Slashdot Mirror
Is Red Hat the Next Microsoft?
Patrick Dunn
writes "On ZDNET's Smart Reseller they have a story
about Red Hat maybe being a mini-Microsoft by it's
business practices." I'd guess that the 2 most common
conspiracy theories that pop into my mail box are 1. MS-Linux
and 2. Red Hat becoming the next MS. What do you think?
As long as we have open source, things should be alright the thing that sucks now about microsoft is that the release shitty stuff that we cant fix
*sigh*
Red Hat could never become "the next MS" - even assuming they wanted to - because the GPL keeps them honest.
I'm getting a little tired of outsiders slandering one of our own.
DG
Once you get past the Redhat stuff, Linux is pretty decent... The Redhat part leaves much to be desired. They are getting better though.
RPM's go against what a lot of linux is about:
1. Newbies learn rpm's and never know how to compile there own software
2. Never download a binary -- trojans abound !
and its really getting retarded that some apps are pro-rpm -- like GNOME ? Kinda funny that the only source install-guide is called "Installing from source for a RedHat system"
Anyone else notice that 99% of the stuff that is on zd-net seems to be, well, slanted in a major ass-kissing way towards Redmond?
I think its idiotic.
Redhat releases GPL licensed code.
Why is that a problem?
It may for the next release. Qt's license now satifies RMS and Eric Reymond. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for you.
Let's all just step back a few years when DOS was a very popular OS and it was made by a number of vendors. This caused problems when an application was made for one flavor of DOS and it wouldn't be friendly to the other flavors.
MS steps in, elimates the competition, and makes more of a standard for hardware and software.
This wasn't the best thing MS did, but what did it bring?
More compatible hardware, more compatible software, and an overall level of PCs being better than before.
Granted, eliminating competition isn't a good thing, but if you do it for a little while, then bring competition back, it can help you more than it will hurt you.
RH is a different story. They are trying to get a lot of companies to back Linux. Sure, many users don't like RH for their distribution, but they are making a big name for Linux in the corporate field. The rest of us will install anything else (Stampede, Debian, etc), but RH wants Linux to be known on the corporate space.
Don't flame RH for doing this, they are smart to try and bring something back to the community that helped make them what they are today.
RH is still open source, they will continue to be open source and they still contribute to the open source movement.
Once they stop supporting the community they help bring them up, then they have something to worry about.
Exactly. People on Slashdot (and elsewhere) are beginning to demand software releases. People are looking more at version numbers as a way to determine software quality/age/etc. These are all from the DOS/Windows world which Microsoft has created. I really wish the free software community was more like it was 1-2 years ago (before the "push" for "Global Domination"). I'm starting to wonder if its perhaps the Microsoft users -not Bill Gates- who makes Microsoft evil. Anyways.. main stream users have no respect for us or computers. They think of nerds the same way they did back in high school (pocket protector wearing dorks with tape holding their glasses together). I don't see why everyone thought it would be alright for millions of main stream disrespectful users to flock to Linux. They must not have thought about how the developers would feel about all of this. A year from now there will be a commercial Linux community with free software developers working with GNU/*BSD (Linux having next to no free software developers) or Linux will still have many developers, but will lack main stream users (current state). Linux could also die out. Users get sick of distributions not being compatible, binary incompatibility, etc. Developers would get sick of the users and move on.
Currently, I believe Linux to be losing speed. Personally I'm getting sick of all the people throwing words around trying to make their ego grow. I'm also sick of the flood of shoddy quality software (but thats a whole other story).
Wow! You really don't get it do you ? You have CHOICE. You can choose any distro you like. If you are really worried about this,
use Debian GNU/Linux it's the most free distribution out there.
it rocks!
I get the meaning by context, but I can't put together what the letters FUD actually stand for. (None of my guesses account for the "D")
The problem is that the GPL is irrelevant. So what if the source is "free"? Microsoft doesn't control standards because the source is closed; they do it through power. 'Might makes right' is the motto.
:)
RedHat could take their customer base and make de facto standards regardless of the license. Why does everyone assume the GPL does everything? When it can produce Coke from lead, I will fall down on my knees and worship it.
I personally don't care if they become MS or not. I run a system (SLS based) that I have been migrating up through the years. I only use tarballs. I realize this is cruel to tar, but I do it anyway.
On a side note, I don't remember the GPL being worshipped back in '92 as much as it is now. Does anyone recall whether that is true or not? I have slept since then.
Sean Farley
RPM is an open standard, dumbass.
If they should try to do anything stupid, SuSE would eat their lunch
Actually SuSE has more proprietrary software than RedHat, in that regard they are worse.
The fact is that Microsoft makes much more than just an OS (maybe they're not good products, but they do make a lot of stuff).
Redhat *DOESN'T*. Except for maybe a nice TCL/Tk control panel and putting a bunch of stuff they didn't make on CD.
What a *JOKE*.
Last I heard, the LSB aims at binary compatibility, not merely source level compatibility. The former is quite a bit harder.
RH was icluding KDE in the 6.0 Beta (RawHide) *before* the QPL was released.
i'm a slackware to suse convert anyway....
Read the info about RawHide. RedHat specifically state that stuff in RawHide doesn't necessarily end up in RedHat 6.0.
I just can't see micketsoft going open.But,remember they hold copyright to Xenix,and in their insular world this piece of crap unix varint would be what they would try.
We've had this discussion on here before. Red Hat cannot possibly become "the next microsoft" because it is not selling proprietary code. Thus it is very easy for customers to move to a different vendor if they do not best serve the customer's needs. Becoming a Micro$oft requires some form of "lockin", i.e. severe penalties for switching vendors (like having to retrain all of your employees in how to use Linux).
'nuff said...
Linux is mainstream, for bad or worse. From what I can see it is often more politically correct to use Linux than everything else.
... the freedom of choice. No-one is forced into Red Hat. Shall they live and prosper and all the others too.
... so what ? Might be something new to some, that people do *not* follow every move of a company in obedience.
Yes, sure, "Use the source, Luke bla bla", "Use Linux bla bla" and the answer to the question how to configure a network then is "click here, then click there".
It is quite possible to run a standards conformant Linux system without a bit of a distribution, but it takes time and needs some Unix know how.
Many, some day probably most users want Linux because it is there; there are not going to care whether Red Hat is a second M$ or not.
It never will be though since with Linux one has what M$ cannot offer
Red Hat might not agree with all what the Linux community does, neither do I
Why flame someone who is telling the truth? By "only ported to RedHat" they probably just meant that is was only released an an RPM. Meaning you could use it with any Linux, it's just easier to install it on a RedHat or derivative (e.g. Mandrake).
IMHO its great. We now have the potential for
healthy competition in certification too. About
time this happened.
Like you, I use Slack but I've tried RH before. And yes, it is easy to install. Especially for newbies. In terms of ease, I fail to see why many people think that Slackware is a headache to install. It's not. It's as easy as RH and gives more control over what you want. The only difference is that RH takes a faster time to install compared to Slack, because you have to choose your packages.
It's really too bad that people are comparing Fud Hat to Microsoft. I really almost feel for the boys in North Carolina. What sucks is that better marketing not better technology drives certain companies to the top. I guess thats one reason to draw the comparison.
Technically speaking Debian kicks everyone other distro into the ground. It's the least buggy, most open distro around. Unfortunately as long as people blindly follow like cows to slaughter they will never know what they are missing.
An oberservation, has anyone else noticed that when it comes to posting Linux distro stuff even Slashdot appears to posting more and more Red Hat stuff and less and less about SUSE, Turbo Linux, Debian, Slackware, or Caldera. I sure hope that Red Hat doesn't have its claws into Slashdot.
Could you give an example? As far as I can tell, Red Hat follows the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard fairly well.
It's ironic that you should mention Slackware; I switched away from it exactly because it wasn't following the FHS properly. It didn't at the time, anyway; maybe it's improved since then.
PS: Hear that, ZDNet? Red Hat is following a standard, ooooh
Why else do you think I'm on the LSB list
Alan
I go through many articles, papers, etc each day which are sickeningly full of FUD, but this one stands out as particularly looney.
/.'ers would be willing to sign up. Any volunteers?
I am perplexed as to at this writer didn't even bother to ask RedHat's "trainees" what they think of RedHat's certification. It's silly to assume that RedHat is training these people to be 'RH only' drones, sifting out all of the industry standard "rubble". Why would anyone would actually sign up for RH certification if they didn't mostly cover standard Linux? If that were the case, I wonder how many
I didn't think so. And that's precisely the point.
What's good for the community is good for RH, and not neccessarily vice-versa. The evidence I've seen to date suggests that RH does indeed understand this. Better to have named this article what it truly is.. an attempt to 'Divide and Conquer'.
-hemlock
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
#"well, here it is boys, my new Windows NT deskt...
***STOP:0x0000001E
KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED***
Um, if there were a standard for distros, then RedHat's certification program could cover *all* Linux distributions. Hence they wouldn't only be limiting their market (for certification) to RedHat admins. They'd be broadening their market. Which would make them more money.
Try to think things through before you scream conspiracy.
Red Hat also is officially a member of LSB. Check out http://www.linuxbase.org for proof.
This article sucks. If you're too stupid to do something productive, become a journalist.
I have always used UN*X, it's what I grew up on. :-). :-).
The first version of Linux I used was 0.95
and back then everyone was working towards the same goal(atleast so it seamed, to get things to work
I used Linux back then because I liked the wildness(read chaos
The chaos now begin to show.
Not only is the kernel still not good and the software crap, while the kernel has become better the software has become worse, and grows worse by the day.
I switched to OpenBSD quite recently (18 months ago if I recall corectly), and I'm so happy for that move. - The days of enless patching to get something to work while other stuff stops functioning is over. Not to mention the security and server power.
I still use Linux but I think it's beginning to show unhealthy groath, much like cancer.
I belive it's to late to stop it, but I don't think it matters now, people now knows that there are alternatives to Windows and that's the most important thing.
Don't start a Linux vs. *BSD flaimwar now,
it's just my $0.02 and might not reflect every developers P.O.V..
According to the changelog, dpkg was around in 1994.
The first version of rpm was called RPP included with Redhat 1.0 in 1995. So Deb precedes RPM.
Redhat hired someone from another distr. (Bogus) to write a package manager (PMS) which was never released but used as a basis for RPM, (in Redhat 2.0) which was first Perl, then redone in C.
Meanwhile, dpkg was getting more features including dselect.
Think about this- a dist. is a collection of packages and the package manager is a very central part to it. You could say that whoever controls the standard package manager has a lot of control over Linux. Redhat knew this--they've pushed incessantly for RPM to be the defacto standard.
Redhat has never released a package manager that didn't have it's name in it either. Redhat is all about brand marketing. Everytime someone uses RPM, Redhat gets a little more mindshare. To use a package manager with the name "Debian" in it simply wouldn't do, no matter how superior.
Yeah, they were really trolling there. Anyone who has mastered one distro can pick up any other distro in about a half hour.
TedC
If anyone has been paying attention to the threads on the lsb mailing lists, they would know that several Red Hat developers are involved with the lsb.
I say Let RedHat be the one to deal with the Suits/Newbies. It just means less noise and trouble for the rest of us. Once all the hubub over this dies down, we can get back to using whatever distro we prefer. Even if RH gains a Microsoft like dominance, there will still be the same number of us using and contributing to the other distros.
Red Hat places slashdot on a prominent position within their new commerical "portal". If the slashdotters don't get money for that, they were really stupid. So yes, you are right: this is indeed a Red Hat PR site.
/. (most certainly!) didn't mention it at all. Why that? Didn't Rob & Co. see the thing on the Expo? I can't believe it. Even the mainstream computer press in Germany wrote about the Lizard as tradeshow highlight.
Paranoia? Maybe, but some things make me wonder: Every boring news about Red Hat appears in big letters whereas the latest KDE award (best innovation 1999 at the world largest tradeshow CeBit) was hidden behind a "Red Hat to support KDE development" article. Completely unrelated, but likely the only way to make public relations for Red Hat even while their competitors receive credits.
What about LinuxWorldExpo news, to mention another example? Caldera demonstrated an impressive graphical Linux installer there (dubbed Lizard). Surely stuff that matters, but
Making PR for Red Hat is the one thing, hiding achievements of Red Hat competitors is even worse and a shame for the entire Linux community.
Considering that ZD is little more than a Wintel-driven sock-puppet, I'm surprised anyone with a modicum of common sense takes them seriously.
Reality check! If you don't like Red Hat's distro, there's plenty of others to choose from. And if you don't like Linux, period, there's FreeBSD or NetBSD.
Translation: Who gives a Flying Fickle Finger of Fate how full of themselves Red Hat gets? The source code is readily available. They can't change that, thanks to Linus and the GPL.
The way I see it, Red Hat will likely become the "consumer-friendly" distro, which means that (as time goes on) its installation will likely be dumbed down enough to keep Joe Consumer happy. There will, of course, be choices to use 'Expert' installation mode to keep the "power users" happy as well.
Is that such a Bad Thing?
So use rpm --prefix or whatever the command is and change the base path it installs shit to.
As long as they keep GPL'ing their code, redhat
has my support.
I'm sick of people whining about them not supporting KDE. KDE is available,it runs on redhat, so what's the problem? Why must they put it on the CD to make people happy? Go get it if you want it.
Quit all the bitching. If you don't like Red Hat then use another distro. Gee, it was just a few months ago that the Slashdot comments said Caldera was the sellout and Red Hat was the savior.
Qt has neither genuinely liberated code or genuinely open specification going for it. X does. I can choose from 4 TODAY (X implementations). The same goes for GL and SQL.
What do you think of Debian?
/etc is, where to install (/usr, /usr/local), where the libs should go /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib). None of them should touch your inittab or anything else spawned from it, like /etc/init.d/rc or whatever.
apt-get dist-upgrade
Upgrading doesn't get any easier than that.
I really don't see what the point of any of this is. When companies release binary-only software for linux, it should ask where
So standardizing on a distribution doesn't matter, as the only real differences are the layouts that they use for the file system. Any commerical binary only software that depends on a specific file system layout is, IMO, crap anyway.
Its impossible for RH to 'eat' up all the distributions, most of the good ones (imho, stampede and slack are the best) are all volunteer groups. And when you said that
"The solution? Somebody picks up an old Red Hat version that _works_ and makes their own distribution. Or they take a new distribution, hack on it, and make it work."
just shows that you think QueerHat *is* linux when its not -- you don't need an existing distribution to make another.
In any case, as an Admin, I try to say away from RH as much as possible -- its too bloated for my taste.
How about Debian. It has a boot.bat that will boot from dos, and will boot directly off the CD without the file if the computer's BIOS supports it.
Of course not -- Slackware uses the same "SysVinit" as Red Hat (modulo version, possibly), i.e., the one written by Miquel van Smoorenburg. The difference is that Slackware doesn't have a separate startup script for each service. True BSD-style init is a completely different beast.
djb reject the idea that they write a Windows program that detects the hardware, sets up partitions, and automatically installs Linux
That's a really cool idea for newbies. Who's djb?
because they refuse to hire or pay a Windows developer. If they're unwilling to work with MS when it clearly only benefits RH,
"refuse to hire or pay a windows developer?" that's f*cking obnoxious. If they've got a grudge against people who develop for platform other than theirs, therapy might be a worthwhile option.
Furthermore, hiring or paying a windows developer doesn't mean "working with MS". It means hiring or paying somebody who develops for windows. Most of the programmers who do that (on this planet) don't work for MS, and as likely as not they don't want to either.
And this got a score of 3?
Oh, well.
So where does it all end if Fud Hat is out in front and digging its claws into everyone? What will it take to make people see that Debian is the superior, rock solid distro?
I'm ranting, I apologize. I just wish that people new to Linux (by that I mean end-users as well as other software and hardware companies) knew that there is a choice. They don't have to use or invest in Fud Hat. I guess they just don't know any better. IBM appears to know whats its doing.
I always found Slackware 10x easier to install than Redhat. After installation, that is a different matter. I recently tried SuSE and found that also less painful than redhat.
I can't understand how RedHat got so big when their distro is the worst.
Okay?
There's a big difference between LSD and LSB. Get it straight.
The Redhat/Slashdot scheme is scary. Guess I will just have to find a less popular distribution or maybe an entirely new OS. I hear GNU Hurd is pretty unpopular... :) Oh, and the Y2K monster is going to swallow up the internet, etc.. etc..
