Slashdot Mirror
New Macmillan Linux distro
Jim Dabell writes "Macmillan have announced they are releasing "The Complete Linux(TM) Operating System 6.0" based on Mandrake. There are also deluxe and secure server options. "
Why not. Everybody else seems to be creating their
own distribution. Its fun.
Sesame street? Hm, I thought it was a young michael jackson...
p.s. I have no idea why this post defaulted to a score of two.
GPL permits free redistribution. Perhaps you're referring to something like the BSD license, which allows companies to make their work proprietary and not release the changes back to the community.
This model is much more suspceptible to code forks, since companies don't have to redistribute changes and they can build proprietary additions and resell those.
That's really why I like the GPL. It makes it impossible to stop sharing the code once you've started doing it. If a license is GPL, I know that I'm not inadvertedly helping some company in the future that doesn't share the code with everyone in return. At the very least, if they use my code for free, then I expect them to contribute code that I can use for free in my projects.
I don't care if they make money, but I hate the idea of taking and never giving back.
MEEPT!!!
(sung to the tune of Sesame Street's "ABC, easy as 1, 2, 3")
*Lets make a NEW dist-ro!*
*Easy as 1 - 2- 3*
*Tocon-fuse ev-ery bo-dy!*
*MS will just LOVE me!*
MEEPT humbly submits his art to the dapslash community for approval by its socialist leaders.
MEEPT!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've seen these too, and I wondered... what's up with putting "Red Hat" on the box? Is this a partnership with Red Hat? Seems that you couldn't call it "Red Hat" without their blessing... and maybe some cash flow?
Why not, indeed! How about "/. Linux, OS for Nerds". It could come preconfigured with an "anonymous_coward" user account, Beowulf clustering, moderated package installer (eg. fortune: (4, funny)), etc.
Mike
"Mom's Linux"? I could go for that, especially if it contained home_made_cookies.rpm, and kissed you goodnight every time you powered it off.
I agree. This has been discussed a few times before, but I sincerely doubt that Red Hat is going out and making backroom Micro$oftian exclusive deals with commercial software companies. More likely, Metrowerks looked around, saw that Red Hat was the leading distro today, and decided that in order to minimize effort and maximize customers, they would "officially" support Red Hat. As the prior poster stated, it's likely that this will run just fine on other distros, especially those coming into line with the LSB.
Personally, I have started using FreeBSD as of late, I got sick of trying to find the "right" package out of 100 diffrent packages for the same application, or tracking libraries to insure the new verson of X will run, but not break the old version of Y. I have less and less time to do that stuff anymore (approching graduation), maybe some day when I have more time, I'll go back towards Linux installs.
Hate to push another distribution yet again, but this is why I use Debian. I admit dselect is a pain in the ass, but apt-get is a godsend.
I don't need to track down library X from package Y to install package Z 75 times just to install an application. Debian Potato (the current development release) is a little bit behind the absolute latest and greatest apps (from a few days to a few weeks), but it has thousands of applications (just about everything I was interested in). Doing an apt-get update ; apt-get dist-upgrade keeps me completely up to date. If I don't want to be bleeding edge, I can edit the sources file to switch it to whatever CD I have or to the stable distribution on the net.
If I just want to install an application, all I need to do is apt-get install package, and it automatically fetches any dependencies, upgrades any packages that depend on it, installs them, and lets me go on my way. Once you've used it once, you'll never want to go back. Heck, you can use it to install packages that are part of potato even if you're using the older releases. It works like a charm.
I _like_ the FreeBSD ports system, but the Debian system completely fits the bill and it cuts down on the amount of time I waste administering and setting up servers.
Those people that think Debian is for those that are completely paranoid about using GPL and completely Free software, it's not. Packages are just labeled non-free if they do not meet the DFSG.
Admittedly, Debian is a little harder to install than Red Hat and dselect is a pain. Maybe Corel's Linux distribution will make it easier for the average user.
