Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Perceptions of Red Hat Software
Yet Another Anonymous Coward asks this
worthwhile question which even I don't
have a ready answer to:
"It seems to me that a growing number of
people within the Linux community are
starting to fear and loathe Red Hat Software.
I read that
article about the Red Hat backlash
and I often see comments here on
Slashdot that make disparaging remarks
against them. I'm curious: has Red Hat
actually done anything that warrants
this type of reaction? Or are people just
getting paranoid about what Red Hat has the
potential to do? No, I'm not a Red Hat
lacky, I'd just like to illuminate a
potentially irrational paranoia within the
community." So what do you all think?
And that is their dogged insistance on putting every damn thing that falls in their lap into /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin where it belongs. /usr/bin is for the non-priviledged system tools, /usr/local/bin is where all the non-required stuff with high code churn is supposed to live.
/usr/bin, even after deinstalling a few RPMs to add newer versions to /usr/local/bin. My solaris box (can you say bloat?) at work only has 421 files in /usr/bin.
/usr/local/* (not always bin).
/usr/contrib/bin meant they were usually SOL, whereas /usr/local/bin meant phones would start ringing.
/usr/bin. ee belongs in /usr/local/bin.
RH 5.9 has 1779 executables in
One company I worked at many years ago had a simple directory structure for the user commands:
/usr/bin - utilities supplied by manufacturer
/usr/local/bin - stuff developed in-house
/usr/contrib/bin - stuff developed by people outside the company, i.e. net community
Purchased 3rd party applications would usually find themselves under
The users could run the command 'which ' and immediately tell who they were supposed to ask for support just by looking at the path name. Anything under
RedHat's packaging of binaries would have us believe that they developed everything in their distro, and that programs such as pbmtoptx are absolute requirements such that the system is completely unusable without them.
find belongs in
C'mon Red Hat, get with the program!
Red hat has been really successful in creating a well-known brand name. This is the problem. They are stealing the fire from Linux itself. Probably 95% of the good things that Red Hat offers are not Red Hat. They're just Linux.
Some people outside of the Linux world think that Red Hat is synonymous with Linux. They are not even aware that there are other distributions.
It's only natural that this bugs people. A lot of people spend a lot of their own personal time contributing freeware to Linux and associated software. It bugs them to see all of this sold as "Red Hat".
In my opinion, the best way to combat this is not to condemn Red Hat, but rather to make sure that there are always many different distributions of Linux, and that no one of them comes to dominate.
So are we to criticize Red Hat just for being successful? There are many commercial linux distributors who do not feel as inclined as Red Hat to follow GPL. Caldera and Suse come to mind. Red Hat is nearly as concerned with following GPL as non-profit organizations like Debian. They pioneered glibc. Without them gnome would never have gotten off the ground and it is unlikely that a GPL version of QT would have been created as a response. Red Hat is not some larger coorporation trying to take over Linux. They are quite possibly the best thing that ever happened to Linux. Yet people insist on attacking them solely because they've done well. Sure, people associate Linux with Red Hat first, but that is only because Red Hat has created a very good distribution which has become common. They are not trying to make people think that Red Hat is Linux.
AC
Red Hat is a company, which needs to be profitable. Red Hat is entering the brave new world of attempting to make a profit out of
;)
the OSS model. Are they doing the right thing??
A number of 'fears' which are generated when the
word Red Hat comes to mind is:
- Possible Microsoft replacement
A monopoly on package distribution format,
as well as 'Red Hats implementation is the
"right" way!' debate
- Start setting standards which is not in favor
of the Linux community
Again, a monopoly effect.
- Is becoming the 'de facto' in terms as to what
Vendors release their applications to (i.e the
infamous RPM vs. DEB debate...)
- And a minor note...it is getting rid of the 'Why I love Linux' effect.
But, it all boils down to the question which
manu people have given ideas to, debated over,
maybe lost sleep to:
Can you make money out of the OSS model?
Maybe Red Hat is the answer for Linux to go
Commercial, and then again maybe not.