The only reason and I mean onyl reason why solaris, redhat and aix are around today is because NT just can't handle the big jobs. If NT was even close to the reliablity and scalability of unix, we would all be using NT right now. Since redhat is a unix, if it owned 90% of the market and was predicting to have nothing but growth, we would all be screwed. No one ever gets fired for buying redhat. Redhat is just as stable as the other unix's and this redhat distribution is what everyone is using. Sure gnu linux might exist for hackers but no respectable bussiness is going to bet the farm on it. The fact that NT is even a major player in the corporate market shows that bussiness's are anal retentive about picking software just on corporate performance and what everyone else might be using. If redhat ever became a monopoly, we would all be in trouble.
I like the idea of Redhat being the new MS,
/. icon would look like! :o)
:o)
I mean think of what the
(the MS/borg wearing a red fedora
Come on all you GIMPers, get cracking
I LOVE the idea that Redhat could be the next Microsoft... I mean think about what the /. icon would look like :o)
:o)
:o)
(picture of MS/borg wearing a red fedora
Come on all you GIMPers, get cracking on this!
Yes, in fact, if it's pro-anything else (like FreeBSD, or Mac OS) there's this enormous knee-jerk response that it must therefore (by some strange twist of logic) be anti-Linux and evil evil evil!
Who ever said that they were in first? There are still a ton of Slackware users out there, for how much longer we'll see, but they are there.
I heard that Red Hat was really worried about Debian actually. It represents a threat because they afraid that the real good developers are switching away from using them to using it.
As soon as fast internet access becomes common, no one is going to pay 50+ dollars when they can simply goto a webpage and get it for free. Also, if linux becomes big, it will already be installed on most computers. The distributions will have to begin to offer something VERY special in the future to survive because they are not giving a single reason for users of fast connections to use them.
The LSB will probably control Redhat's domination. It will allow software to work on most major Intel Linux distributions. However Trolltech is more like Microsoft since KDE is close to becomming the standard desktop. Thus if a person wants to write a commercial package that is integrated into KDE, they must pay money to Troll Tech per the Qt license. Having to pay money to a monopoly to develop software is like the early days of Microsoft Windows.
I should probably add however that most distributions are or will be using KDE as a standard desktop, and it is well deserved - Qt offers a very professional looking set of widgets, and KDE arguably one of the nicest looking user interfaces around. However - I hope the point is well taken - if KDE comes to means Linux, then Trolltech does have similar financial power as microsoft did over commercial software developers.
What you get from this webpage is a distribution, and all the people coming to this webpage generate traffic which is money. And what do you think will be installed on most computers? Indeed, that's what we call a distribution.
This is sad - Troll Tech are becoming the new microsoft ...
... since the license has changed.
You cant take away the fact tha THEY own the QT library and that they could change the license any time they want - letting the KDE people use the old QPL version to wich they cant make any patches and continue using
This is i horrible scenario...
Nope long live the GTK+
That's why the version number leaped from 1.3 to 2.0.
Sorry, Red Hat is definitely NOT the easiest Linux to install. After failing to get both 5.1 generic and a commercial copy of 5.2 loaded and completely working on my machine, I went out and bought Caldera.
Where Red Hat had failed, Caldera shone - it just installed itself and came up working perfectly. You get to actually use fdisk with Caldera instead of trying to get that broken P.O.S. DiskDruid to work in RedHat - it makes life _so_ much easier!!
And once it's all said and done, you get a real desktop (KDE) to work with instead of the mishmash do-it-yourself kit that RedHat supplies. Having tried both, I'll take Caldera any day!
Every time I want to download something that is made/supported by Redhat, the only thing available is precompiled fucking rpm files. And whenenver I finally find the source in some hidden dir, it won't compile. I call that a fucking monopoly
This is one of the more poisonous things the Gnazis are doing: They are indeed poisoning the water hole to keep away those who aren't particularly interested in even knowing what libc version is required.
Gosh, ya know, it might be a good thing if users didn't even know what libc was...
Naaaah, then we'd have to share Linux with the great unwashed and we Gnazis wouldn't be able to brag about how cool we are because we change our libc's more often than we change our underwear!
GNU people - get a grip and come up with a libc design you can live with for a decade or two!!
This is what the unwashed masses what.. SO what.
Who said that running Linux would make you smarter? Ask most people, they think they are smart enuff.
This is Know as division of Labor... ie. EU and System Admin. Just so long as you know how to switch to runlevel 3 who cares.
slackware, compared to debian and redhat, is the only distribution that i know of that doesn't try to spoonfeed you with shitty precompiled binaries and proprietary RPM/deb-formatted BS.
The deb format has stood the test of time and is pretty much the same as it was in '94. What has changed is the install tools. Dpkg is still good for installing packages one at a time. Dselect drops the packages in like dpkg, but for multi packages in an automated way. Apt has good features for installing and upgrading packages over a network. Apt-Gnome will make a nice GUI for it all.
Otherwise, for src, tar.gz suits me just fine.
_GIVING_ away the problematic RPM has only one intention: to dominate the market over debian.
Boy, be glad that you didn't grow up in Apple II's age.
o yeah? how about solaris? i don't hear a lot of flames.
and be fair. you hear a lot of MacOS supporters here. (not that i am one)
Actually I would characterize most of the newbies as being the most rabid RMS supporters, not detractors. A lot of the newer people aren't programmers, so they can't get into the technical side of it so much. They need something to get off on, and look! Here's this crazy bearded guy screaming about revolution and community! How cool! They can't relate to kernel hacking but they can get into the weirdo who says everything is so screwed up and if everyone would just do this other thing then we'd all live in a nice big happy utopia. Taking into account that the largest segment of Linux users these days are teenagers and freshmen CS students, it's not surprising. When I was that age (not too long ago) I thought the crazy bearded guys with bad hygiene screaming about revolution made sense too. Thank God I grew out of it. :)
I hear a *lot* of anti-Sun, anti-Solaris flames. Slashdot is a yucky place.
now if oliver stone made a movie about how
software needs to be free, yeah..
but right now most people will buy mercedes to janis joplin,
most hippies will end up working on wall street, most
rage against the machine fans will give more money to Sony to buy their albums
at their wealthy colleges, and more new york times reading liberals will rely
on more and more products made in countries where slave labor is the rule.
One thing I don't want to see is one company defining what linux is. Redhat already does that now to some extent, especially among newbies. So far redhat's ability to define standards has been limited to things like its package manager. But there is no reason why this could not be expanded into other areas. This is not necessarily as bad as it sounds at first. If Redhat GPL's everything they themselves create the way they have with RPM, then if something becomes a standard it won't hurt anyone. But if they start getting stupid and greedy and making things proprietary (which may not even be possible under the terms of the GPL), then things will get very ugly and bad very quickly. The LSB is very important because it is a way for the linux industry as a whole to define what linux is, rather than one company no matter how good their intentions are. Redhat's training and certification is a red herring. If someone has mastered one distribution, they are 80-90% of the way to mastering them all. The only question is whether these people are going to be any good or not. There are plenty of MCSE's who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and they are "certified" too.
My first introduction to a port of Unix was via RedHat Linux 5.2. I can see that RH is doing a service whereas "ease of migration" was the key to winning users from the MS domains.
RH is at the limelight at this moment. Beconing users from a lost OS. Now RH seems to be wanting to be "the" port of Linux. There is a business reasoning behind this; a "standard" is only as good as its foundation. This business model is well known and implemented.
Understandibly so, the linux community will not go for this. If RH is to develop a "standard", it is because of that business model.
Linux users do have a choice in whatever port of Linux it so chooses. Irreguardless if its free or $99 or whatever. Support and development will be much quicker though within that business model. At what cost you ask? To furthur the "Linux" name? To set a "standard" where all other standards must follow? To get away from the 'plug-n-play-domination-os'? To perpetuate the Penguin in a Business Suit???
If, and I do mean IF, RH breaks away because of this business model- it is only doing so as a progression for itself. You've seen it before and you will see it again: remember "Big Blue"?
I wish Redhat the best of luck in progressing in a path where not many can tread. Hopefully, they know as well, that its the correct move.....
Seriously, I'm buying two Linux PCs - one a server and one a dual-boot Linux/Win98 box. OK, the second is only Win98SE so I can play games on it that I already paid for, and I'll probably rip the Win98 out in a year.
... ... that's ok, Pinky ...)
But people like me need to see the Red Hat stability or we'll never have Linux
TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
(apologies to Brain
Will
near the big bad Microserf fiefdom
Try Debian instead.
You just debian/rules inside the extracted sources and it *always* goes fine.
Also, it installs a compiled package from the sources exactly in the same way you'd have with the binary package.
Somewhere in Isaac Asimov's last collection, "Gold", (God I miss that guy!) he mentions that he has always been sure that the Ring represented technology (and he resented that), and that he had written about this previously. A reader wrote in reminding him that Tolkein himself had said that the Ring did *not* represent technology. Asimov answered, "I don't care what Tolkein said, the Ring represents technology!" This was in an essay about symbolism and about how symbolism, though unintentional, can still be very real, even if the author didn't realize it while he was writing. Off-topic but I thought I'd mention it.
-Steve
Well, no matter what you say, support, believe, you have to admit that having one company occupying the majority(or biggest part) of market share is NO GOOD!!
I guess many people were saying that they don't have to worry about growth of MS at the beginning of the 80s too. But look at the MS of today!
Ok, many people say something like
"Linux is open, RH can't harm"
I am not an expert in laws, but I bet that there are some people who master laws so much that any license seems to work in vain for them.
"No, laws are supreme, we all live under it!"
Wake up boys, you don't live in paradise!!
HEH RPM (and deb too most likely) already offer the features you request. You can change the root directory that an rpm is unpackaged too. You can also get a list of files that were installed by doing a simple query. In addition you can check the integrity of the pacakge later on. Maybe you should RTFM before posting.
So Redhat mimiced other os's and debian in creating a packaging system, what's done is done. It has become apparent now that rpm is far more widely used than deb (RedHat, SuSe, Caldera, MandRake, etc..). It would be MUCH, MUCH simpler if we had *1* package management system than 2. Now can the fanatics @ debain, who supposedly do everything in the interest of the user, swallow their pride and swtich pacakge managers. I really doubt it would be too dificult to switch their f.e. tools to rpm. Of course this will never happen, because fanactics are usually adament about their fanatacism.
The GPL doesn't stop RH from putting things in non-standard
places so that proprietary programs will only work with RH.
Also, the GPL doesn't stop RH from distributing Proprietary
programs to make even more money.
look around and see the score and titles, and such, slashdot is a pro RH site.
maybe.. maybe it's time to BSD, but i don't know how to get anough dox...
Perhaps Redhat truly is the M$ of Linux because judging by what I see here, their followers tend to be the fanatics who offer very nonspecific reasons, and they like Redhat "just because".
Mandrake is just Redhat with some KDE packages added. Caldera is a joke. The only "serious" non-Redhat dist that uses rpm is SuSe. Doesn't sound like a big following to me.
I've setup and upgraded both rpm and deb based systems. The Debian boxes almost never require any tweaking for missing dependencies or library symlinks. I wish I could say that about the rpm systems I've dealt with.
The only fanatacism among Debian users is that things work correctly.
uh,
i'm a triple T1, i still bought SuSE 6.0 retail set even that i installed the ditro using ftp. and i never bothered to "call for tech support" or "register"
am i the only fool out there?
For years, everyone desperately wanted a linux company to be successful like the big boys. The very fact that MS was being mentioned so often was due to the eagerness to bring it down.
And when one company actually manages to market linux successfully, it is considered to be committing some kind of crime...
I'm not sure exactly what certain hardcore factions want - eternal niche status? An endless parade of fragmented systems nobody in the general public has heard of?
Face it, everyone wanted linux to be successful. And that means big numbers, power in the OS industry, and lots of $$$. These are NATURAL consequences of success. It's not necessarily a bad thing...
Make up your mind on what you really want to happen before you start whining about a linux company being successful.
That one is scheduled to be released in late 2005.
The subject says it all.
.
As you found out on comp.os.linux.adovacy nobody in the linux community gives a damn what paid microsoft flunkies like yourself think or do. We could care less if you don't use linux. Tell your bosses at Microsoft to give it up. The tactics they paid people like yourself to use against OS/2 in Fidonet and Usenet aren't going to work against linux users. We're far better at flaming Microsoft-sponsored trolls like yourself than the OS/2 users ever were
KDE2.0 will not be ready by the time RH6.0 is released, and that will be the first version to support Qt2.0.
I'm a hairless ape, a stupid munky, I think digital watches are neat. The RedHat 2.5 Apollo install was EASY... if you can't figure it out then get off of all fours.
My Guess is that the incompatibilities were caused by RedHat placing their files in non-standard places. Just a guess though
And when Linux falls dead, where do you think all the clueless losers are going?
That's right. BSD is the next closest target. At the moment Linux is acting like a big idiot magnet for all the whiners and leechers and bashers and clueless nobends. BSD is relatively safe because a vast number of idiots find Linux first.
But just you wait. BSD is gonna get big enough in short enough time. Then you'll get your own big distro wars: RedBSD, BSDWare, Caldera BSD-OS. But instead of these distros sharing ideas, they'll all exploit that commercial clause and keep their packaging schemes and setup tools secret.
This will be on top of the hundreds of whiny clueless morons who have never used a C compiler but expect a bug fix *NOW* *DAMNIT*.
At the moment you can enjoy your safe haven of no-nonsense BSD, but you've Linux to thank for it by keeping the idiots away.
True, except for the 25 page README, the 50 page HOWTO, the 2 dozen support documents, and the 400 page PostScript manual which is also published and available in hard copy form.
I definitely find RPMs easier -- just type
./configure; make; make check; make install
.login or whatever, and don't worry about weird dependencies that you KNOW are fulfilled, but RPM just can't find.
one command and everything happens within moments! It beats "make, make check, make setup, make install"
I've got a replacement:
inst(){
tar -xvzf $@.tar.gz; cd $@;
rm -ri $@
}
put that in
dude . . .
>> GNU people - get a grip and come up with a libc design you can live with for a decade or two!!
what kind of people are you, personally, ms?
maybe if you want to be the top of the line, more flexible and more personizable you just have to get more technical. if u don't get that sht, then u will probably not get/give a job; and keep up
this summer, slackware 4.0 will be out :)
with kernel 2.2.* and glibc 2.1.*
i have seen the light!
I both agree and disagree with this. Debian package management is better than Red Hat, but that's nothing to do with dpkg. For me, what really stands out about Debian is dselect, and that could sit on top of RPM just as well as it sits on dpkg. The only thing I don't like about dselect is that it checks every package, even if you've only selected to add just one, and so can take an eternity. Maybe apt solves this, but I haven't had a look at it yet.
just speading some propaganda
/The Rest
:-).
OpenBSD RULES =P
:-) Yes, it is a very good OS.
I use a Triple Boot
Win32/Linux/OpenBSD
Games/Apps
and it would be perfect if i didnt need Win32 for games.
I got many computers and I got tons of OS
I pretty much agree with you, except I use NT instead of Win9X as I don't play games, but I do have to make a living to support my family.
I really like linux though, and i don't think its getting shitty or losings steam. Why not stop complaining and being fatalistic and mabye get involved with some of the Linux "Celebrities" (heh), maybe email one of them and see what they think?
I did, and what I got for an answer was: "Shut up!".
I didn't see the post but there was an article in the Orange County Register the other day about the author's experience installing RedHat. He called their support line with a question and was asked "Did you read the manual?" along with some laughter in the background. [Way to go RedHat!!!] His conclusion was something to the effect that Linux is only for the extreme Microsoft-haters. I wonder if he saw the posts on Slashdot?
WARNING! WARNING, DR. SMITH! FUD ATTACK!
More seriously: Red Hat as the "Linux version
of Microsoft"? RH would have to go a long, *long*
way to get to that point. And that's assuming
they even could. Remember: RH has one thing to
deal with that M$ does not: "open source." Should
RH become too "RH-centric", they will begin to
find themselves increasingly shunned by the
developer community. This would be the beginning
of the end for a company that bases its products
on "open source" software.
Yeah. Ok. Keep an eye on 'em. That only makes
sense. Send 'em some email suggesting that
support for the LSB is a Good Thing and would be
in their best interests. If you really think
they're getting out of hand, give their leash a
gentle tug.
Other than that, I would not be all that concerned.
Yes, apt solves this very nicely; you can for example use it as a dselect access method ("plug-in"). And if you don't use apt, you can e.g. use the ftp, http or mountable method instead of the braindead cdrom (or harddisk or whatever you use now), dselect won't check every package. Try it, it's good for you! :-)
I don't understand what will be "MUCH, MUCH simpler if we had *1* package management system".
.rpm from the net, it will most probably only work properly under the intended target distribution (RedHat or SuSE or ...). That's because the directory hierarchies differ, init scripts differ, menu systems differ, etc, etc. Hopefully the LSB will solve the most basic compatibility issues, but I think that there always will be differences.