As a public company, I doubt RedHat is planning to survive on donations. Furthermore, they know that someone can/has/will undercut them on distribution and retail support, but having a GPL installer is one of the reasons they're the biggest guy on the block, so it's doubtful that they'll change that route.
Of course, I'd have no idea what RedHat's business plan is. (Wouldn't I like to though!) I would imagine they're thinking the real money in enterprise support contracts, contract programming (like Linux/Merced for Intel), and integration services for hardware companies, and so on. This is all vaild of course - just because Microsoft makes much of its money on shrinkwrapped retail doesn't mean that there's not other ways.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well considering the $80 that RedHat wants for the supported version, versus the $0 they'll charge you for the unsupported version, there's obviously lots of room here to undercut RedHat, and provide your own "support". This isn't inconsequential money either - RedHat's been one of the top selling retail software packages for a number of months.
This is nothing new. There's a whole bunch of $40 Linux books which are just reprints of how-tos and so on.
I think we're going to see a race to the bottom here, maybe even getting to the point where you'll get Linux in the mail with some offer like AOL CDs.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
1. What kernel is Mom using?
2. Where is Mom's FTP site (ftp.momslinux.com?)
3. Is Mom completely under the GPL?
4. Can I get support from Mom?
5. Can I use Mom in a Beowulf cluster? (sorry -- if I didn't say it, someone else would)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Okay, that's understandable. I never really had trouble with Debian once I got past the install headaches. Reconfiguration and installation of new applications is a snap. Debian is very sane in how it configures things by default, and I can get a new package working relatively quickly.
The best thing about Linux is diversity. If there was a distribution that did things better than mine, I'd try it. It's still Linux. I'm sorry for offending you.
I can somewhat understand why folks might put more restrictive licensing on documentation than code.
Documentation is easier to screw up -- it doesn't have to pass the objective 'machine test' of whether it will compile and run. And there's an old saying among writers: there is no greater urge than to modify somebody else's prose. Lot's of folks consider themselves writers who aren't. Far fewer consider themselves programmers who aren't, because the computer has a way of slapping you in the face with reality.
That said, however, I agree that there ought to be some way for folks other than the original copyright holder to add to/update documentation as the software changes. I suppose if nothing else the updates could be distributed as a 'patch' (sed script?) to the original, or as an errata sheet, although neither are very satisfactory. Especially after several generations of same.
-- Alastair
It only forces redistribution if you're distributing the application at all. For example, if you are working on an in-house app that won't be distributed outside of your company, you don't have to do anything.
The letter of the law allows you to keep your changes private (i.e. within the company). Now, on the other hand, if you're distributing your application outside of your company and someone asks for source code, you have to provide it to them.
I haven't seen a 'MEEPT' post in a long time. I hope someone moderates them up as long as they are AC posts.
Here's where we need more options on slashdot: *I*want to personally view all posts that are (a) rated at 1 or above, and (b) all (original) MEEPT posts. (the replies aren't always that MEEPT-ingful, if you know what I mean.)
In the meantime, I suggest that there be a MEEPT distribution of Linux--instead of Yellow Dog Linux on PPC, maybe we can have Big Bird Linux for the Presario or something... *chuckle*
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
>I thought that every distribution had to be downloadable?
No, it doesn't have to be. It all depends on the licencing involved. For example, if there was some commerical software on the distro, then that could be under a licence that you can't redistribute it.
Even if it was all under a GPL, that also doesn't require a download link. The GPL allows someone to sell software on CDROM only, it doesn't require them to have it available for download. However, the GPL does give people the right to request the full source (on similar distribution methods as the binary, IIRC, i.e you can't by the software on CD, and insist on having the source downloadable) and to re-dististribute the software they have bought for no charge, and to make it available for download themselves. Nowhere does the GPL say "you must make your product available for download via the net", all it says is that anyone may do so without the permission of the author
Most distros have an available download link, as it's in their best interests to have people going to them direct, as there is nothing legally stopping someone getting the GPL distro, and mirroring it elsewhere.