What's really scary is that other distributions
are being 'left out'. Maybe it is part of the
capitalism world which we belong to in
which the 'strongest' survive, and unfortunately
the strongest seem to have money.
We need reassurance from Red Hat which they will
not become another Microsoft. Assurance in their
actions will not contradict the OSS model. Assurance that their influence in the commercial
markets will be beneficial for both the commercial and linux communities.
I hope this thread or responses to this 'Ask Slashdot' question will generate ideas and
promote a better path for the linux community.
Remember our goal...'World Domination!'
-Frank Macha
emacha_frank@yahoo.com
#include
#include
#include "Gotta_Love_Linux.h"
Sure I feel that Redhat often puts commercial deadline before high quality and stability and I feel even more like Redhat is continuing the Windoze tradition of .0 releases being unstable and buggy before they fix them in .1 and .2 releases, but still that is my personal perception and gripe. It doesn't necessarily make Redhat evil per se and Redhat has opened their development efforts more which will help to cure the buggy .0 release syndrome. That's GOOD and I applaud them for this.
And of course I feel Debian is a better distribution. Why else would I spend my time working on it? But just because Debian is IMO better doesn't make the others BAD. I'm greatly saddened by all of the my-software-rules-and-yours-sucks crap I see on irc and in newsgroups and mailing lists. If you think a particular piece of software is crap, don't run it, it's simple. Or even better, tell the people responsible for new releases what you want to see. What's the worst that could happen, they tell you they won't make the changes you want to see? Bickering like I see constantly helps nobody.
You'd be surprised how many times I have told someone "I don't like this about your software, would you consider maybe making it more like this instead?" to receive an answer in a day or two on the order of "Great idea! Why didn't I think of it sooner?"
He may be talking about the (currently non-existent) Linux Standard Base, and the question of whether Red Hat will comply with it or not (Red Hat says "yes, with caveats", from what I can tell -- i.e., if it is a totally brain dead standard, they reserve the right to say so and opt out).
/var/spool/lpd along with spool files, rather than being somewhere under /etc like the FSSTD says all config files should be. Still, that's not as non-compliant as some of what SuSE was doing last time I checked (*THEY TOUCHED MY /USR/LOCAL! THE CADS!!!*).
As far as the FSSTAND goes, Red Hat does quite well at complying with the major portions of it. The only thing I can think of that they don't do correctly is that print filter configuration stuff is in
Really, I think Red Hat is attacked not because of what they've done, but, rather, because they are successful. There's always a fringe around that is ready to attack anybody who is actually doing something. Usually these are 16 year old script kiddies who have opinions about everything, know it all, and believe they are God's gift to programmers because they figured out how to compile "hello.c" last week (you know, the one that prints "Hello World!" on the screen?).
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by LOTHAR, of the Hill People:
Why do so many of us dislike Red Hat? We're snobs, that's why. We pride ourselves on using an "alternative" Operating System. Now that Linux is starting to be used by Joe User, we are losing that special feeling that we get by being part of an exclusive group. You hear the same thing when an underground music group suddenly gets popular. People running for the doors screaming "SELL OUT".
Red Hat is largely responsible for the current popularity and press coverage of Linux. Red Hat has the corporate structure that makes other companies feel safe when handing over million dollar checks. Bottom Line is, Red Hat is working VERY hard at making Linux a mainstream, full service OS. Red Hat is doing a very good job of it too. It's no suprise that there is resentment from people as Linux grows in popularity. Us Linux users prefer to live out on the fringe. Now we are losing that frontier feeling, and some of us aren't happy about it.
We have to blame someone, right?
That said, Red Hat isn't always the leader. Their distribution has odd quirks, as all distributions do, and they can be annoying. But fear and loathing isn't about irritating RedHat-isms. It's about people thinking that a company which funds Free Software development, has made virtually everything they have produced available under the GPL, and has done more to actively push Linux than anyone else save for possibly VAR is going to try and take over the world. Listen up, people - Even if they wanted to, it wouldn't happen. People who rant about Red Hat are the same ones who extoll the virtues of Free Software, saying that something like that can't happen with [Favorite Free license here]. Red Hat is not the enemy. And if you don't like them, don't use their distro! There are many others, and let's not forget that one of those others is the most popular in Europe.