.deb, I'm quite sure it will work under a Debian system (and that's not only because .debs tend to be of much higher quality because of the Debian package guidelines).
.rpm to another? Yes, but then the whole idea of a united package system is quite useless. There will be nothing better with that approach than using e.g. the "alien" program to convert a .rpm to a .deb (or vice versa).
If I take a random
If I download a
But couldn't you use a converter to convert one distribution-specific
Lose your fanatical packaging system merging attitude.
You get to actually use fdisk with Caldera instead of trying to get that broken P.O.S. DiskDruid to work in RedHat
Every time I've installed or upgraded RedHat I've used fdisk. Just because DiskDruid is there doesn't mean you have to use it.
And once it's all said and done, you get a real desktop (KDE) to work with
I've run RedHat's distribution for a little over a year now (started Feb. '98 with RH 5.0, currently running RH 5.2) and I used KDE. I even used KDE with RH 5.0 release. I had to download and install a couple of the 5.1 components (this was before 5.2 was released) to get it to work, but that was a minor issue.
coming from Amigaworld I can say the the comunity is the platform.
Thankfully, Linus is still sane and keeps away from the insanity of going "world domination",
sadly he's about the only1 left in Linux world with that opinion.
>and arguably flame bait.
I wrote this orignal post and I mean every single bit of it. I started using Linux about a year ago. At the time, I was excited at what linux meant. I liked to associate myself with other Linux users. Nowadays, I can't say that is true. I increasingly distance myself from a lot of Linux users. If I say "Linux" and somebody answers "slashdot", then I really refuse any association. This isn't really the site itself or any of the moderators, but all the juveniles that love to post.
Personally, I think people are too concerned with the whole movement/politcal uprising they want to create. People should be more concerned with the code, the apps, and making everything better.
Remy
remymartin@dartmouth.edu
I'm sure nobody has ever said anything about Windows or MacOS because of the users that generally tend to buy those operating systems. I think the point being made was people who write different software enjoy the maturity of users who aren't making demands upon those developers all of a sudden. People will think BSD or [insert OS here] is better than linux because of the maturity of users. I'm not saying any of this is fair, but it will happen. It's too bad people don't think before they speak. The Windows superiority complex is infecting the linux community and it's really too bad.
remy
I see a lot of anti-sun things posted.
You said there were a lot of Mac supporters, which is true. However, I don't believe the trend for MacOS/Apple supporters is to bash everybody else's platform of choice into the ground. Remember, a lot of the Apple supporters are running MkLinux or LinuxPPC. Even those people get flamed off the map at times.
Umm.... That's the problem... RH isn't a true "Berkley Child"
This was originally written as a 'Talkback' response to the article (and the preliminary zdnet talkback responses), and submitted to zdnet twice (about 12 hours apart). Zdnet censored it both times. (Is it just me? Or does zdnet prefer pro-linux Talkback articles from kids and cranks?) Anyway, I'm fed up with zdnet, and I'm reposting my opinions here. Flame me if you must...
;-)
-----
What a load of garbage!
This is so typical of the way zdnet keeps trying to stab linux in the back. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS SO AFRAID OF???
I mean, look at *JUST* the facts that are being stated in this article.
1) Red Hat is offering training courses.
2) Red Hat has not enthusiastically embraced the ethereal Linux Standard Base.
And from this you've decided that Red Hat is the next Microsoft? That the linux world is fragmenting and self destructing??? Talk about a leap of faith...
I choose to disbelieve. You people [zdnet] haven't gotten you stories right yet. And you certainly aren't starting now...
Let me ask you a question: Who is supplying the linux training and certification programs? The first such program that I heard of came out of the blue from some commercial company that nobody knew of. That seemed to encourage others into forming a more community-oriented training and certification program. But god knows when that will be ready. And the larger, driving question: Who will be making money off it? I realize that www.linuxinstitute.org is non-profit. But they are going to charge fees for their tests. Somebody is going to be getting paid from those fees. And somebody is going to be getting paid to teach classes on linux to prepare folks for those tests...
Red Hat is in the business of supplying support. I fail to see where offering training courses makes them another Microsoft.
As for the Linux Standard Base: Would you agree to allow someone else to specify what software you were shipping without knowing hard, fast, and set-in-concrete what that specification was?
The truth is that the lack of a Linux Standard Base isn't stopping Netscape. And it isn't stopping loki (www.lokigames.com). And it certainly isn't stopping Corel.
And unless you're dealing with system administration tools, what flavor of linux you are on really doesn't make a darn bit of difference.
It's so tragic. Pathetic really, what you zdnet folks are doing. You ignore that Red Hat has shipped KDE in the past, and is currently doing so on their Beta 5.9 release. You ignore that Red Hat is FUNDING both Gnome and KDE development. That's right, Red Hat is PAYING people to develop free software that is being given away!
And then the cranks come out. Every group has a few. Windows has them. Unix has them. Even the Democrats and Republicans have them. (Well, perhaps especially the Democrats and Republicans.
They complain about the prices. Yet anyone can go out to dozens of ftp sites and download Linux (Red Hat or other flavors) free. Or go someplace like www.cheapbytes.com and buy it for $1.99. Or borrow a friend's copy, get a cdrom burner, and copy it themselves...
They complain how big-business is getting a hold of linux and ruining it. And yet, the business model that Linux companies like Red Hat are using is about giving away linux, and making money off services. When you shell out $40 for a copy of Red Hat linux at your local bookstore, how much of that money do you really think Red Hat is getting? It ain't a whole heck of a lot. Retail markup, boxing, and packaging are hideous...
They complain about how Linux will never compete with Microsoft. And yet Oracle, IBM, Corel, Dell, and everyone else under the sun are stampeding at linux like it was the holy grail.
Personally, I'd like to ask these cranks a question: Just how large is the Apple marketshare? When linux crosses over that level, it will have truly arrived. And it must be getting awfully close. I'm starting to see shrink-wrapped applications in the stores for win95/macintosh/linux. Everything from games to applications...
But most of all, these flakes seem dead bent on ignoring the fact that, unlike Windows 95/98/NT, Linux is stable. It doesn't crash. Every time I use Windows 95/98/NT and it crashes, I lose my work. And that translates into time. Generally time that I'm being paid for. So my employer loses money. And you know something, my employer doesn't like losing money!
Perhaps the real question should be: Why does linux have you zdnet folks running so scared??? Just how much advertising is Microsoft buying from you???
The switch to glibc 2.0.x a good thing? The 2.0.x library was BETA software, is that really something you want to put your most important stuff on. Especially on a server where stability is usually the most important thing. The move to 2.1.x is fine and appropiate. The 2.1.x libraries (2.1 only for now) are release quality versions. There really wasn't any pressing need to use glibc 2.0.x unless you wanted to use one of the new features, but few programmers use them even now and common users really don't care as they do not program or compile programs.
Sofar, since I have bought the Linux Red Hat EXTRA
boxed set, not everything is GPL or GNU based. A
few applications here and their are shareware, or
another based application. But three quarters of
it is about GPL or GNU based. As far as Red Hat
having a buggy distribution, I have had no
problems at all, unless you want to consider the TCP/IP
protocols installation, or similar to it, where it
was supposed to come up, and never did. (root has to set that him, or herself.)
And yes, first time for installing Linux Red Hat was painful, but easily setup after once or twice installing it. - No, Unix or Linux is no where near like Microsoft's stuff, IMHO. -Master
I initially gave a sigh of "more FUD" when I saw this article, but reading over it, it does bring up some good points.
1.) Red Hat should consider joining the LSB even if it doesn't agree entirely with it, at this point. If you don't like something, and you think you have a better way, present it to your peers. This seems to work extremely well in the Linux community. We have a low tolerance for BS. People in the movement have a much more clear vision of now and the future. Red Hat is probably holding up the acceptance of Linux a little by slowing the process of standardizing the Linux platform. Success cannot be had without at least a basic level of standardization. I urge Red Hat to just bite the bullet on this one, and find an agreeable solution.
2.) Red Hat should be able to make a certification standard for whatever they want. They create the RH distro, they know whats up (usually, damn suid bugs).
3.) I don't trust Ransom Love or Caldera as far as I could throw them. What have they really done for the free software movement? Granted, they are a business, but Red Hat's done far more for the community.
It's interesting the amount of outrage and support RedHat receives, at the notion they engage in some questionable business practices.
...
Of course the Microsoft comparison is a bit drastic, but is it totally off base? I have it on good authority that some of the largest Linux-only computer resellers have exclusivity deals with RH. Perhaps these were struck by the reseller and not RH, but likely not. IOW, if you buy a computer from one of these companies, they are obligated to sell it with a copy of RedHAt Linux, and RH only.
Is that acceptible? Perhaps
-No big fan of RedHat
Even if Redhat is becoming the next M$, it doesn't matter, because they still have to release the code under the GPL. Even if M$ released a version of Linux, guess what, they'd have to release the code under the GPL. Besides that, if Redhat doesn't run the app you need to run, then use a distribution that will or modify Redhat so it will run the app. That is what Linux is all about, freedom of choice. To my knowledge Redhat has not put any secrect code in their distribution and they have never forbiden anyone from modifying the code and everything they have contributed has been free for the download or bought on a CD for $10 from another source. So my question is whats the problem?
Caldera is whining big time here. RedHat has so far done the "Right Thing". They have released all their sources unlike Caldera which has pursued the policy of vendor lock-in. The reason that RedHat is popular is that RH has been open and done the right thing by the OSS community. I wonder if Microsoft paid Caldera to whine like this and create unseemly infighting. LSB? Where was Caldera for the past few years trying to work with vendors and coming up with these supposed standards? Now that RH has the publicity, Caldera wants to undercut it by spreading FUD.
Wake up Caldera and stop these shady tactics!
AC
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding over the nature of openness going on here. An open-community lets everyone invent and develop the innovations they want. Then the community decides which they will support. Its a fundamentally decentralized system. This article seems like its complaining that Red Hat are not supporting a centralized standardization-by-committee project which is pretty much the antithesis of this sort of openness.
As to Red Hat selling training for their brand of Linux (including specific quirks) it seems hard to see what moral compulsion there should be on them not to do this? Sometimes, its inevitable that a de-facto standard locks in, and other varieties become extinct. This can become a practical problem, but doesn't represent a moral failing on the part of the winners. (Even Microsoft are sometimes unfairly castigated just for being big - though they're often bad too)
Apache, BIND, BSD stuff, X, Netscape...
Red Hat _can't_ screw things up like Microsoft. Imagine a worst-case scenario: Red Hat eats all the other distributions, then starts producing bad software and support.
The solution? Somebody picks up an old Red Hat version that _works_ and makes their own distribution. Or they take a new distribution, hack on it, and make it work.
A major point of Open Source is that it is designed to make it impossible for anyone to hold the customer by the nose ring.
Red Hat is currently the 800-lb gorilla in the Linux market. They may become the _entire_ Linux market. If they end up with 80-90% of the market, it will be because we consumers want it that way.
Believe you me, if Red Hat owns the market and starts pulling a Microsoft, www.blueboot.com (or some name equally unlikely) will come online, complete with the full Red Hat source, and fork the development off. The only way Red Hat could prevent that would be to stop shipping the source code--an absolute breach of copyright. That would immediately attract a school of lawyers and work them up into a feeding frenzy on the legal end, and probably a small army of crackers to "liberate" the code on the illegal end.
The two reasons that Microsoft can do what they do are because they have the right to charge for licenses, and they have exclusive source code rights. Red Hat can become a market leader, and possibly the one-and-only vendor, but the nature of the copyrights guarantees that they cannot become a monopolist. The barrier to entry in this market will always be low, and compatibility need never become an issue.
Redhat is not perfect, but its the best I have seen so far. Been using it for 1.5 years and no
real complaints.
What little I have obseverd about this issue it seems that KDE pushers were (still are?) most eager to spread this FUD about RedHat becoming the next MS, somewhat distubing given the fact that RedHat and Debian were the only distributions with enough spine to stand against Qt and it was actually TrollTech that 'saw the light' as you say and changed their license.
/. once again spins off into uninformed bigotry.
The LSB is not about making all distributions identical. It's about giving application authors a minimal set of libraries, header files, configuration paths, locations for dynamic state &c., in known locations. i.e. Things that just make life easier for an application writer to port their software to Linux.
Redhat being unenthusiastic about LSB, and just attempting to have their FS layout the de-facto standard (as it is now) would be a Bad Thing. Fortunatly Eric Troan was very positive about it when I last heard him speak on the subject.
I hope Red Hat's technical base manage to hold out against pressures from marketing to go proprietary.
From the LSB web page (www.linuxbase.org):
Current Members:
Caldera Inc
The Debian Project
delix Computer GmbH
Pacific HiTech
>>Red Hat SoftwareSuSE. GmbH
WGS Inc
Enhanced Software Technologies, Inc.
Metro Link, Inc.
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Linux Hardware Solutions
VA Research
As you can see RedHat, Debian, Caldera and SuSE are all members...
There will never be an MS of the free software world. There will definitely be market leaders, and that leader may take up 99% of the market. But that doesn't make them an MS.
There are a number of market leaders that are there simply because customers believe that they're the best of breed. Think of Tobasco (hot sauce), Caterpillar (construction equipment), Lego (building blocks) or Zamboni (ice resurfacers). These both lead their respective markets so well that the brand name is synonimous with the generic product.
In both of these cases, competition does exist, and one could argue that there are technical reasons that the competition's product is better. However, nobody argues that these products are bad at their job. If they ever started producing shoddy product or otherwise treating their customers poorly, the brand loyalty would only hold so far. Case in point: New Coke. Market leader screws up royally, and people scramble for the competition until they correct their ways.
Microsoft is a market leader, but it's more than that. It's gotten us locked in so that they can produce shoddy products and generally mistreat the customer, and we still buy their product. I only know of a handful of other products that can make money on Microsoft's business model: cocaine, LSD, heroin, and various other illicit drugs. They are a rogue corporation operating in ways that the normal assumed laws of capitalist economics no longer apply to them.
Red Hat is simply a market leader, and that's all it will ever be. It's another Zamboni. If they take their success and customers for granted, somebody will come up and snatch their crown. Because of the nature of the biz, this will happen _even if all other distributions are dead an buried by then_.
The barriers for entry into the Linux distribution market are low. It takes a moderate-sized corporate infrastructure, easily enough provided by a software tycoon who can see the profit. It takes talented staff in various areas, including engineering--if it's hard for you to get such people, it's hard for everybody else as well. And it takes a copy of the source code, which you have access to because it's Linux.
Will software only run for one distribution? Yup. If it's general purpose software (such as a database server), it should run everywhere. If one distribution has "magic code" required to run it, other distributions should get it and link it in! In other cases, distributions may optimize for different problem spaces (financial, home, gaming, backend number-crunching, internet service). If that happens, some apps will only go to one distribution. Again, if your distribution is losing share because it can't run package X, figure out why and make it run package X. All the source is available; Open Source has no secrets.
1.) Red Hat should consider joining the LSB even if it doesn't agree entirely with it, at this point. If you don't like something, and you think you have a better way, present it to your peers.
They do. They present their whole code base to their peers.
It's a general attitude these people have, I think. Look what happens when an article gets posted about someone who doesn't look exactly right! There was something about Alan Cox a few weeks ago, and people who had never met him were talking about what trash he must be for his appearance (he has a long beard). I've never met him either, but he's done a lot of good work on the Linux kernel. That's all that really matters.
Let's see:
Does Microsoft authorize a $1.99 Cheapbytes CD of their NT OS (Win98 doesn't compare to Linux - NT barely does)
Does Microsoft publish the source for NT and related apps?
Does Microsoft offer their NT OS free from FTP?
If your other dist isn't as progressive as RH in their libs, then download and install them - duh. The only real difference that RH has to other Linux's and Unix in general are some minor directory differences, but that's easy to get around by tweaking your PATH environment. Otherwise, they put out a good product, market it with skill, and fix bugs with haste - does Microsoft fit ANY of those descriptions? Even their marketing is stupid.
RedHat isn't becoming like Microsoft, but Linux users have started to sound a lot like Windows users esp. some of the people on these boards.
Windows users used to flame and think users of other operating systems were inferior and not worth their time. If somebody didn't use their type of hardware, they would be laughed at.
Now, a lot of linux users are wearing that shoe. What were once advocates and evangelists are now incensed zealtos.
Now, I don't want to start a flame war, but I invite people to take a look at what they do and say before they actually happen.
Regards,
Remy
Not to long ago, I read an article here about the "Backlash against Red Hat." Someone said (AC, so I can't attribute it:
/. is a high-enough profile website that I wouldn't be surprised if some of the FUD about the Linux community had its origins right here. Take one halfclued reporter/analyst, half-a-dozen noisy distribution/free software/etc bigots, and presto! Negative press coverage.
