically, it means that Red Hat pays for Fedora hosting and distributes Fedora (major value add) *with* their own software packages.
What's the end-user result? From a RH user standpoint, it's something like Powertools being readded to RH plus a lot more. A lot of Debian-style goodness being made available to the masses. There's a much larger package set, so less needing to use checkinstall to automatically produce halfassed RPMs from tarballs. You get a *good* set of download-and-install tools (Fedora uses apt and yum, unlike RH's piss-poor up2date...I've been griping about this on Slashdot for ages). You don't need to add Fedora's apt or yum package to your distro to actually use the large set of well-packaged packages.
This is the *best* thing that's happened for RH users for a long time, and we someone, confused or malicious, posting a "RH is dead" story? What the heck? Is this guy a Mac OS X nut, or just completely and utterly confused?
Clearly, RH should have done a press release, but it was damned irresponsible of Slashdot editors not to add a followup comment, given how significant this is to the Slashdot community. It's like a story claiming "Debian is being acquired by Microsoft" when someone packages WINE for it, or something equally ridiculous.
May we never see th