While there might be some debate about stuff floating around in /etc or other areas, I highly doubt that Red Hat intentionally did it to insure they were the only distribution that would run propriatery software. Quite to the contrarary, Several other distributions are _based_ on Red Hat's distribution. These other distributions coupled with Red Hat's large Linux market share do make Red Hat the de-facto standard (so to speak) when a ISV looks in at Linux from the outside world and considers porting thier application to Linux.
Now, consider the fact that the LSB stands to be the largest, most widely acceptable Linux standard. This is the one oppertunity that Red Hat has had to really do some damage, and they didn't, and won't. Red Hat had an early oppertunity to join the LSB, and declined. Why you ask? Because Red Hat KNEW that if they were one of the orignal members of the LSB there would be resentment and resistance, therefore, in the best interest of the LSB itself, they held back. After the LSB started to gain acceptance, Red Hat signed on, only after criticizm from the Linux community (including massive flame-age here on SlashDot "Why won't Red Hat join the LSB!?!"). Then, once Red Hat did goin the LSB, they did not push for domanance, only volenteered thier services, which included paid manhours, to work on standards that were agreed upon by the community, not Red Hat. Red Hat did the right thing!
So, why is Red Hat so despised? Well, because they have a legitimate right to be respected, and they GPL thier work, and they have done great service to the Linux community. That adds up to becoming a power in the Linux community, and people (Including me) BUY thier CD's on occasion to support a company that supports paying people to write GPL code.
Does Red Hat suck? Well, Yes. For some people, in some cases, it sucks. RPM's can be a headache, and I believe that the RPM technology is probably superior to how Red Hat even uses it (which is why other distributions use RPM's, but it's "Red Hat RPM's" that are most complained about). What else? Well, can you say "120M+ minimal install" even after you go through all the menus and unselelect everything (Which is why I use Debian on some of my smaller specific purpose systems). And, then there is the the whole init battle, and if your not use to it, it can be a pain in the rear to work with. So, yes, if your use to something else, or you have a specific need, or ..... then Red Hat Linux may not be the right Linux for you. In many cases, to many people, Red Hat Sux. ;-)
But, overall, for the majority of people, Red Hat is just fine, no problems, actually better than most. Is there any reason to Hate of Fear Red Hat? Heck no!
As for "They don't stick to standards for file layouts or much else, so you can run an alternate distribution -- but not if you want to use something without source.", I have to ask, WHO IN THIER RIGHT MIND WOULD RELEASE SHRINK WRAP SOFTWARE TO THE _SMALLEST_ MARKET SEGMENT?!?!? Yea, it's not exactly the same as every other linux, but they aren't exactly the same as each other either. Given enought time, for every 1 thing you can find "non-standard" and actually referance a standard that _should_ be, and it's source, I can probably find you at least 2 non standard things in Slackware, Debian, or anything else. So, I say, "Please Site Your Source Of Linux Standards. :-)" AFAIK, the LSB will be the standard, and Red Hat will _comply_ to the LSB, not the other way around.
>Really, I think Red Hat is attacked not
;-)
.tgz user, StarWars sux because it ain't StarTrek, RedHat is bad because it isn't Debian/Slackware/Caldera/SuSE/etc.....
;-)
>because of what they've done, but, rather,
>because they are successful.
No, I think you are wrong, and should be flamed to death for this.
Just kidding.
I think you are completely right. And in addition, what really does not help is that age-old phenomenon of "you are wrong because I am right" that exists in *every* market.
Take cars. Take TVs. Take stereo systems. Take toilet paper. If a product is labelled "bad", it is quite often because the person wielding the "labelling machine" uses another (competing) product.
Hence Linux is bad because the guy doing the labelling is a Windows user, RPM is bad according to a
Hey, remember the times back in kiddie school when girls/boys were bad because they weren't boys/girls?