This is is different than what I have been hearing
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10
I, for one, generally agree with the tone of the comments above, i.e., Red Hat has been good for Linux and a win for RH is a win for Linux in general.
But: This isn't what I have been hearing around here lately. I have been hearing about "the Microsoft of Linux" for months now. If I were a Gartner Groupie hanging out on Slashdot, I would have certainly written the same article.
In fact,
Sometimes we need to think before we post.
This person got it right on. I think that this article came straight out of Slashdot, with a few of Caldera's sour grapes thrown in. (BTW, is it just me, or did it seem like this story could have been cooked up -- or at least heavily influenced -- by Caldera?) Red Hat has got their problems, but, hey. This isn't the way to world domination.
Maybe you should understand the facts before you profess to know them. Writing software for Linux in no way obligates you to release the software under the GPL or give your source code away for free.
This is a choice made by RedHat to release their software under the GPL. There is nothing that forces RedHat (or any other vendor) to release programs they write under the GPL, modifications to the kernel or system libraries are a different story though.
These damn AC's piss me off sometime.
--Aaron Newsome
The practice of being in the free software business is just too different to put them on the same playing field as Microsoft, who focus on just te bottom line, FUD and hardball tactics.
I don't see Redhat as being the strongarm of the free software world, but I also don't think that Red Hat's philosophy is at all in line with Linus'.
Linus says that his personal drive for Linux is guided by technical excellence and nothing more. I don't see any technical excellence being driven by Redhat with their 'not quite their yet' tools, stranger than strange file locations and other general 'do it their way' crap.
And yes I am a bit bitter about having to upgrade all ny boxes to redhat only becuase none of the commercial software (Oracle) ran on my Slackware boxes that I'd had for years.
Thanks, Aaron Newsome.
Conceived as a computing champion, Microsoft Inc got it's hand bit battling unstoppable moves by the likes of RedHat Software Inc., Linux Torvalds, and a bored doctoral student who is currently working on some of the Linux kernel for "fun". Now it may be borrowing a page straight from North Carolina.
Indeed, with NT garnering decreased credibility and various Linux distributions growing at a rate of 212% last year, the Redmond vendor suddenly finds itself the unintended target of an exploding industry. And Microsoft is using every bit of its current market lead to push its alternative operating system into a dominant position.
Smart business move? Possibly. But some critics, such as the United States Department of Justice, contend that Microsoft's business practices, under CEO William Gates, are becoming heavy-handed and bad for the entire computing industry.
Most controversial, perhaps, is the company's new plan to fix bugs and respond to consumer problems, while 3rd party efforts to make revenue off of the open-source inspired idea are in the hopper. Further flustering the hornet's nest is Microsoft's unenthusiastic reception of any standards, including POSIX above v1, X-windows, kerberos, CODA, IPv6, and it's unwillingness to accept RedHat's challenge of becoming profitable and dominent while selling what is basically a commodity product.
It's ironic that the company which claims to be the market leader is not supporting well-known standards properly.
While the DOJ and numerous other companies are involved with lawsuits against the Redmond based giant, it's clear that Microsoft is no longer the chummy place it used to.... oh wait... never mind.
from what i understand rpm was originally just a few perl scripts that existed long before Red Hat the company existed, and it just sort of evolved from there. I don't think it was ever a malicious or most likely even a conscious decision not to use deb's, probably just a natural evolution.
actually, to become an MCSE, you have to pass SIX pathetically easy exams. (okay, they aren't all easy... for instance I know of more than one CCIE who can't pass TCP/IP just because they keep forgetting that 'can't do that' means 'can't do that with microsoft prodcuts'.
As for certification, well, I got my CLA at digitalmetrics.com just for kicks (for $15, how wrong can you go?) and I'll wait and see what else appears that seems worthwhile.
I'll have my coffee with milk and two sugars please
Y'know this restaurant makes the best shit sandwiches... I've been eating here for 1.5 years
so I have intimate knowledge of all the restaurants I haven't eaten at during that time.
In my experience RH 5 and 5.1, while having some nice features, are a detriment to Linux reputation as a stable system. I was so frustrated by 5.0's crappyness that I had _3_ replacement CD's sent to
me from linuxcentral in the mistaken belief that they _must_ be defective.
Next step? Buy official boxed set from retail outlet. Still crap. Solution? Switch back to 4.1 which lived up to the hype, stability wise. 5.1 gets released, run out to retail outlet, buy boxed set. Install. Still crap.
Return to 4.1 while waiting for 5.2.
5.2 released, give it month to get in store, while tracking redhat erratta and updates.. still faithful, run to retailer.... Surprise! no RH5.2 _but_ they have Debian _and_ SuSE 5.3...Purchase SuSE, install, relax enjoy system that lives up to hype.
I also tried Caldera OpenLinux Lite 1.0 (crap) and
Slackware, which was good but the defaults seemed to be low on security and at the time I wasn't up to fixing it.
Hell, I even replaced all my hardware because of
sig11 faults when trying to compile a kernel under RH5*..
Of course, most of the probs I _had_ were related to using the system as a desktop machine.
The source for a Debian package comes in three different files, actually...
Now, this does use one source tarball and one diff per package (though there may be multiple allowed, I've only begun as a Debian developer :), but the source packages:
About the optimisation on different architectures... again, I'm unsure, but this is because of my lack of experience... especially since once I've uploaded a i386 + source package, it seems there are people who have automated builds for other architectures running, so I kinda haven't worried about it... but it might be possible, I'd have to check :)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I knew was provided by the Debian source package system, and hope that someone else could clarify the rest for me...
It can't happen. Simple as that. I'm not a big Red Hat fan... I've had enough trouble getting even simple things to compile cleanly on their distribution that I recommend against it whenever anyone's considering a new Linux installation. But there is no way they can become the next Microsoft. The GPL protects us from it. That's why it's there.
I'm running both Linux and BSD, both on Macs (BSD for the IIcx) which can also dualboot. Therefore, I must surely be deserving of being nibbled to death by yaks ;) even worse, I have released GPLed software- but it runs on Macs! Aaaaaaa! *hides from herds of angry ex-Windows users with rocks* *hehehe*
Would it still be FUD if KDE advocates _wanted_ another MS? My RH-derived Linux (linuxppc) shipped with KDE built so securely into the system that you couldn't switch window managers and I'm still seeing people post forlorn pleas to c.s.l.p for help in removing the default, unkillable KDE install.
Which is somewhat beside the point, but anyhow, if KDE advocates did _not_ want one uberdesktop, one uberdistribution, then it might be FUD to call RedHat another MS (as in, fear of it, uncertainty about using it, doubt of if it's the right thing). However if KDE people are already predominantly accustomed to Windows and want 'weak' strains of linux to die out leaving all the support and development on KDE and Red Hat, would 'Red Hat is the next MS' really be an attack on RH? Wouldn't it instead be sort of an argument that one shouldn't support any other distribution because they are all going to be Darwinned out of existence?
Its obvious that this journalist hasn't a clue about the GPL or Linux in general. I've lost a lot of respect for Caldera after reading this article.
:)
Ransom Love is whining that Informix targeted Red Hat for their port. Well guess what Caldera? If you really want to be compatible you could easily take Red Hat's ENTIRE distribution, slap your CLOSED SOURCE Novell crap on top of it and brand it Caldera. Mandrake Linux and others have done exactly this.
If you are incompatible, FIX it. That's what open source is about. Red Hat doesn't have any secret API's that are designed to break competing software.
I've used Red Hat quite a bit and I haven't paid them a single penny, unlike certain Microsoft products I no longer use and pay out the nose for! Furthermore, I heavily use Red Hat's ftp, web services, mailing lists, and take advantage of the fact that they are supporting development in GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment and the kernel itself (Alan Cox). I'm glad to see Red Hat is successful and as long as they continue to support Free software I will support them.
BTW, last I heard Linus used Red Hat. I'd sure like to see how HE customizes that bad boy
The more you know, the less you understand.
For LSB, why not just create a /compat directory with links to everything? That way, the different distributions could stay different yet remain compatible with the LSB. I know it wouldn't help much for libc5 vs glibc but... libc5 is discontinued! glibc6 is the way to go now so... is this still a REAL issue?
As for the article, I don't think RedHat has crossed the evil line yet. Anyway, it is in RedHat's best interests FINANCIALLY to remain in good standing with the community.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by Antinomian Chowderhead:
Yesh, it'sh the shame old shtory, gimme another one a them doubles bartender thanksh . . . you good friend, ol' pal . . . buddy ol' pal . . . 'd'i ev' tellya 'bout my wife lefme? she lefme . . . damn wife . . . ol' buddy ol' pal . . .
Posted by Antinomian Chowderhead:
There is nothing that forces RedHat (or any other vendor) to release programs they write under the GPL, modifications to the kernel or system libraries are a different story though.
Um, yeah, but what if that's the part that he's talking about? It sure seems to be the part that counts here.
These damn AC's piss me off sometime.
That's becaue your mother's a crack whore.
Posted by JerTheNerd:
;-)
:-)
>When you say microsoft is selling software >because they want to make money, I say, "Don't >waste your time typing that into a keyboard."
This is true... I should have just assumed that as a 'given.' I stand corrected.
>Now when you say RedHat is selling Linux becuase >it works, I say, "Are you out of you mind?"
I didn't say that that's why they're selling it. I said that's why they're pushing it, that's why they have half the sales in the open source community, and they shouldn't be picked on for it.
>RedHat isn't some non-profit organization >selling Linux CDs so they can buy rice to send >over to somalia.
Quite true. I know that they're doing this to pay the bills just like everyone else. My intent was to point out the marked difference between they way they and Microsoft handle the issue.
MS made 95 (again a given, but I'll make a thought progression out of it, don't worry!) and sold it to the masses for $90 a box. I'll admit, before I gained some knowledge, I thought '95 was the best thing that ever hit my hard drive. (=>@ *(*%(*^%(%(*%) Then MS makes IE4... freely downloadable from their conxion FTP mirror. Then... they make '98. And they sell the Windows 98 upgrade for another $90. Holy rip off Batman! 95 with IE4 and 98 are IDENTICAL!! There are only a VERY few subtle differences.
Now... Redhat makes a linux distribution. When a friend of mine bought the 5.1 box set it was $50. Then 5.2 was released. You can download the entire thing for free, or you can pay another $30 for the 5.2 box set.
Redhat is definately NOT in this for the principle of the thing, they want to make their money. But, they're also not just selling us something we already have. And they're not inflating the value of what they sell.
Again... my two cents.
Posted by dwiiezle:
:)
;)
:)
I agree with that redhat is a kind of mini-m$.
They have slow sucking "user-friendly" distributions with bugging libraries
The only difference is that caldera doesn't make money like m$ does
Slackware rox!
Posted by Antinomian Chowderhead:
This is just what I'd expect from Caldera. The trail of bodies behind that company just gets longer and longer, doesn't it?
Not that Red Hat is any better. The rumors of prohibited biological experiments in their classified mountain bunker are too persistent -- and too detailed -- to ignore. And does anybody still bother trying to keep track of all the international war crimes tribunals that have been convened solely for the purpose of investigating the atrocities commited by the infamous Red Hat Brigade? I thought not.
Posted by Antinomian Chowderhead:
The users are going to destroy slashdot.
Yeah, if it doesn't destroy them first.
Conviction without action is the ruin of the soul
Ham without eggs is the ruin of breakfast.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
/etc/inittab. This would cause the default install of the system to boot into xdm and remove the pure console from the equasion.
Don, you make an excellent point. I think that all Redhat needs to complete the transition to an AOL type entity is to make the default runlevel 5 in the
At that point you have the equiv of M$ windoze for Linux. If that happens the dumbing down of the typical user will accellerate beyond all control.
It's because AOL has attracted the lowest common denominator to the internet that we've had to deal with crap like the CDA. When the internet was too difficult for the average child to access, nobody used protecting children from smut on the internet as a campaign issue.
I think of myself as a rather competent computer user and for all I know and all I can do I'm a flea compared to men like Linus, and the GURUs at bell labs who envisioned the concepts of UNIX and Linux.
In a decade, even though I'll never be in their league, I will be that far ahead of the people who are considered very capable or competent.
Just as now I'm humbled by people who still do assembler programming.
LK
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Man, Red Hat does seem to be doing a really good job in packaging and marketing. (I'm unqualified to judge their code, so I won't.) For Linux to be really successful, someone's got to do that. Not everybody in the world has the vision to just automatically see how Open Source works, and why their fears and doubts are unjustified. Red Hat's doing that, and doing it well.
So the question I pose to you is: how successful do you want Linux to be? If you want it to remain where it is, then fine. But if you want it to go head to head with Microsoft on every level, you've got to accept that there are companies out there that will take the lead and become rich.
The best thing, I think, that Linux users can do is to support a standards base and hold all companies accountable to it. And if Red Hat or someone else decides to do something squirrelly with the code, use the power that brought Linux to prominence in the first place to set things straight again.
I tell ya...this open source thing is amazing. I hope it stays that way.
Posted by JerTheNerd:
;-) It beats what other people my age do. Would you like fries with that?
Hey, I'm 19, no college education, yet still gainfully employed. I must be doing something right.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
I too think of myself as a Linux newbie in many ways. Even though I maintain two linux servers (one business, one personal), I only recently compiled and installed a custom kernel with success. Were it not for RedHat I'd still be where I was 6 months ago.
However just because you start out doing it the easy way, doesn't mean that you should be content continue on that path.
But as a whole it is NOT a good thing to remove people so much from technology.
When my dad was my age, there was not a part in his car that he couldn't fix himself with a good sized toolbox. If my car weren't so hopelessly old I'd never be able to lift the hood. As automotive technlogy marched on people got lazy, we were more than happy to go to firestone, or Mr. Goodwrench to get our cars fixed instead of learning to do it ourselves.
We are marching down the same path with computers. Hell maybe I'll open a repair center and call it Mr. Goodchips and make a load of cash.
LK
Posted by JerTheNerd:
;-)
First of all... Red Hat and MS are two completely different animals. MS is pushing software on people, basicly to make money ($90 a pop for Windows 98... WHAT THE ????) and just because they can. They (or should I say 'he') are (is) using the fact that so many people are locked into using MS products to keep digging the trench deeper.
On the flip side of the coin, Red Hat is pushing their software because it WORKS! And works well. It's easy to install, easy to configure, easy to learn, and easy to use. Plus it doesn't crash. I think I've gotten my box to freeze all of once because that was way back (a month ago) when I had no clue what I was doing. Anyway... couple the fact that Red Hat makes good reliable software, with the price difference! I've seen the 5.2 box set for $30! Or if you're cheap, just download it!
At the very least I'd say that comparing the two companies in the first place (in that manner) is the quickest way to get "Gold Member" status on your Moron Club Card.
Just my two cents, feel free to dispense change.
I've no reason to be a fan, but from what I can observe of their behaviour it's only possible to think that they're some sort of Microsoft if you imagine that they're ill-thought-of just because their software is popular, ie if you have utterly failed to take in just how nasty MS really is.
And they do support the LSB. And they fund free software development. And they support standards. I think their behavour is pretty much exemplary.
I still prefer Debian though...
--
Xenu loves you!
LSB Home Page
My feeling is that it is very important. I run FreeBSD, Debian, and RedHat; I'd very much like for RedHat and Debian to be more compatible, as I imagine many people would like Slackware to be, etc. There's no reason for gratuitous incompatibility -- RedHat is a bunch of nice people, but sometimes their decisions for where to put things and what to include make little sense.
A common starting point would be very good for Linux, and would really stuff it to the "fragmentation FUDrakers" once and for all.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Well, none that has XFree86 anyhow. Maybe one of the tiny linux distributions doesn't have X, but all the major ones do.
>The power just shifts--once again you will have a company that will do anything to hold its monopoly.
Red Hat doesn't a Linux monopoly. Hell, they don't even have a monopoly on selling Red Hat -- head to cheapbytes or linuxmall and you can buy a copy for $2, none of which goes to Red Hat. They are trying, primarily, to be a service and support vendor, not to dominate the industry.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
TedC
They wrote the PPP and IPX stuff for Linux.
I find myself defending Caldera on an increasingly regular basis. This isn't because I like their distro so much as I dislike all the FUD _within_ the Linux community. FUD is FUD, whether it comes from MS or an AC.
BTW, I'm not singling you aout in particular, but I had to post this somewhere. :-)
TedC
I read somewhere that Red Hat is paying a couple of programmers to help with Qt 2.0, so it shouldn't be an issue this time around.
I assume you're referring to libc5. They are out of date, but they aren't "bug ridden". They used (past tense, so this post isn't out of date by the end of the month...) them because they're stable. A bug (unintended program behavior) is not the same as a missing feature (thread support).