As an aside, this is a new distro which is based on Mandrake, which is based on Redhat, does this 2nd level basis cause more confusion or does it give a chance for the derived distros to fix the problems of the base distro?
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Hmm. Maybe it's just another reason to keep anyone who cares following the LSB, which is starting to make some "visable" progress now (compatibility testing tools...). Frankly, maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if there get to be tons of Linux distributions, as long as thier compatiable on a basic level. It sure doesn't hurt to have lots of diffrent telephone long distance carriers, but if they weren't compatable, you could only call people that use your carrier.
Wait, Linux better be BETTER than the phone companies, that's the point of the LSB. I don't wanna see "you can't get that service unless you use brand X." If the base is the same, who cares who you get it from, I'd be happy with "Jonny Smith's Linux" that I picked up in the "impulse buy rack" at the grocery store, because I would probably end up changing what I didn't like anyway.
Personally, I have started using FreeBSD as of late, I got sick of trying to find the "right" package out of 100 diffrent packages for the same application, or tracking libraries to insure the new verson of X will run, but not break the old version of Y. I have less and less time to do that stuff anymore (approching graduation), maybe some day when I have more time, I'll go back towards Linux installs.
LSB Approved branding, and LSB Supporters branding. Where the first mearly states it's compatable, and the second denotes that out of the $20 or so they charge per CD, they donate about $1-5 to the LSB, and $1-5 to support some trustworth open source foundation. And, if the company contributes significantly to GPL, it can get an "exempt" status granted by the open source foundation in order to recieve both brandings. Then it's clear to everyone who "supports" open source, and who doesn't, right on the label.
This would allow people like LSL and CheapBytes to stay in buisness, and keep selling $1 CD's, but it's clear that the $1 CD doesn't support anything. And anyone who cares about growth of open source can pick any distribution with the right "branding." *(note: open source above doesn't nessessarly refer to "Open Source" but to a generic undefiened foundation/association/group.)
I remember the first time I picked up a Redhat distro from Compusa. There was Redhat Linux 5.2 (official) sitting next to Macmillan Publishing's Redhat 5.2. The first had a price tag of $50 and the second $30. I could see little or no difference in the software either box was offering; however, the redhat official box had a mousepad. Big fscking deal. So being the cheap bastard which I am, I bought the macmillan distro. I ended up installing it that night then passing it around to all my friends for them to try it. Someone offered to buy it, I insisted they just copy it and pass it on... In my mind, that's part of the concept of free software. Even though I paid money for it, I didn't care about recouping my costs, because I believe that each person who uses *nix rather than Windows is worth my thirty measly bucks.
I'm glad Macmillan has done it again, this new distro is just the treat I've been waiting for, and I applaud them for using Mandrake. What could be better than a more-up-to-date distro of Redhat 6 than Redhat themselves offer, complete with Partition Magic and KDE for the default desktop? I don't want to go into the Gnome vs. KDE vs. Cardboard box wms, but I personally like KDE and find it very productive.
Back to my cheap bastardness. When I casually stroll into Compusa and pick up my new distro, I'll get Deja-vu. There will be the super expensive Redhat 6 official box sitting next to the Macmillan box. Only this time the savings will be greater and the distro will be more valuable.
And before anyone starts the asinine arguement of 'well you can just download it for free SNORD', let me just say this. I live in a painful world of 56k modems and no cd burners. So downloading something that big just isn't an option.
I keep hearing that a BSD license is BAD because it allows for 'code forking'.
Now having 32 different flavors of GNU/Linux is a GOOD thing?
I just don't see how having 32 different GNU/Linuxes is good. The economic argument that 'competition is good' is null/void because you can get the code for free.
So why is the 32 versions GOOD? Adding confusion?