//toolz
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
I might agree with your hypothetical assessment, if it wasn't for the GPL. If there were indeed small variations between distributions that kept the officially released binaries of PhotoMegaGimp from working with any distribution except RedHat's, how long do you think it would take for a few enterprising hackers to track down the differences, apply appropriate patches, and then release the slightly altered source code as 'hacked for Debian' or 'hacked for Slackware'. After which, there would rapidly be binaries available for all the other distributions.
I think the situation you describe is the very idea that people are having so many knee-jerk reactions to. In many respects I consider it a testament to the sheer might of the Microsoft corporate machine, and the degree to which tbey have fundamentally changed our perception of OS software companies. Microsoft has the power to change the game by introducing new cards into play. They can do this because they write the rules and they make the cards, so to be able to use the cards, and hence learn the new rules, you must be 'friends' {e.g. pay money to} with Microsoft. For anyone who might be nervous that RedHat is trying to get into the card-making business for the Linux game, need not worry. Because of the foresightedness of the GPL license, not only is RedHat allowed to make new rules, but so am I and so are you, and hence we ALL get to make new cards to use with the new rules that help to extend and expand the game of Linux.
In this way, the company that attempts to comandeer the game of Linux is going to rapidly find themselves playing at an ever shrinking table. And this would not be profitable. So this will not happen.
Sean
RFC2119
It's sad that a solid company strongly rooted in the tradition of GPL software is the subject of the ugly side of it's own community. RedHat has contributed far more than most if not all Distros when you combine the software they have contribute to and/or developed and GPL'd. They are hustling in order to bring features to a distribution that will strengthen the perception of Linux in corporate america, and have been doing an excellent job thus far. They've done nothing wrong towards the community and if the potential is even there, I can't see it, seeing how all there critical software is GPL. It seems to me that RedHat has been VERY careful to tread this line correctly, knowing full well that if they tip, and make a mistake, they WILL lose community support, and I think they know that it IS the community that will make or break a distro in the end. I don't care if your a RH user or not... I am about half the time, but don't attack them as a company just because you don't like where they place an RPM. C'mon people. We're better than that. Any organization supporting Linux should in turn recieve our support, until they do something that fundamentally undermines the community itself.
Can anyone name any commercial software that runs ONLY on a Rehdat based system??
I betcha' can't... RH is "just" Linux... there is nothing intrinsicly in RH that is not in every other flavour of Linux. Remember, they give their source changes back to the source pool according to the GPL just like everyone else does.
RH bashing just reeks of sour grapes -- they've (and Caldera) been very effective at getting peple to take Linux seriously, and that's because they have done a LOT of hard work.
I think that what's really bugging the people who seem to have a grudge against RedHat, is that as Linux becomes more accessible to non-experts the whiners will no longer be members of an exclusive club.
These whining weasels should grow up, get a real job, a life, and enjoy the fact that they were in at the beginning of the revolution, and most importantly, start coding!!!!
_DHMSpector
So far RedHat contributed to the growth of Linux in substantial way. RPM is probably the best technology to install software today and it's Open Source so you can use it with other distros. Long before the first investors started being interested in RH, RH sponsored the development of GNOME (the G stands for GNU, so they are directly supporting OSS). So far, I believe, they have done nothing but good. Of course they can change in future but if we don't give credit to people that showed a lot of good will than nobody has a chance. You might disagree with their choice of software but there are several other distros and I don't believe there's a risk of having a "distribution monopoly" in the future.
I can't particularly think of anything that they've done, and more than that, it's kind of funny that a community that tends to be as strong spirited as the linux community often needs a bad guy to beat up on.
I used redhat linux, I can often be found downloading the latest upgrades, I think rpm is rad, but I'm probably going to be moving to Debian. Why? Because I'm becoming more and more of a GNU hardliner in my old age. (20) I just like the idea of a more ideologically "pure" distribution in that Debian is NOTHING but Free Software.