TedC
RH's doing a good job. They're juggling a lot of different Linux projects, and doing it well. They're also bringing more and more awareness of Linux to different groups - a Good Thing(tm). Looking forward to RH 6.0.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Linux is free.
That means that anyone who doesn't want to go with RedHat doesn't have to. Given the freeness of Linux, I see no way for RedHat to somehow deprive you of your choice among the distributions. If you don't like any of them, you can even roll your own. (I'd love to do that someday, but I don't have the time.)
How could RedHat make .rpms incompatible? rpm is GPLed. We'd all be able to see what the format changes were and they'd gain nothing but ill will.
Remember, RedHat is a company. Their primary goal is to earn enough money to allow their employees to make a living working for them. If they ever did anything along the lines of the paranoid ravings being spouted here, they would lose all community trust. With that trust would go their profits. I doubt they plan anything so insidious.
--Phil (Over there! It's a conspiracy! Made you look...)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Its great they gave it away, but it does keep me from using many distributions.
As was found in an earlier debate, RPMS are great as long as you can trust them not to screw up your system. Some incomplete RPMS when removed can (yes do) make life a living hell for any future version of that program.
Avoiding this requires waiting for the distributions RPMS, or others you trust or even making your own.
But then making your own RPM is more hassle than "make install". But if you ever install something that isn't an RPM then you can never install (AFAIK) without forcing it, a program that is dependant on it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
But the article quotes the RedHat VP as saying their support is luke-warm.~ ^~~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
that it doesn't want people thinking Linux=Redhat.
^ ~~^~
Redhat is the Linux Microsoft, which goes to show just how good it is. Even our Microsoft (RedHat) contribitues to the community, even our Microsoft (RedHat) sets its programs free as open-source.
But Linux is a operating system born of community effort. And if someone wants to port, there should be an easy way they can port to the community (including RedHat) rather than just porting it to the Microsoft of Linux (Redhat).
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
After exhausting myself over these posts I've concluded this isn't so much a debate about RedHat or Microsoft as it is a debate over Frodo's Ring. You remember in Tolkien's Lord of the Ring masterpieces, it was the ring of absolute power. It also corrupted everyone (but one) who used it.
~ ^~
Its true I'm borrowing the analogy from an earlier (like last year) article mentioned by Slashdot, but it is amazing to me how much it applies. if someone could reproduce the URL I'd appreciate it greatly.
The Ring here is the power over little things, like where files should be placed, and which libc to use. These are little things but they're neccesity for higher level apps (the ones we actually use to be productive.)
The example of what control this can bring is Microsoft themselves. Not only by there dominance of the actualy operating system but by there dominance of the User Interface and the libraries that generate them and the API hooks into those libraries.
That is what we're afraid of isn't it? It doesn't matter who controls the ring, its the ring itself that we fear. We fear its power over us, and I cringe anytime someone gets close to that ring, no matter the morals of that person.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Thank you for your reply. It was informative and professional. However there are a few things I'll point out also.
~
When I mention a RPM screwing up your system, I mean an RPM messing up the packaging system. Like a partially installed RPM that fond a little bug that makes it abort, but enough was installed to add it to the RPM registry (nope I didn't call it a database.) I haven't found a good way yet to clean up a RPM registry after something like this happens and it happens frequently since I get impatient (I know my personal problem) for Redhat releases to update software.
As far as maintaining multiple systems, I think in other discussions its a settled issue that the Debian packaging system and tools are even better than RPM. And they are open source, and they are GPL (and the long list of what everyone calls it these days.)
And how do I, after installing with "make install" say the new GTK libraries, then without forcing it installation install Gimp?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
It is true that most of these problems are natural to any packaging system. I'm not against packaging systems. However one that is more manualy editable and fixable would be nice is all I'm saying. Otherwise by its very nature it traps you into using RPMS, and for guaranteed stability the RPMS issued from RedHat (free of charge of course.)
^ ~~~^~~^~
Stampede seems to understand these concerns really well. They're SLIP is the packaging system that doesn't have to be. ENCAPS is also really good but doesn't check dependancies.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~
cool
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
...if you've only used RedHat.
I don't coun't it as FUD, where is the uncertanty and doubt? Infact a consliracy theory like this that says Redmond is shoveling this rhetoric IS FUD ON YOUR PART . Indeed, it is showing an early lead for RedHat to prescribe its (lame) administration nuances on anyone who wants to run propriatary software. It shows certainty of RedHat's system as the port for your MS software moving to linux.
If proprietary software runs on RedHat then it becomes the Linux Standard Base, rather than the community well though out effort that the LSB is.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Not only is this more MS slanted stuff from ZD, it rings of Godwin's Law, which should be extended to include references or comparisone to Microsoft and it's overlord Bill Gates. There is, of course, only one proper response to a troll. Drumroll please....
<*plonk!*>
All Hail Sir Troll of Slashdot!
Hmmm, I guess I must not have a distribution on my computer since I downloaded it from a Web page..?
Daniel
PS - I'm not putting a company out of business either.
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I didn't see him doing that, the most you can say is that he said they were the first *linux* distributor to use a package manager. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I suspect that it's more true. I'm pretty sure they were the first distribution to be known for it anyway.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
RPM has a lot of features that make it more appealing to distribution developers.
;-)
Which features? Compatability with RedHat doesn't count..
(not that I disbelieve you but I'm tired of people making broad claims (another good one "Gnome is founded on a poor architecture") with no examples or explanation.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The problem with RedHat becoming the standard distro is about choice.
If I am not able to choose which one I want (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, Turbo Linux...) then Linux will go a big step backward.
Ok Red Hat has done (is doing) great things for Linux but I want CHOICE!
Besides, Red Had having the biggest market share can (by changing it's "format") make all the rpm incompatible with other distros.
This remembers me what a company from Redmond is doing to keep the lead in the desktop market...
I am not against RH (I have it on my PC), just worried...
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
IMHO, the LSB is only weak because of lack of manpower. And I don't know if Red Hat supplying that would be a good thing. The LSB just needs people with time to get things going. They recently some stress over time to even keep the HTML up to date, and that's still an ongoing battle.
If you wanna see compatability, then lend a hand in the LSB, it's that simple. If you wanna see Red Hat Dominate, do nothing and just keep buying CD's from them. I don't have a problem with Red Hat, I use it on several boxes, but I would like to see the LSB get some more momentum, and that will just have to come from manhours.
If Red Hat is so secretly anti-LSB as the FUD artical says, why is Alan Cox (who works for Red Hat) one of the most active members on every LSB list?!?
- GPL'ed all software developed in house.
- Allow free download of product they sell (including manual).
- Openly communicate with competitors.
If you think those fit Microsoft, well, then maybe the two are the same.I just don't see it (and haven't since the first time I heard this FUD over a year ago).
Bottom line is that is typical ZDNet FUD. Not worth my effort to say much more.
That said, I would like to know why Robert Young had his editoria on the LSB pulled from the archive on freshmeat.net. Does anyone know the scoop (NPI!) on that? Does anyone have a copy of his editorial?
I'm not suggesting anything here. But I would like all the facts.
I personally use RedHat on around ten machines, not counting personal stuff, so it's safe to say that I'm not biased against them. Not that I don't have my gripes about the way their setup program works (have fun not installing X!) or the way the deviate from a given package's standard locations for files. But all in all they don't entirely suck.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
ms can release linux if they like. everyone else does.
redhat isn't a microsoft. they produce GPL software.
use whatever distribution you like.
Yoghurt
This orticle is really lame. Basically, I would interpret it as FUD from Redmond trying to make people think that Linux is more fragmented than it actually is.
Why doesn't Informix run well in Caldera? Because Caldera is running totally out of date, bug-ridden libraries.
Also, as I recall (and I am an informix DBA), Informix wouldn't run on Redhat 5 at first because it didn't support glibc.
Dreck.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I use Red Hat and will soon also use Suse on another machine. But Debian is our safety net. I think the Red Hat guys are smart enough to realize that and won't pull any stunts.
Debian is important for all of us, even if we don't use it.
rm -rf microsoft*
It takes me an hour to install and set it up, whereas it takes me only 15 minutes to install and set up RedHat, BUT I prefer Debian to RedHat because Debian offers a helluva lot more packages on a CD and it sets it up so that you have to be pretty darn stupid/unlucky to mess it up. Debian being able to install an RPM just as easy as its DEB is also a big help. I also find that Debian deserves at least some credit for including Alien as a part of its dist. Alien transforms your rpm/deb/tgz into deb/rpm/tgz using only a simple command. Another thing about debian is that it only releases stuff that is 99-100% stable, unlike RedHat.
RedHat has shown that they are committed to contributing valuable free software to the community and that they are not basing their distribution around proprietary technologies - only free software. However, they are a commercial company that is selling an operating platform and it is natural to expect that they must take advantage of opportunities to create value-added aspects to their product. They shouldn't be attacked for this, but it is okay to worry about the possibility of a small degree of fragmentation (in things like training courses, for instance). Note that "worry" is not the same as criticize. This downside should be seen as a reasonable price to pay for the investment that RedHat is bringing in to Linux. People who think this is very worrying should support Debian, an all-volunteer, non-profit, effort. Personally, I'm not too worried but I prefer Debian just because it is a better overall distrubution, and I contribute donations each time I upgrade. *-- Josh
If the numbers given in the article are right, then RedHat does have a much stronger position in the Linux market share than any other Linux vendor. I don't see evidence of Microsoft practices however. They haven't embraced open standards, modified them and concealed the specifications while at the same time protecting the new specification as intellectual property. They haven't released something for free to crush competition only later to consider charging money for it. They haven't released software which only works on there distribution. What they have done is come up with a relatively easy to use Linux distribution and done so earlier in the game than a lot of the competition. They've done a better job than most on making use of the latest Linux technologies. It's the first point which got them market share and I would wonder how much of that market share has actually payed for RedHat and how much has downloaded it for free (or gone to cheapbytes and picked up an unofficial package) It's a bit of a rolling stone really. Since more people use RedHat chances are that more developers are developing on it and so its more likely that it makes use of the technologies present in a RedHat distribution. This may be unfortunate in terms of squeezing smaller competition out of the running but it seems like its unavoidable. For source distributions the user and developer community is still free to modify the code and make a more distribution agnostic version. It's not RedHat's fault that there are some distribution dependancies, they were in the right place at the right time with the right product. The market share isn't so high that it can't change either. If somebody makes a better deal for the consumer the market share can be moved (ease of installation, reliability, scalability, ease of use, feature set, price, pool of resources including people who can help fix you when you're broke)
If RedHat started developing its own closed source office suite and bundling it with its distribution then it would be infringing on Microsofts practices. I don't see that happening though. The various distributions happen not to be exactly plug and play compatible for software applications. Common sense says that most of it will work best with whoever has the largest market share.
The RedHat training is another point that I don't agree with. RedHat has a distribution. It only makes sense both from a business stand point and a feasibility stand point. RedHat employs a lot more people that know RedHat than know Caldera etc. Caldera has the option of providing training as well, and despite their vocal objection to RedHats training I'd be pretty suprised if they didn't also do distribution specific training.
It would be good if all the distributions had all the same libraries and all the various configuration files in the same place, but then there would only be one distribution with maybe some smaller companies selling CD's of the source and binary trees.
...but what the hell. This has to be said. In the article there was a statement about software ported to Linux. they said something to the effect that it was ported to RedHat and not to other distrib's. Look ZDNet, Distribution Wars aside, Linux, is Linux, is Linux. Caldera, Debian SuSE, RedHat...IT'S ALL FRAGGING LINUX! The front ends are different, the install is different, but what's the real kernel level difference between RHL running 2.2.3 vs Caldera Linux running 2.2.3 vs anyother Linux flavor runing 2.2.3? Damn little that I have been able to work out. Word Perfect 8 ran on them all, Star Office ran on them all. Linux is Linux, all else is value added product.
Besides, there are several distributions of linux that are little more than RedHat 5.2 with either the latest KDE or Gnome bundled with it. RedHat doesn't mind. Let's see someone put out a version of win98 with netscape as the default browser and watch the hordes of lawyers swarm out of Washington.
Me two shillings worth
Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
I don't think RedHat is acting like M$ either, on the contrary, they seem to be better as time goes (no longer any proprietary software in the dist.) but I keep an eye on them in case that changes.
But one thing disturbs me, but I am not sure I got this right since I wasn't there at the time but:
1. Debian made their package system. (right?)
2. RedHat thought: Great idea, let's make one too.
Under many circumstances I can understand that. The problem is that the Debian system clearly is better so why didn't they use that? Or even renamed it to RPM but kept them compatible??? Or was Debians packaging system really crappy at the start?
...and as long as they continue to license their tools and software under the GPL, they can not become "the next MS". Think about Mandrake...people used it because they like RH but they also like KDE. Red Hat got the message and, since the license change, KDE will be included in RH 6.0 (atleast as an option). Now people will move back to Red Hat. With the GPL, we will always have this branching option.
I can't even think of examples where Red Hat has bullied other distros around (yes: I remember the LSB, but I understand that that is somewhat rectified, and I still wouldn't call it bullying).
--Lenny
The users are going to destroy slashdot.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Quoted from some "old" book.
RedHat seems to be the most popular distribution, but I will not be pleased with it until they clean up their RPM crap. If RedHat wants me to use RPMS, they should at least place the binaries in the default location. Until they do that, I will be using slackware.
I find it very ironic that Ransom Love, CEO of Caldera, is taking RedHat to task for using "closed business practices". Caldera bundles more non-GPL software with its distribution than any other company in the Linux industry!
What exactly are "closed business practices", or "open business practices" for that matter?
Sometimes it's necessary to run your business in a "closed" manner. Other things can be run right out in the open. How many "open" business practices does Ransom Love practice?
-- haaz.
So I asked, does that make me Steve Ballmer?
-- jase, who hopes never to be middle-aged, paunchy, and balding. At least not in the order.
-- haaz.
Well you have to think about who most of the linux community is.. converted M$ users.. (not all.. just most). So the same way of thinking still exists. The only solution is just to "grow up"
Every OS sucks. Its just find the one that sucks the least for you.
sum fine
There's a divide and conquer thread. Didn't read it, but if people wonder what proprietary vendors will do to combat Linux, there's one.
Red Hat's work is open for all to see. I fail to see Microsoft connections, which brings me to another point: Microsoft bashing.
There are some people who support Linux only because they begrudge the success of MS. That's not helpful to the field, and in the end it's not helpful to Linux. Red Hat is feeling the heat from those people.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
As long as RedHat continues to release their software under the GPL, other distros will be able to attain comatibility easily, and, like Mandrake-BeroLinux, be able to stay ahead of RedHat in terms of kernel, egcs, glibc, and other packages.
I wonder if anybody is still reading this thread...
djb@redhat.com, Donnie Barnes. (sorry if I spelled that incorrectly).
The passage I refer to comes from his visit to the UCLA LUG, roughly this:
Q (somebody from OCLUG): Why doesn't RedHat make a windows program which detects and sets up the hardware, then automatically installs Linux.
A (djb): Because we don't want to hire a Windows developer, or pay MSDN subscription fee...
Note:
a) This isn't the exact quote, but it's along these lines.
b) I don't want to reflect negatively on djb, he is a great guy
c) This is a damn good idea. ZipSlack is along these lines. It's how I got started with Linux many years ago.
Vince
RedHat doesn't seem at all willing to work with Redmond. At the UCLA LUG meeting last year, djb reject the idea that they write a Windows program that detects the hardware, sets up partitions, and automatically installs Linux, because they refuse to hire or pay a Windows developer. If they're unwilling to work with MS when it clearly only benefits RH, I doubt they'd work with MS in some mutually-beneficial agreement.
"put binaries in the default location"?
/usr/local/bin... does it make any sense for a dist to do this?
Which default location do you mean? Many programs default to
The GPL has no impact whatsoever on exlusive deals like the original author mentioned. However, since most of the redhat distribution is GPL'd, the OEMs could theoretically just buy one $50 copy of redhat (or even a $2 copy from cheapbytes) and install it on all of their machines. I expect the redhat "deal", whatever it is, is mainly just for providing support - not for licensing the software itself.
Hard to imagine M$ doing this. Red Hat has already shown an acceptance of Linux diversity and a remarkable tolerance for criticism, deserved or otherwise.
Support the distribution of your choice, but also support Red Hat.
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
This is ZDNet's obligatory linux article for today. It's just them not being able to come up with anything more exciting - so they made something up.
I just wonder how many interesting story submissions got passed up for this one (which was worthless).
support gun control: take guns from cops
The truth is that the imperious, greedy criminal distributions such as the fudding Red Hat must be eradicated, as well as the pitiful $lackware that came before them and the evil $u$e.
The Calderaan$ are the most impure of all and shall be purged by fire.
They are all evil. We must all inform on the Red Hat filth among us. The enemy is everywhere!
support gun control: take guns from cops
As has been explained before, RedHat is completely incapable of exerting monopolistic control over the linux market, and is fact unable to survive without an army of loyal supporters and coders. Were they to become as unpopular as Microsoft, they would cease to be relevant. This is just divisiveness, and is therefore bad for everyone. Not every large or growing company which is the computer biz turn into Microsoft.
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
Matlab, for example, runs its licence checking software as a client-server thingy, so the licence server needs to get started from inittab.
/usr/lib)
Matlab's own install script coped fine with this on my debian box (after I fixed the libs I broke with careless sym-linking in
I agree about easy upgrades with debian. It's very impressive.
---- "First came stats, pulling habits out of rats
I'm sure Redhat will be very successful thanks to people like you who take and don't give anything back
---
Case in point - RPM
Many distributions are based on RPM to manage their installed software. RedHat _GAVE_ this away and doesn't require royalties for its use. It may give them jollies to see how many people are making use of their software, but isn't that what free software is all about? When was the last time that M$ gave anything away without an ulterior motive to destroy competition? One could argue that by giving away RPM, RedHat actually increased competition.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
I'm also a Debian user. I pretty much dislike the RedHat distribution itself, but the company has done a lot of great things for Linux... not only bringing users to Linux, but funding free software like Gnome and their own distribution's tools. I think we can safely assume that RedHat isn't the next M$.
-Nick
Woohoo!
Runs around hi-fiving all the Slackware users about.
Slackware kicks ass. I wish Patrick would have let me port it to SPARC. Instead, I'm forming my own distribution as I get time. But, would you like to take a guess which distribution it's gonig to favor most?
Slackware... as much fun as SunOS 4.1.3, and it runs on a PC... what more could you want?
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
no, it's not about what window manager linux should have or not have, but instead about basic stuff like what the filesystem structure should look like, what basic libs should be included, what basic utilities should be included, etc.
btw, the link is http://www.linuxbase.org/
Try Debian. Mucho easy. Plus, it is the most committed to openness.
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
Ah well, I think that has been said before:
Did you compile GNOME for another dist? Did you write down what you had to do to get it to compile, step by step? If so, did you then send this notes to the GNOME team and they refused to put in on the website? No?
So what are you whining about?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Has anyone noticed that it's a triggered response from the linux 'community' to instantly shout "FUD!" about something (even if they don't read it/don't know what they are talking about) simply because it's not pro-linux? Hell in this case, it's not for or against linux, it's reporting about two diff distributions of linux.
These ideas about everything being apart of a vast Microsoft conspiracy to spread FUD about linux is really starting to get old. Some of you watch too much x-files.
Perhaps slashdot should change the slogan to "News for fanatics, stuff only about linux"?
BTW, I noticed that zdnet has a direct link to a "Linux Resources" from it's main starting page.
(http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/linux/) - I hardly consider that to be "99% of the stuff that is on zd-net seems to be, well, slanted in a major ass-kissing way towards Redmond"
Here here! I'm using Mandrake (RH + KDE) and STILL thnik SuSE is the best. If it wasn't for the fact that everything goes to RH first, I'd a stuck with SuSE.
Oh well, I urge people to try Mandrake if they're concerned about monopolies. It's RH 5.x plus a bunch of ggod stuff (xEmacs, x11amp, KDE etc)
Because they cannot go out of business. They will always be there as an alternative to redhat, even if their user base is a minority of linux users.
cheers,
--
Redhat's SRPM format allows the packager to:
This is just a small sample of the features RPM has. The most conspicuous non-feature in dpkg is the fact that you are only allowed one source and one patch. There are some packages for which one must resort to some fairly ghastly hacks to work around. ( either using not-quite pristine sources, or using big and complicated patches )
Debian's package format is a nice binary format, but the source package format is really more important to the person who actually builds the packages.
By the way, do you actually build debian binaries from the source, or just use them ?
cheers,
Maybe it suits you, but a lot of distribution developers like to have something a little more sophisticated than tar.gz to build their distributions with. This is why RPM has been so succesfull.
This in itself would not make anything easier
then offers you where to install the main program
RTFM. rpm can do this. I'd bet that debs can be relocated as well. Of course, if you rebuild from the src.rpm ( or the deb source archive ) you can put every single file wherever you want it.
then leaves a log of wher it installed everything in some kinda log folder
Actually, it leaves a log in a database. This is 1000 times as good as just using log files.
hell it should even have a GUI interface for developers making it absolutely simple to package stuff...
Developers don't really need a GUI interface. The format of the spec file is 1000 times as simple as the process of packaging a program nicely.
I suggest you investigate deb and rpm more carefully. They are far more advanced than you are aware of. They already offer all the features you've requested, and more ( eg they use databases rather than text files. You can query the databases to extract all kinds of useful info )
See maximum rpm at www.rpm.org for information about rpm. I believe the Debian website has information about their package tool.
This article reminds me why I rarely do more than glance through "Smart Reseller".
The economic and technical conditions that enabled MS to establish a monopoly desktop O/S and extend it to applications and try with servers simply do not exist (at least at present) in the Linux community. It wasn't that long ago that Debian went from "new" to become a leading distribution.
We have different "flavors" of Linux distributions becuase the community has different needs.
IF RH were to start locking up applications, stopped supporting efforts like GNOME, stopped funding developers unless they licensed their code solely to RH, THEN I'd worry (and switch to another distro).
Rob, this must be a slow news day.
They've figured out that Linux stories attract eyes, so they're going to write about Linux. Enter the other factor, which is what to write about once they've decided that they're going to write.
Well, conflict sells. Heck, conflict has been the primary basis of Western (and I mean that in the classic sense) narrative for millenia. We've run through the cycle of "GNOME storms the MS desktop stronghold" and "Big Name Adopters Prove Microsoft is doomed," so the next best thing to do is troll (and I use that in the "gill net fishing" sense) for some other conflict.
Red Hat is tailor-made for this sort of reportage, because anyone half-awake who reads Linux Journal (for instance) will come across a Red Hat hating letter every now and then. Anyone who frequents Slashdot will also come across the usual contingent of "Red$Hat" comments and the like.
This article is just a reporter being a reporter, writing about a general subject (Linux) that's been done to death by everyone and their mama's knitting circle newsletter, and trying to find an angle to make this story more interesting and more widely read than all the other Linux stories.
And, now that I think of it, we ought to realize that for every simpering convert, there's going to be a nay-sayer... you know... a water cooler sage... eager for the chance to say "I told you this whole loonis thing was going nowhere."
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
"A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
Let your conscience be clear; become a nicer person...
Isn't HTML an "open standard"?
Well, I hate to admit it as a Linux user, but given the recent anon post to comp.os.linux.advocacy (and never having heard a similar stink out of Redmond) and having seen Red Hat's private email responses (which were lame, at best), I'd have to say that, given my experiences, Microsoft really outdoes Red Hat when it comes to courtesy and decency.
That counts for a lot in the world at large; if Red Hat wants to be perceived as anything other than a Southern, anti-female and racist organization, well, it's going to have to clean up its act.
_Deirdre
Can anyone provide me with a link to more info on the LSB? Specifically, what is included in it?
If (from what I understand of it) the LSB includes a specification for a window manager (ie all linux distros will come with wm, or whatever), then I certainly agree with RH on not supporting it. But I would like to check it out myself.
This sig is false.
How is an exclusive business deal w/RedHat possible, when the GPL permits anyone to copy Linux and install it on two machines, or a million? Unless RedHat is distributing non-GPL'd code... can anyone elaborate on this allegation? It sounds like a vicious, unfounded rumor.
It's a marketing tactic IBM used "back in the day" to make customers afraid to switch to competitors' products. Today it means a factually-unfounded attempt by an established company to besmirch the reputation of a new, innovative idea.
There is non-GPL free software in Debian: the Debian Free Software Guidelines permit licenses other than GPL. Example: the BSD license.
The point that not all free software is GPL'd is an excellent one. As far as I know there is no "GPL-only" distribution. Someone correct me?
Well, from the past 5 comments.. I can see the linux defense guns coming up and aiming. "FUD" they scream. Step back and take a look people, I think this article has some valid points.
This sort of situation is really inevitable. When companies get involved, they are going to pursue their bottom line, and they really dont give a shit about anything else. They dont give a shit about freedom, open source, or the community unless it is really advantageous for them. There is no advantage for RH in LSB. Why should they advocate something that might take people away from their platform?
"Look at gnome.. rpm," you say. There's a difference. Gnome is different because I believe redhat sees a financial advantage right now about keeping it's contribution open source. Furthermore, they cant close-source it because it's based on GTK, which is OSS. They know that if they could close-it, and they did, everyone would stop using RH, pretty much, so they dont.
RPM is a different problem altogether. RPM was created by RH when linux was still quite a small deal. Since then, RH has grown by leaps and bounds, and so has Linux.
The thing to know about companies is, they are NOT human. After a certain critical mass, they retain NO human qualities. RPM was released when RH was still run by humans, and humans who cared somewhat for the linux community. Furthermore, Linux itself was a very small platform back then, and all developments had to be shared if it had any chance of hitting the big time. Now it has.
There's just one more thing I'd like to point out. There are tons of people out there who have absolutely no problem with Linux getting in bed with the big guys - IBM, SUN, SGI, Dell, Compaq, etc. I just ask, has anyone noticed how far Linux has come WITHOUT any business help? Were the businesses here when kernel 1.2.13 became 2.0.0? Why do people attatch such a big significance to "market share"? Is "market share" going to make Linux inherently better? Is the worth of an operating system decided by how many people use it, or it's technical features? What is the worth of an OS if it is used by everybody, but technically lacking? What price is this community willing to pay to gain widespread acceptance in the world?
Big business did not help Linux 1 iota in it's development - and they wont help either unless they see a very direct way for them to profit from it. And greedy profit-seeking, in this case, is very very bad.
The feeling now is something akin to "look mom, I build my own race-car and it won the indy-500, and now all these nice rich people want me to wear their shoes and clothing, and they say they'll give me lots of money for it too.. gee whiz". Big business has a way of leaving everything it touches in a state of decrepid waste. Watch out.
-Laxative
these are like has-been BS installs on windows... the optimal installer should be an executable that extracts its own data files and then offers you where to install the main program (preferably somewhere ON MY PATH) and then leaves a log of wher it installed everything in some kinda log folder... maybe /.install-logs with the name & version of the program as a logfile name... then when the next version gets installed it'll remove the old files (upon verification if you want to remove or move elsewhere (like a ./old-installs/progname&version/)) and then install...
this sounds pretty damn easy to me don't you think? so WHY hasn't it been done?? hell it should even have a GUI interface for developers making it absolutely simple to package stuff...
this, in turn, would solve so many of the problems with linux it isn't even funny... linux has a VERY hard time with installing and uninstalling of software cause you have to know absolutely everything about everything - this'd offer a small text file saying the paths of everything installed (and possibly everything that was made by the program (settings files and stuff like that)) so you could either remove it easily or use some sort of uninstaller to read the logfile and remove everything...
a little programming going into automation will make the lives of so many millions of people easier... yet noone has done it yet... DAMN i'd love to be able to program this, but i can't program at all (unless you consider BASIC and batch files programming)... so i pass it on, the idea with the torch... because it'd make my life so much easier that i REALLY want to see and use it.
8Complex
...they ruin it. Good post. But it's not just Linux. Look how cool usenet was before the masses got to it. Look how cool the internet was before yuppie Jim with his gas guzzling SUV, his silk tie, his plastic wife, and his 2.2 kids got into it.
Linux is still open source. It still has a core community of Unix nerds though. Go to any Linux meeting. Do you see suits? No! It's because they still don't get it.
A few posters mentioned that they fled Linux in favor of BSD, another cool open source OS. But instead of abandoning ship entirely, let's save this one.
Who cares about the maturity level of Linux users. That's an argument ad hominum (sp?).
I've never seen BSD and I imagine that it kicks ass but Linux has so many killer aps for it already and more are flowing in daily. Plus, it's fast, efficient (not a memory hog, are you listening Bill?), and it doesn't crash. I bet you could say the same for BSD and more power to you.
You can't fault an OS for its users.
First of all - I believe everything Red Hat does is open source. So they're not going to ever come close to the kind of dictatorial stranglehold that microsoft has on the market. (or has had....:)
Second of all, I was told by red hat people that the reason they moved things around was to simplify the directory tree some, not so that programs don't work. If you don't like where stuff is, move it. If a program doesn't work, recompile it how you like it. Send them, or every other distribution, a patch. This is certainly possible given that everything is open source...
I think the reason Red Hat has gotten so much attention and distribution is because they are relatively easy to get set up (certainly easier than Slackware) and they beleive in (quality) brand name recognition, not because of evil marketing tactics like microsoft uses.
RMS has stated that although Qt qualifies as free
software, the licence is impractical in that it
forces modifications to be patch-only. It does not
satisfy him.
Red Hat does contribute to the LSB, but that doesn't mean RHS has to wait for the LSB to produce a final product before releasing its own product. No other distribution does, why should Red Hat? When the LSB has something concrete, that the project participants have agreed to, Red Hat will make an effort to adhere to it. Until this, Red Hat will continue to do what it thinks best, just like every other major distribution.
Also note that the Red Hat certification courses are still very new, and are being actively refined. Perhaps Red Hat will be offering a more general, more basic Linux course in the future, but right now, VARs and OEMs want to know the specifics of Red Hat Linux. (For what I would think are obvious reasons, Caldera users aren't pounding on Red Hat's doors asking for Caldera certification courses. Ditto for Debian and SuSE users.)
Debian was hardly the first operating system to include a package management system. Don't go attributing something to Debian that isn't theirs to claim.
I don't have enough experience with periphery RPM tools to provide any suggestions for dealing with a corrupt RPM database.
Not having installed either of these packages, I can only assume you mean, "...then without forcing itEverytime some news comes out that might say something even slightly negative about linux, or maybe infer that it won't achieve world domination, there's 20-some morons posting "FUD, FUD, FUD!" in their subject line. The term is way overused in my opinion, and doesn't even mean that much. How about this, people - post some intelligent comments instead of letting an acronym do the work for you. I'm sick of hearing FUD! Anyone ever see Matt Groening's 'forbidden words of the 90s'? Well, that should be on there.
:)
Um. That's not really related to your pose, or directed at you, cjs. I agree with you, I just had to get that off my chest.
I didn't read the bit about Alan Cox, but I know that all of the best UNIX hackers have long beards. :)
-lx
most of em.
This is one of the more intelligent threads on slashdot I've read! :) One of the reasons I count myself in with the *BSD community is because of an increasingly clueless Linux community. Linux IS rapidly becoming the next windows, flooded with former windows users. Plus, the allegiance some linux users have to their OS is ridiculous.
:)
That's why I like associating with BSD types, because the software is TRULY free, people generally don't give a damn about commercial software development, and when I ask a question, I know I can get it answered, since the majority of BSD users are way more knowledgable than I am.
If all the dominoes fall in the right place, a suitable response to this FUD should appear shortly. :-)
Do what? You should read more. Pay attention to the Linux motto: "RTFM!". rpms have plenty of documentation. There's a HOWTO, and even a downloadable book. I have it in PS format. I was running rpm on Slackware long before I even *considered* installing Redhat. I started w/Slack 2.0, and lasted thru 3.4, before moving to Redhat.
.tgz, Debian has their packages. But you know what? There are some very nice tools for converting rpms to other package formats, which I hear work very well! (Well, I know the rpm2tgz worked well when I bothered to use it).
Yes, rpm was a RH creation. That would be bad why? For the same reasons debs are bad, you say? Bah! It is completely open source, and used by at least one other distribution (um, what do you think SuSe uses?), and has plenty of documentation.
The point is, rpm is not specific to RedHat anymore. It's a very nice and easy way to get stuff installed. And rolling your own is fairly easy, too. Oh, but I forget, the detractors of rpms must not know how to RTFM.
Granted, rpm isn't the only package management tool out there. Slackware has the
In closing, I like RedHat. I use RedHat. I will probably try Debian and FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Nothing will hurt the Linux community as much as being narrow minded. Give rpms a chance; if you don't like them, use something else. But don't sit there and bitch about how bad they are, because 1) they are a good, effective tool, as is dpkg and debs, and 2) Redhat isn't the only distribution using rpms. Before you knock 'em, though, read the docs. I usually roll my own, and have been since my Slackware days.
BTW, what bugs are inherent/specific to the RH distribution? I can't seem to find any that aren't also present in other distributions.
Matthew Vanecek For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting i
Exactly.