It seems to me as though we're almost headed toward the type of paradox that is there with Microsoft - it seems everybody hates them but at the same time, they have 80% market share. How does that work exactly? I am not comparing redhat to microsoft in terms of what they do, but rather they both have huge market shares of their respective markets, and both seem to be disliked.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
As long as RedHat developed software is released under the GPL, I don't think there can be a problem. We'll always have distros like Mandrake that are just RedHat, with extra goodies added that their authors wanted.
Now, if they start releasing proprietary software, then we could be in trouble, but I suspect enough people would drop them like a hot potatoe that they would about lose their position in the Linux world.
Note for the Humor Impaired, this is SATIRE!
This PROVES that RedHat is evil, beyond redemption, and it must die!!!
Oh. Can I have access to their bank account though? I've been jealous of how much money they make!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
- Red Hat is getting popular, so they must be getting like Micros~1.
- Red Hat is the distro for Windows haters, not "serious" unix folks.
Facts:- Red Hat offers a LOT of value for the money. Cutting edge software, a nice powerful installer, good package management, great response to security issues, etc.
- Red Hat returns stuff to the community (all their management utils are open source. They use linuxconf by default instead of something like YAST
Bottom line: Red Hat keeps up with the times, they play by the rules, and their distro is very good. What else do you want?They haven't done anything wrong yet.
support gun control: take guns from cops
I just thought I'd point out the similarity in your arguments to the arguments for the GNU/Linux name, and the problems some people have with calling the whole system "Linux". It's the same thing. If RedHat is stealing from Linux, as you claim, well, Linux is stealing from GNU, *BSD, XFree and all the other projects that make up a useful Linux (or RedHat) system. You can't have it both ways - if the RedHat brand is bad, then so is the "Linux brand". Think about it.
Host your own websites, anywhere!
I've run RHL since v4.1; at present I'm running 5.2. I've also run SuSE 5.1-6.0, tried FreeBSD, Slackware, TurboLinux, and Solaris 2.6. (At work I also use HP-UX and Solaris.) I've bought a few "official" distros and downloaded many others.
Red Hat Linux 5.2 is the best distro I've used. It configures easily at the command line, packages are nicely integrated to the system, adding packages via tarball is easy, C programming works well, and the distro isn't overloaded with gludge. SuSE 5.2 is a very close second.
Is Red Hat Software subject to change? Of course they are. They've already changed. Change doesn't need to be bad.
Will change be bad? Only Red Hat and time can tell. I suspect Linus' comments at COMDEX reflects concern over the future of Linux and the various GNU/Linux distributions.
In any case, I'll continue to use Red Hat for the forseeable future. If they are undeserving of my attention, I'll certainly direct it and my money elsewhere.
Graham
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
Based on the comments I've actually seen, the vast majority of Linux users aren't particularly worried about Redhat achieving monopoly (or near-monopoly) power within the Linux market. There are two reasons:
/usr/bin/perl instead of /usr/local/bin/perl can easily be fixed (or a symlink made.) And so it seems like it would (and thus far, has proved to be in several instances) fairly easy to construct wrapper scripts. Of course, that's not as good as a native package (rpm, deb, or whatever) but it's not so bad either.
1. Redhat releases almost all of their products under the GPL, and releases all their "core" products under the GPL (ie libraries, rpm software, etc. as opposed to BRU2000, applixware, etc.)
2. If the above changes, many Linux users and developers would switch distributions. Of course, then people writing free software wouldn't be able to improve key components of the Redhat distro, which (presumably) would cause it to be left behind.
There are some real issues, however:
1. It is possible that commercial software vendors will only support Redhat. However, since detection of libraries works so easily, libraries wouldn't be a problem. The occassional shell script referring to, say,
2. Redhat is actively targetting newbies. This means that it's likely to get a prettier and prettier face by default, and hence one which is simpler. Hopefully, they will keep an "advanced options" button in an easy to find location. But if not, it's Linux -- we can find the text files to edit and configure by hand if need be. Of course, there's something to be said for being forced to read all the info. I learned a lot more from my first slackware install than I do from install Redhat by reading the package descriptions and being forced to figure out how to configure things. Nonetheless, these days, I'll take simplicity and sloth anyday.