This is what I dislike of RH.
I have slackware and I once tried to install the RPM thing so I could get RPMs working on Slackware. You can download that from RH but it has no documentation at all.
And I hate to see the RH-Specific things. Hated that "Installing from source for a RedHat system" on Gnome. RH keeps the GPL but is using dirty tricks to get us to run their distribution.
I always thought Slackware ruled but... I'm moving to Debian.
RH is for suits.
Yeah!
I'd add more. This may seem like a joke but it is serious and shows how many recently converted linux users don't get it.
- They all think RMS is a stupid lunatic who is asking everybody to call it GNU/Linux just cause he wants to get credit for something he has not done.
- They all say vi and emacs suck! Pico is their one and only! They all tell me: No, Alejo, vi? Are you CRAZY? Emacs? That's the worse program I've seen! Pico is perfect. (This coming from 7th semester computer science students such as se-gonza and ser-garc).
- Linux sucks. I was on my windows machine, telneted to a Linux box, started Pico and started to hit keys randomly. The connection froze and there was no way I could get it working again. The operating system froze. I had to close that window and reopen my connection. This is from a 7th semester computer science student, e-mirand.
Well, we don't need that kind of users. We don't need to conquer the world, it may make things bad.
I don't have a link to LSB but I don't think it goes as far as default window manager. It is more for very basic system utilities and libraries.
heh heh heh.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
It's not RedHat that's leading the linux industry/community, it's the people using linux that actually define what linux is. That's the key factor in linux that everyone seems to be missing. Companies like RedHat and Calder would be up the creek without a padle if what they started doing is against the popular will of the linux community. It's the million's of linux users that actually shape linux into what it is, because it's not just one company or one person that's dictating to the rest of the world how linux should be mantained. It's the end users, not the companies that dictate what happens with linux.
I find it quite amusing that there are so many people claiming this is FUD, since I have seen members of the Linux community spread this exact same FUD about BSD systems many times in the past. (`There are three BSD systems, but only one Linux.')
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Why would redhat break rpms? Then all rpms that aren't made by them would stop working. Seems like they'd actually shoot themselves in the foot by doing that. Also, rpm is GPLed. RedHat can change the format. Other distributions can see the changes and then fix them in their dists if they wish, or not.
-matt
Actually, if you go to the LSB homepage (http://www.linuxbase.org), you will notice that RedHat is one of the members.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Three things:
1. You can write proprietary programs using Gtk+. It's LGPL'd, not GPL'd.
2. The reason that I am running Linux on my Alpha right now is that DEC helped port Linux to the Alpha.
3. Since Linux is getting so popular, you are starting to see things like Trident Microsystems donating a driver for their 4D wave cards to the ALSA project - completely open source (GPL) with open specs. I'd like to see that with Linux being a 3-man system.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Isn't this article basically someone interviewing caldera as they whine that everyone else isn't as backwards as they are? Life goes on, and progress happens. Any app which isn't a major system app shouldn't be distribution dependent other than requiring certain minimum system libraries. So does Caldera want every dist to package antiquated libraries to be "compliant"?
And what is that about the LSB being "an industrywide push to decide what basic components should go into every Linux distribution"? Well, actually, I just checked out the page, and RedHat is one of the members. There doesn't seem to be much that's actually in LSB at the moment, aside from a spec for glibc 2.0. Exactly how imcompliant is RedHat to these "standards"? How many of these "standards" exist for RedHat's dist to be incompliant?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I have said before that Linux needs standards.. RedHat is making them.. first to go to glibc2 weren't they? The started this whole rpm thing.. I shodul be able to get one rpm from any company and install it on a nother distro right?.. not always so.. different packages have different package makers, and thus different package dependancies... I am not to fond of RedHat.. I like Slackware or SuSE better..... I am looking forward to a libc2 version of slackware..
Only 'flamers' flame!
Do you think Redhat will include the version of qt that is open sourced in 6.0? I doubt it. As I see it, nothing is different for Redhat, so why would they include KDE now?
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
The thing to know about companies is, they are NOT human. After a certain critical mass, they retain NO human qualities. RPM was released when RH was still run by humans, and humans who cared somewhat for the linux community. Furthermore, Linux itself was a very small platform back then, and all developments had to be shared if it had any chance of hitting the big time. Now it has.
In other words...almost anyone who makes a distro and sells it will eventually become all Big and Evil and Bad when they make enough money? So...um...who's going to make a distribution then? People who aren't in it to make money? Then where does the support come from? People who are in it to make money? Then don't they become all Big and Evil and Bad?
Growth is inevitable. Commercial interest of one form or another is inevitable. When those commercial interests grow bigger, people start getting scared--with or without good reason--by the towering monoliths they see. I guess we need corporate whipping boys to take out our fears on... Yesterday it was Mikey$oft, today it's Red Hat. Who will it be tomorrow?
Get real, people. And take some economics classes.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I don't think so. Redhat is great and they do good for the linux community. I don't think they would do something so $hitty that would make them like M$. I look at M$ as a business that makes $hitty software....now how is Redhat like M$? Now if you look at it as a power hungry business...I still do not see how Redhat is like M$. Redhat is great and there not monopolizing things like M$ so they will never be a M$ like business in my opinion.
Natas of
-=Pedophagia=-
http://www.mp3.com/pedophagia
Also Admin of
http://loki.linuxgames.com
As for my grammer. Terribly sorry.... Anyway I run Slackware 3.5 on one of my computers. I have 4. The 1st one is my 486 and it runs slackware...the reason is its the best for a lower end computer. Redhat tends to load to much crap at startup and Slackware is more convient in that area. Now my firewall runs Debian. And my k6-2 300 runs Redhat. I like redhat cause its the easiest to configure overall. I know how to configure Slackware to do the same thing...but its a hassle. Anyway and on my 4th computer I run LinuxPPC. So don't go off and Flame cause I run Redhat. I have tried every distro and the 4 I use are my fav's. I aggree that Slackware is cool...but once u run Slackware you have to have alot of time on your hands...and second have you every tried to upgrade slackware when buying a new Slackware CD? Pretty $hitty if you ask me. Redhat has a "upgrade" option on it and is a hell of alot easier to upgrade compared to Slack. Anyway Flame all you want but I think Redhat has done nothing but positive stuff for Linux. They haven't Fuxed anything up.
Natas
Natas of
-=Pedophagia=-
http://www.mp3.com/pedophagia
Also Admin of
http://loki.linuxgames.com
Why does this article have a score of 6? It's
just another opinion, and arguably flame bait
at that.
just speading some propaganda
/The Rest
OpenBSD RULES =P
I use a Triple Boot
Win32/Linux/OpenBSD
Games/Apps
and it would be perfect if i didnt need Win32 for games.
I really like linux though, and i don't think its getting shitty or losings steam. Why not stop complaining and being fatalistic and mabye get involved with some of the Linux "Celebrities" (heh), maybe email one of them and see what they think?
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Preach it brother =P
Just like on that propaganda.themes.org!
JFK says "The day they take linux from us is the day they tear it from our cold dead hands".
And i take that Real Seriously (TM)!!
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
mabye we could offer some kind of "Growing Up Howto"?
hmmm (eyes LyX)
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Uh oh...
Then we the BSD 4.4 light varient (heh) users only path is clear...
WE MUST KILL EVERYONE WHO USES A DIFFERNT OS IN CASE THEY SPREAD THERE CRAZY FANATICISM TO US!
(yes i'm kidding)
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
SuSE's closed source products are going to prevent it from being a true contender with the developers.
IMHO.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
The (Mostly) Canadian Secure BSD =P
and my personal favorite OS
which i never miss a chance to plug.
ever.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Right now, there are a lot of RH users. Thats fine, right now, its the big distro and it might stay that way...
I started with Debian, found it a bit difficult, moved to slackware, found it difficult (heh.), moved to RedHat, found it easy. So i learned linux from redhat essentially, then moved back to Debian. (Then to OpenBSD, but thats not related)
My point is, once people get a little more familiar with Linux, i'll bet a lot of people are gonan go exploring the various Linux Distros for themselves. Personally, i've explored all of them that i know of (except a few RH52 varients) just for fun. It was fun actually =)
its like a little christmas each time you learn a distros kinks.
Probably (Hopefully?) others will do the same and settle on a distro that suits them, which may very will not be RH.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
At first glance I'm thingking that since RedHat 5.2 uses glibc6, and Debian 2.1 uses libc5...
/etc/debian_version /lib/libc.so.6 /lib/libc.so.5
Debian 2.1 uses libc6, as far as I know:
% cat
2.1
% ldconfig -p | grep libc.so
libc.so.6 (libc6) =>
libc.so.5 (libc5) =>
The problematic pine binary didn't appear to have any glaring library issues--ldd found all the libraries that it was linked against. When the binary was run, though, it segfaulted.
Given that everything on Redhat's CD is GPL'ed, I can't see how they are supposed to maintain a monopoly.
Someone else already pointed out that it isn't all GPL'ed, but even if it were, RedHat could still lock people into their distribution; the key is in how they put it all together. A co-worker of mine compiled pine on a RedHat 5.2 machine, and it won't run on Debian 2.1. When we recompiled pine on the Debian machine, it ran on both platforms. Something about RedHat's development environment prevented the RedHat compiled binary from running on Debian. Whether or not this is intentional on RedHat's part is irrelevant, but this demonstrates that if a company develops a product on RedHat, users may have trouble running that product on other platforms. Unfortunately, many companies feel that they must develop on RedHat if most of their customers will be using RedHat.
The company I work for is using Debian 2.1 as the primary development environment for the libc6 version of our product, even though having our product work on RedHat is absolutely imperative. There are a number of reasons we chose Debian 2.1 over RedHat, but the one I would like to emphasize here is that I'm confident in Debian's development environment being as standard as possible. (Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my perception.)
People want to use us,
they use Linux and Open Source as a bate.
(eg APSL calling itself free)
these bad ugly commercial companies,
they are using linux to get money.
(dell selling linux for $99 is an example)
and yes, Redhat is one of them.
they do own an important packaging format,
and they do try to make redhat the "standrard" linux.
(in a lecture given by an oracle spokesperson,
a qeustion was asked if the product will be
availible for debian, he didnt knew what was debian)
A standard linux (and there must be one, unfortunatly)
must not be owned by a commercial company,
but must be the effort of many people,
these will choose how the "standard" linux will be.
As the leading project distribution,
I think debian must be it.
I have no idea how to elevate such a thing,
but if most of us do try to make our stuff work on debian, and use dpkgs,
use it ourselves when possible,
recommend it,
maybe contribute to it,
It is possible to have a "not owned system",
(the base of it atleast).
When I use my linux,
it is true that no company made the kernel,
but a company did built it alltogether,
and that's no longer an OS by the people to the people.
The fact the IBM and Dell sell redaht is very frightning to me,
I myself fear that redhat will sometime develop a propriatary standard,
and we will all be doomed.
And sometime I do need to use a redhat system to get good binaries,
or support,
or many other things,
and that shouldnt happend.
they CAN be our next MS, and we wouldnt know it.
(the do have a mini-monopoly of sorts)
(flame on)
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
I have used Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian. I see no real differences between any of the modern version s of these. Back when Red Hat switched to glibc, that is when everyone thought Red Hat was breaking compatability. In reality, it was a smart move, and everyone else soon followed. In general, the only real differences between systems is how the files are laid out. For the most part, they are all in the same place from distro to distro, with a few minor, but noticiable differences. Most of the necessary libraries are present, along with all of the necessary tools. The only reason SuSE RPM's and Red Hat RPM's are different is due to file layout, and some minor differences in XF86 setups between the distros. You can, and I have, install SuSE rpm's on Red Hat, and vice versa. It takes a bit more configuring, but it really isn't all that hard for most things. In general, I don't see Red Hat trying to bully the Linux market. They are the leaders because they have taken the time to develop(GNOME, RPM, Kernel Development through Alan Cox etc...) and market Linux. They have earned their position. If they should try to do anything stupid, SuSE would eat their lunch.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
Fear [F]
Uncertanty [U]
(and)
Doubt [D].
AKA FUD
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
So now, apparently, companies that have a bigger market share are monopolies?
Human's nature is certainly not "never enough money, never enough power", that's just the nature of economists (Is that the right english word for those non-technicians who handles large amounts of mony and doesn't care about the great ideas they destroys?)!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
At first glance I'm thingking that since RedHat 5.2 uses glibc6, and Debian 2.1 uses libc5... RH 5.2 includes libc5 for backward compatibility, but glibc6 stuff won't run on libc5. That has nothing to do with RedHat (if indeed that's your problem). I'd invesitagte further before I blame the distro for incompatibilities. -earl
Let's see:
- File system location standard: already exists for Linux.
- Basic utilities: Posix.2 specifies this already.
- Basic libraries: functions are specified in Posix.1 and friends, the X11 specs, et. al.
- Widget sets: not a system specification, should be specified on an application-by-application basis.
What exactly is LSB specifying that isn't already a standard independent of LSB?The libc5/libc6 mess is why version numbers on shared libraries exist. The main problem was that people didn't link libraries against libc so the loader couldn't figure out which version to use. This could have been prevented had people followed the existing rules which recommended exactly that sort of library cross-linking.
As for which is present, the standard should be simply that a Posix.1-&c-compatible library is present. Applications that require a specific implementation of the library should specify which one or provide versions for the major implementations as Netscape does for libc5 and libc6. One then selects a distribution based on how easily it deals with the implementations your apps need, eg. RedHat uses primarily libc6 binaries but provides libc5 libraries for apps that aren't available for libc6 yet, and I have yet to see a libc6-based distro that you couldn't add libc5 to trivially.
Basically, I can see an application specifying that you must have libc6 to use it, but I can't see the point of having a standard say "You must provide libc6.". That sort of standard mucks up binary-compatible libraries in distributions, and requires constant revision as new versions come out.
And who do you think you are?
A RedHat empoyee or something?
Hehehehe.......
010110000010110101010100011110010111000001100101
i tried rh and wasn't that impressed it was ok at best it's too bad that rh gets most the publicity
there are better distro's for instance SuSE is much mo better than rh SuSE 0wnZ SuSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rather than Microsoft as a business model, Red Hat may well become like AOL - achieving brand identification as the easy access to a technical area.
Coming out with an Office for Linux would give more legitamacy to Linux than MS is willing to grant. MS is stuck in the same place that IBM was when they announced the PS/2. In order to protect their investment in and cash flow from big iron, they tried to tie their customers into a proprietary bus. The market abandoned them in droves.
MS is also addicted to its Office and Windows upgrade cashflows. MS is trying to pull the users along, but there is a lot of resistance. Because they have to protect their current cash cow, they can't do a thing that would offer the least bit of recognition to Linux unless it's part of a deal with the DoJ.
MS is doomed. Once their revenue peaks, watch the stock drop like a stone.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The incompatibilities in the early 80s were hardware incompatabilities, not software incompatabilities. Top applications vendors wrote specifically for the IBM HW platform bypassing the slow DOS/BIOS services for display. That was the death knell of DOS machines like the DEC Rainbow which had MS-DOS but not the register level compatability that the later IBM clone market had.
We're in a similar situation with sound cards now. "SB Compatable" cards have a software interface that makes them look like SBs to applications programs using Win APIs. We need kernel drivers that speak to the hardware, not Windows-specific software compatability layers.
What does this have to do with Red Hat? They currently give back to the community as much as they take out. I've used Slackware and Red Hat. My next distro will probably be a different one. There will always be a more open market for Linux just because we don't have little proprietary bits that tie anyone into just one ditribution.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Fact is:
... on your RedHat CD?
* RedHat is NOT the easiest to install (maybe you want to look at EasyLinux)
* not everything on their CD is GPL'ed, as well as in any other distribution (except Debian maybe). Or do you have a GPL'ed Netscape, xv, XFree86, Perl, Tcl
* at least when it comes to buggy distribution, RedHat comes very close to Microsoft
Mario Weilguni
The main thing to remember is that Redhat, at least for the moment, does not really sell software. They sell support for software. The prime example is Mandrake. Someone was saying that they were up to #2 on cheapbytes, second to the unofficial Redhat CD. But Redhat doesn't make any money off of either of those. On the Mandrake webpage, however, you will see them say, "While you're at it, if you're new, you should buy the Redhat manual." Thus, Redhat earns money supporting something they didn't even entirely package. Got to remember that! I do, as I'm making the berolinux boot disk right now.
I suggest you read the article from Red Hat about their story (a link appeared on slashdot a few weeks ago).
;-)
They did not begin with linux or any free software, but selling shareware or the like (I am not sure what they exactly sold, so please do not flame, but I am sure what they did not sell...).
what appeared in that article was : RH wants to earn money, and even though I believe they are honest right now about Free Software, what will it be when it will be bigger ?
human nature is : "never enough money, never enough power"
I do not believe RH is different, because its people are normal people, not saints...
As a conclusion : we have to keep an eye on every corp, because one day they may slide into the dark side... look, even Jedi Anakin Skywalker fell
a little paranoria can help preventing bad things
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Well... I don't know about these unqualified "such-and-such is much easier/harder than something-else to install" comments. They seem a bit overzealous to me - on some boxes, RH will have a better time. On others, Caldera. And if you've got a really wierd machine, maybe Slackware :> :>
But seriously... installation ease is really in the eye of the beholder: I've installed rh 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 on a range of machines - an old amd k5-133, a Japanese IBM pc300pl (a triple boot in the end!), a thrown-together-from-old-junk (incl. a 1992, 1.7 gig full height 5.25" Fujitsu SCSI drive which works like a charm) playaround machine, and a dual-processor p2 400 with 512 megs of ram and 72 gigs of scsi disk as a linear volume raid. Every one has worked flawlessly, even the SMP machine (when I finally figured out how to recompile the kernel without breaking two thousand modules in the process).
It's really just the luck of the draw
actualy I think your wrong.. RedHat really is the easiest to install. Take autoboot for instance.. what other distro has an installation program which boots right out of dos. IE. cd g:\dosutils; autoboot. and from there you select 'workstation' and its isntalled.. how much easier does it get?
>
The power just shifts--once again you will have a company that will do anything to hold its monopoly. I said it in my last Column that Red Hat could be the next MS, this is nothing new.
Advanced Micro Devices and Intel are another tale of power shifts. The players are changing thats what it comes down to.
Louis Pierce
pierce@macosworld.com
The point with Microsoft is that they didn't allow any choice of operating system, witness how hard it is still to get one with linux or BeOS on it.
I suspect that Red Hat will allow companies to sell other products without charging them more for Red Hat (comarketing stuff MS was used to doing) especially since Red Hat can be downloaded for free, for commercial use, from ftp.redhat.com and a whole host of mirrors...
In terms of one-sided reporting, this piece by Ben Elgin (belgin@zd.com) takes the cake. I don't see ONE quote from Red Hat on the matter, despite the fact that they are the topic of the article. In fact, I don't see much of their side of the story at all.
So what's the story?
Do we want ONE standard from LSB, or do we want to let the different "quirks" thrive, the very diversity and ability to try out new ideas without "standards approval" (why does that sound so much like microsoft, and its windows logo/co-marketing deals)?
Do we really beleive that Red Hat has some proprietary libraries that allow Informix to run on their system but not one others, when ANY system, including Caldera's can take any library, even the Red Hat package manager from Red Hat and use it in their own distribution?
Do we see a company that provides programmers, bandwidth, and a damn nice distribution for free? Or do we see a microsoft which is shutting down the competition (there seem to be more distributions than ever).
What we see is a piece of rock-bottom ZDnet reporting, and I read their stuff every day, by a reporter who couldn't be bothered to get the other side of the story, and got the story wrong. It's so pathetic it is unbeleivable, and worrisome because it might be believed.
I'm not sure that Linux (and the Open-Source/Free Software movement in general) is really about compiling your own software. I thought it was more about having the freedom to see and modify and redistribute the code if you want to. Sort of like the US' freedom of religion, in which you are free to pick from one of the already-existing religions, change your mind at any time, start your own religion, or even ignore religion altogether.
FWIW, I've installed things both with and without RPMs. I definitely find RPMs easier -- just type one command and everything happens within moments! It beats "make, make check, make setup, make install" and waiting a long time while stuff compiles. Also, some things have refused to compile properly against glibc.
On the other hand, the pre-installation documentation that comes with non-RPM installation sets is usually quite helpful, whereas with an RPM the only docs usually seem to be the man pages. Which are all right as far as they go, but you can't even look at them until after you've installed the whole package.
As for downloading binaries, RPMs are binaries. And they could contain Trojans. I've never encountered one that did, but it's possible.
Here, I totally agree with you. Especially if the only way to install it is to use an RPM -- what if someone doesn't have RPM installed on their system?
(Important note, BTW -- you can install RPM on non-Red-Hat systems. I believe you can d/l the thing from Red Hat's site for free and that it's open-source. But that doesn't mean that most non-Red-Hat machines have bothered to install RPM.)
This sort of thing will simply hinder the acceptance of one's software. If only (let's say) half the people can even install it, then you've just halved your potential user-space.
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
Sorry.. couldn't resist... well said.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Yeah, another distro..
It's based on RedHat, but it has KDE, it's really easy to install.
Not if you have more than one company whos share is atleast as big as the market share of any other company in the market;)
There arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. (Francis Bacon)
Once again, Bill Gate's lapdog is barking at the postman. The letter the postman is delivering is "your time is up."
There is absolutely nothing in this article that remotely compares RH to M$. RedHat's certification program uses Redhat...so what! Caldera considers RedHat a competitor...so what! RedHat is taking a wait-and-see approach to a linux standard...so what!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Man....has ZDNet become the FUD arm of M$ or what? I wonder what the qualifications are nowadays to become a writer there? Maybe I should apply ;)
;)
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
*for all you newbies*
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
I'd say that MS-Linux isn't likely at least for the forseeable future: MS have too much of a
gold mine in Windows in all its forms to give
credibility to a competitor, plus they don't
exactly have a good brand image for this one.
However, Office for Linux is another matter - they
can play exactly the same game that they do with
Office for Macs.
Let's face it - the Halloween memos show that
MS is aware that the effect of Linux is to
commoditise the operating system. If there's
no way they can kill it [1], they'll want to
be in on it and the easiest way they can
do that is through Office.
[1] I'd guess an attempt at FUD, patents and
especially FUD about patents. I don't think
it'll work, but I bet they try it.
Given that everything on Redhat's CD is GPL'ed, I can't see how they are supposed to maintain a monopoly. At least their software is all open, unlike SuSE's YAST tool for example. Fact is, Redhat are reaping the benefit of being the "easiest" Linux to install when more and more Linux newbies are arriving; 'nuff said
// Hmm, another variant of IE/W9x/NT to add to the "integrated MS value proposition"
Right!
Anyone who say they don't use KDE because of the Qt license should look at the XFree86 license...
The "wait and see" attitude regarding LSB is NOT
a good thing. RH SHOULD contribute, and contribute
early, so it may best take advantage and have input as to the final outcome of a "Linux Standard". They have a chance here to help shape
ALL Linux, not JUST its own distro. THAT is whats
in the best interests of the Linux community. But
that I suspect wouldn't be good business sense.
In example; their "Certification Program". How
would they be able to make money from it if ALL the distros were so similar? Lets face it, ALL distros have a degree of propriety, and since RH
is the most commercial of the bunch, they'd be doomed financially to standardize as per the LSB.
..
Up to a point what you're saying is correct. However, go looking for the beloved (perhaps) System V style init directories on a copy of (at least) Slackware. You won't find them; it uses BSD init. Also you'll find that rpm2targz almost becomes a necessity on a Slackware setup as almost nobody releases Slackware .tgz packages.
If you are willing to throw out the packaging system used to install Linux and even toy with another flavor of init then yes, distribution does not really matter. But usually, it matters at least some.
-- Shawn K. Quinn
As long as Red Hat is willing to change their mind on big issues, then they are NOT monopolizing a la MS. They've seen the light on KDE and are putting it in their 6.0 release, so they understand that if they didn't do it, it may still be good. Of course, as long as the software is Open Source, we, the users, are still in good shape.
That's funny. I install everything in the /usr/local tree if it is secondary to the os anyways...
/usr/local/lib.
even the libs i compile myself go under
Lowmag.net
Of course his distro ships with HUGE proprietary bits, like the Novell support stuff.
If we all ran on Caldera, we'd all be paying licensing fees.
I agree, though, that RH should *ultimately* support LSB, but I'd give them some slack as far as supporting a thing which hasn't actually done anything useful yet -- they're fsstd compliant, which is a good start.
The two examples they gave are totally wrong. 1) No linux standard has ever really worked / been complete or universally adopted. Why wouldn't RedHat be "lukewarm" on the idea. 2) What else would RedHat sell training for? FreeBSD? Good greif, or is it unfair for RedHat to offer training at all.
This is simply indicative of the way suits think. I'm neither surprised nor alarmed that RedHat has this "exclusivity". The programs that run on RedHat only are going to be like the programs that run on Win95 only...marginalized and irrelevant. This has not changed the meat of the free software movement, nor has it corrupted/destroyed it. RedHat has made some neat software. In addition to giving away that neat software (which you may use or not at your discretion) they are using the visibility they've gained by making said neat software to make money in other ways, includint (useless) "exclusive" deals with suits. What's going to happen? Well, if that exclusive stuff is released as free software, it'll be about 20 minutes before some billy badass has it running on his PalmPilot. This is NOT going to be a problem...the free software license by its very design engineers proprietariness (is that a word? It is now!) out of the system. If it's not free software, fine. use it or not at your leisure. If it is free software, fine. Use it or hack it or rag on it on Slashdot at your leisure. Nobody's got a gun pointed at your head here, and that's ALL I hope for in a software community.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
yeah, but if they did, everybody would scream that RedHat's trying to corrupt The Movement, just like that insidious RPM thing. : )
This is REAL easy, folks. Redhat is for people who like Redhat. SuSE is for people who like SuSE. Debian is for people who like Debian. It's a Good Idea (tm) to have a unified binary compatibility standard IFF usability for uneducated end users is a factor. Redhat (or any other entity, corporate or individual) is free to participate in such a standard setting or not, as they deem fit. We can tell Redhat "Hey, we think you guys ought to help out here", but they aren't bound to us by anything stronger than a vendor/purchaser relationship.
Linux certification program? Maybe I'm stupid, but I think that's bloody brilliant. Me, I LIKE structured learning environments. They seem to work well for me. YMMV.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
This is actually a very apt characterization. I think that it's important to remember that there are LOTS of people who are never going to want to figure out how to develop/compile/hack their own software, just like today there are people who don't want to figure out how to turbocharge their automobiles. (I'm trying to find my way out of both groups. : ) I believe that lowering thresholds to accessing technology is a Good Thing on the whole, and it should be embraced wholeheartedly, ESPECIALLY by those who are competent enough to facilitate it. I proceed from the assumption that someday, from that morass of uneducated people (be they AOL users, which I am not, or novice Linux users, which I am), useful ideas and contributions will inevitably come. Of course, you'll also get a lot of mindless dreck, but it's not THAT hard to separate that out, is it? Software egalitarianism is a very important notion nowadays. In the 20's, Henry Ford revolutionized America (technologically and sociologically) by providing an inexpensive automobile. I personally believe that we're going to be more intimately involved (keep your RealDoll comments to yourself, please) with our computers in the future than with our cars. Isn't it logical to assume that lowering the thresholds to advanced operating systems is going to bring about the same sorts of changes? Who can predict what those changes will be? I sure am not that smart, but I'm eager to find out.
Now, if I can only figure out why the hell I can't get my kernel to recompile. Why yes, I AM a clueless newbie, thanks for askin'.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
But RPM is GPL'd, so Redhat has about the same control over it as, say, me...except they know how to program and I don't. They can't hoodwink us if we can see all their cards...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Indeed... what features might those be?
I administer both RedHat (work) and Debian (home) Networks, and I have to say Debian package management is by far my favorite.
--------------- "Well HELLO MR FANCY PANTS! I've got news for you bub, you ain't leadin' but two things, Jack, and
I certainly don't think that Red Hat is the easiest to install. I tried it with version 5.0. It took me longer than any other distribution I tried, and still couldn't get it running properly. Then I went back to Slackware and installed it in about 20 mins. I think that Red Hat has the best marketing team (kinda like MicroSoft) and is using that to make it look like the easiest. The best software isn't the ones that say they are the best, its the software that users who have tried others come back to.
"Normality - What one individual (usually deranged) perceives that the world should be, which does not directly coorelate to the views of any other people" -- me
-- toolie
I have been using Red Hat Linux since 5.0. I chose RH because everyone I knew was using it. Now with all the buggy RPM's and all the business deals Red Hat has been making, I am starting to see some disturbing parallels.
Unfortunately, Red Hat is still one of the better distributions and I really don't want to rework my whole file system to accomodate another distro.
A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
RedHat has done more FOR the Linux community than any other company that I know of. They took the risk, and now they are getting some rewards. I for one am glad to see them making money. I've used RedHat since version 3, and I gladly support them.
As for ZDNet, well, what can you say? Clueless would be a good word, I suppose.
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
In any given market someone *HAS* to have the 'biggest part' of market share...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I have a company with 30% of the market. Two companies have 20% each - their share is bigger than mine. (Say the other 30% is minor players).
Don't I still have the biggest market share? It might not be a majority market share, but still is the largest. :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
-- A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Given that everything on Redhat's CD is GPL'ed
Isn't Redhat now shipping with Qt/KDE?
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Personally, I've always preferred to think of it as Fscked Up Disinformation.
Nocturnus
Nocturnus
Having had some experience with Caldera (the company that is) I would have to say that yes this is indicative of more Caldera whining. Caldera is a company that comes up with a lot of great software, but due to their totally wacked management and public relations they end up getting passed over by some other company. It happened with MicroSoft and they whined about it and then went into the Linux business. Now RedHat is beating them and they're whining again. It's not the first time and it won't be the last.
What Fools These Mortals Be!
When you say microsoft is selling software because they want to make money, I say, "Don't waste your time typing that into a keyboard." Now when you say RedHat is selling Linux becuase it works, I say, "Are you out of you mind?" RedHat isn't some non-profit organization selling Linux CDs so they can buy rice to send over to somalia.
The entire idea that Red Hat could be the next MS needs some drastic rethinking. 1.) Red Hat (RH) does NOT own Linux or control it. In fact, they have little or no interest in either situation. 2.) If RH were inclined toward such a move the Linux community at large can probably put them back in their place quickly enough. Finally, 3.) For RH to become the next MS they would have to use something that is not open source to do it. Since Linux is open source, and RH has little or no control over Linux, the possibility of RH using Linux to be the next MS does not exist.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
just a note, EasyLinux maybe easy, but there own code is closed & they don't alwasy send you the souce for everything else, you have to request it. EasyLinux is pretty much an OS for a guy that is brand spank'n new to Linux straight from Windoz.
I switched to Redhat 4.2 way back when because its drivers were more up-to-date than the other distributions I had tried. Since then, I've had problems with 5.0 and 5.2. Bug fix RPMs have been posted, but I've recently run into three very different machines on which 5.2 (as shipped) would not install at all. However, I kludged a patched CDROM that works on all three. (Basic idea: Replace the original RPMs with symlinks to replacement RPMs -- excluding kernel RPMs which would cause LILO to fail at the end.)
I could post the scripts I use to generate the disks (starting from a RH 5.2 disk and a directory of patch RPMs), but with 6.0 only a few weeks away (hopefully including all the patches plus linux 2.2.3 plus GNOME 1.x), there's probably not much of a point.
Can anyone point me to TFM so I can R about how the lists of RPMs are *supposed* to be changed for Redhat CDROMs -- instead of using symlinks as I did? No doubt there will be patches for 6.0, and it can save a lot of installation time (or in some cases, make installation *possible*) to simply have the latest patches on the CDROM directly.
Thanks in advance,
Chuck Phillips
c d p @ p e a k p e a k . c o m . n o s p a m
Somebody ought to be watching over your shoulder to figure out just what the heck you're doing. Have you tried RT*M and then not trying to second-guess it? And it ain't the only crap I've eaten either - Slackware was good too. /usr/doc/HOWTO, mailing lists, usenet... I've always been impressed with how much info there is. Maybe I'm not on the bleeding edge like you, but the answers we're all there.
I've installed on four custom systems and when I ran into problems, I read all the "linux-isn't-supported" docs to get the info - you know,
Good luck on your next distro you try. BTW, I did a RedHat Linux 5.2 complete install out of the box, running 62 days non-stop as server in the midst of Win98 LAN. I'm impressed by RedHat.
If I can recall, zdnet is owned by Microsoft. Obviously MS would be interested in making someone else look bad. Yea, redhat is big.. but not microsoft big.
Microsoft might just talking again, pointing fingers.
I question Slashdot's business practices :P
Linux is Open Source. That fact alone will prevent another Microsoft from rising to such power. Microsoft deliberately hid things in code to make DR-DOS incompatable with Win 3.1, and uses API functions in certain programs that other companies don't even know about. Linux is as open as your grandfathers fly. NO secrets!
That is why Redhat cant be another MS and push proprietary software....... nuff said.
Lord Suggs aaron@yourlink.net http://members.yourlink.net/aaron