-Muffie
I'm not a hardcore "GNU rules world" advocate, but Linux essentially did the same thing with the GNU tools. Why should people get upset if the same thing happens with Linux? Isn't turn-about fair play?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Redhat is a good distro to get into the work place, and start your friends on... it installs on all the major architectures and various methods. I like the fact that a cable modem user can get a boot/supp disk set and format and ftp install linux onto an empty hard disk.
Redhat pays for a lot of software development and forced the other distrobutions to try harder. If linux was still slackware ( I started on slack w/ 1.2.13 ) how many of you that dismiss Redhat would know what the hell linux is... ?
Everyone that belly aches about Graphical User Interface configuration tools. You can still use the console. I give newbies console instructions to setup/trouble shoot their modems, and let them use netcfg with vi for ppp. I think you should use the right tool for the job, reguardless.
I've installed only Debian, Slackware, and RedHat... and I choose RedHat for my personal use. You should refer new users to a distrobution or even OS that fits *their needs. BeOS, linux, BSD, AIX, SunOS, Solaris, NT, etc... everyone has a tool that fits their hand. Please remember this before you tell a newbie to "...just go get distro X, it's what I use. ".
I managed to type this without a single acronym! ^_^* back to the grind
A friend and I were talking over dinner last night, and his opinion (which I'm shamelessly co-opting) is that if you're trying to convince your boss to switch from NT to Linux, it just won't sink in when you tell him it's free.
It's like a bad Dilbert cartoon: you say to the pointy-haired boss, "We can install Linux. It will save us several thousand dollars, because it's free."
"What's free?"
"Linux."
"For how long?"
"Forever."
"But how much do we have to pay to install it?"
"Nothing."
"But if it's free, we can't get tech support, can we?"
"Yes. Tech support by the geek community at-large. For free."
"Okay, but then we obviously have to pay a fee for upgrades."
You can continue to say "no" at this point, and the boss will be convinced that it's some sort of underhanded budget trick--or worse yet, a joke on him--or you can say:
"Well, yeah... if we buy RedHat."
"What's RedHat?"
"It's the most expensive version of Linux."
"How much?"
...at this point, you basically name a number that doesn't sound too absurd. You want a hundred boxes for the office? tell him $5K. You want to show him amazing savings? Get ten, and tell him $500. You want to see if he'll bite? Get one (so you can have that nifty manual) and say $150, for the whole office. And buy your office some beers with the change.
As my friend said, "Management likes to buy things. If you tell them they can have things (especially expensive things like operating system upgrades) without buying them, they won't ever believe you."
So RedHat is not only not evil, but the fact that somebody is actually selling Linux is making The Suits pay attention, and even though Suits in our little world may be a Bad Thing(tm), there will never come a day when any one company can "own" Linux. Linus saw to that back in the day.
-jurph
/usr/local/* is the perfect place to install non-RPM programs (.tgz's et. al.) If RPM put binaries into /usr/local, I wouldn't know right offhand whether I could just delete random files from that tree without breaking anything in /var/lib/rpm/*, instead of having to confirm the fact manually with 'rpm -qf '. The thought of mixing referenced and unreferenced files (esp. where multiple directories are involved) gives me the willies.
:-)
/usr/local/bin)
I know, this is just a small convenience in the greater scheme of things, but as with your example, it is also well thought-out. Just . . . well-thought out in a different way
(And just not too long ago I was annoyed finding my RPM'ed GQmpeg binary in
iSKUNK!
You know, I can't really think of anything really bad that RedHat has done. They're really one of the driving forces that's gotten Linux into the corporate marketplace, IMHO. They've really become part of the "corporate identity" of Linux (if Linux can have such an identity besides the infamous penguin).
/'ing their RedHat installs in favor of something else really fast. No one likes a sell-out.
You can't ignore the contributions RedHat has made to the community - they gave us the first of the easier-to-install distributions (back when they came out, I wouldn't call Slackware "easy"). They gave us RPM to make system maintenance and upgrading easy...I know I'd have a lot more headaches if it weren't for RPMs. I think it's tough to argue that any other distribution to this point has had such a significant impact in the general computing community. And now, they're putting capital into the RedHat Labs, helping to make GNOME into a stable and viable desktop system that works, and looks good doing it. (I don't like the look/feel of KDE, personally, and KDE won't get along with WindowMaker as well as I'd like.)
The original question does raise a valid point - could RedHat turn to the "dark side"? I'd argue that the fact that all of RedHat's software is GPL'd makes it difficult at best. Some people might argue that RedHat's now dependent on the investments from various big names in the computing industry, but, once again, I think the Linux community in itself is a strong enough influence to keep RedHat in line. If RedHat were to try and push things "too far" away from OpenSource software, they'll have people rm -rf
RedHat has done nothing but make a name for itself in the eyes of the Corporate & layman world. True you say Linux and the basic computer user will say RedHat in response but so what? If it give people a stepping platform from which to spring let it. I use it along with Caldera and have never had any incompatibilities execept not having the glibc in Caldera.
Once someone starts using Linux whether it is RedHat or something else.This will get them to start reading and gathering more information and see that there are other distibutions out there.
The only fear I have is if/when RedHat goes public and the possibility of board members that are from proprietary companies can start steering the ship. Thats when we should start worrying or start buy as much of their stock as possible to keep them heading the right direction.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
The reasons cited fall into two categories. The first look like:
But what worried me were some of the other reasons given for choosing Red Hat:
Those last few reasons are arguments for Red Hat regardless of technical or economic superiority.
Now, what may have happened here was that, in some organizations' cases, the people in charge of making the decision were already RH partisans. The justifications were easy-to-articulate surface statements, and their hard-to-articulate judgements that led them to that position didn't come out.
In some way, I'm glad that there are several distros out there that are close enough technically that this level of discussion is enough. But that won't always be the case if the sentiment in those last few statements overtakes enough of us.
Well, it obviously won't, at least not entirely. There will still be people out there who wipe their new Dell's RH installation to install SuSE, even if that blows away their phone support. But the attitude I worry about is, to steal a phrase from IBM's FUD glory days,
Jay
I've survived the following "My system is better than your system" elitist wars:
- TRS-80 vs Apple vs Commodore Pet
- Vic-20 vs Atari 400
- CBM-64 vs Atari 800 vs Radio Shack Color Computer
- Amiga vs Mac vs IBM PC
- IBM OS/2 vs Windows 3.1 vs Windows NT 3.51
- IBM OS/2 vs Windows 95 vs Windows NT 3.51
- Windows 9x vs Windows NT
- ETC, ad nauseum
I even remember bitter battles over which was the better CP/M platform! I've been working with personal computers longer than some of you have been alive, giving me must a little bit of experience in this. The one thing that has never changed in the 21 years is the fact that everyone wants to feel that their choice is the right one.- NT users sneer at Windows 9x users.
- Windows 9x users sneer at Windows 3.x users
- Linux users sneer at Windows users
- FreeBSD users sneer at Linux users.
- Mac users sneer at us
- We sneer at Mac users
In Linux we have a very good operating system. Since you're all reading this, you know WHY you're running Linux. Choice is good. Multiple distros are good. Elitism is not good.The first version of Linux I ever saw and used was Yggdrasil. I've also run Slackware, Debian and of course Red Hat. They were all good. I have my favorite. Even Linux Mandrake is good, without it, I probably wouldn't have tried KDE. Yes, I've even run FreeBSD.
The point is, enjoy what you use. Don't try to fragment the Linux or even the *nix community by all this bickering over distributions. To do so is playing exactly as hoped for in the recent Microsoft white paper on how to deal with the Linux threat. Microsoft FUD doesn't work very well against Linux, their best hope is for balkanization of the Linux community thereby causing us to lose focus.
So, let's try to calm the elitist urges within us and work for the common goals: