The RHEL/CentOS kernel does get security and bug fix backports from later kernels, but the reason it runs such an "old" kernel is for stability reasons.
It isn't stable. The kernel is heavily updated in every point release including actual features, not just bug fixes.
As enterprise distribution, what matters is stability, and certification for 3rd party software, not having the latest versions, all is tested with an specific kernel version, and that kernel (and in general, packages) are kept in the same version, backporting/patching fixes when necessary, and you won't have to worry about a newer version of a sofware changing a configuration file format or keywords and stopping working after updating.
That's true for most software in RHEL, but not the kernel. It is heavily updated in each point release. Take a look at the release notes some time just to see what gets in there. RHEL 5 uses the 2.6.18 kernel for example, yet supports both KVM and ext4; features that Linux didn't have at that point.
The Redhat/CentOS kernel is about five years old. Still using version 2.6.
I suspect most desktop users want something newer than that.
I suggest that you take a closer look at the acutal kernel source code. The version number is 2.6.32, but that's just because that was when Red Hat _forked_ it from kernel.org. They continiously backport features and hardware support during the production support life cycle.
Might as well call Clang obsolete and useless because it doesn't do Java, Ada, Fortran, etc.
The C in Clang stands for C, so it will probably never support those other languages. That's because Clang is just a frontend to LLVM. There are other frontends that implement those languages. Even GCC can act as a frontend to LLVM.
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that Apple could choose to adhere to the license. They could join the GNU project if they wanted, or hire Richard Stallman as their CEO for all I know. I don't know if he would accept that position though. But the point is that nothing stops Apple from becoming the next Red Hat apart from artificial constraints about what Apple can or cannot do.
No, that is not the same thing. The runtime library exception is for the parts of gcc that gcc includes in your program when it builds it. The actual binary that the compiler produces. This is limited to certain headers and library routines. It does not give you access to the inner workings of the compiler.
A free software license does not limit what you can do with the code. For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine. I totally understand why they choose not to do that, but it was Apples choice to do it; they could have done different if they really, really, really wanted to.
I'm sure it was Apple that stopped Apple from contributing to GCC. I'm thankful that they contributed to LLVM by developing Clang, but it was entirely their own choice to not contribute to GCC after 4.2.1.
It was supposed to be a secret, and that meant that it could only be used for when it was really necessary; like for example to prevent terrorist attacks. If it was used too widely then people would know about it and they didn't wanted that.
It's at least more or less OK as long as it is updated and patched. Happened to run across an XP machine a couple of weeks ago... which had not yet had SP1 installed yet. The weird thing was that it was actually in a quite good shape. I guess it was just too old for the vulnerabilities are exploited nowadays.
The ISP that I have at home permits me to run servers from my connection. I suggest you either change ISP or put pressure on them to change their policy.
He/she is talking about the television fee. Since a couple of years ago public radio and television in Sweden is broadcasted on the Internet, and as a result any computer capable of connecting to the Internet is license bound. The license fee is collected once per year per household. This has of course been somewhat controversial and the topic is currently under heavy debate. The entire funding system is likely to change in the future, probably to a more traditional tax-like system.
I have backup of my important data. The problem is that it takes a couple of days to restore it all from tape so I really don't want to do that unless I really have to. As long as the price is not way too high I stick with what's most reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
The RHEL/CentOS kernel does get security and bug fix backports from later kernels, but the reason it runs such an "old" kernel is for stability reasons.
It isn't stable. The kernel is heavily updated in every point release including actual features, not just bug fixes.
Originally, Red Hat Linux was free.
Red Hat Linux is *still* free - just download and install it.
Red Hat charges for *support*.
RHEL is only free as long as all you want is the source. The binary costs money, even if you go with the cheaper "self support" option.
As enterprise distribution, what matters is stability, and certification for 3rd party software, not having the latest versions, all is tested with an specific kernel version, and that kernel (and in general, packages) are kept in the same version, backporting/patching fixes when necessary, and you won't have to worry about a newer version of a sofware changing a configuration file format or keywords and stopping working after updating.
That's true for most software in RHEL, but not the kernel. It is heavily updated in each point release. Take a look at the release notes some time just to see what gets in there. RHEL 5 uses the 2.6.18 kernel for example, yet supports both KVM and ext4; features that Linux didn't have at that point.
I suspect few desktop users run an OS targeted for "servers" where stability is the number one goal?
It's not targeted at servers.
RHEL Server is targeted at servers.
RHEL Desktop and RHEL Workstation is targeted at desktops/laptops.
The Redhat/CentOS kernel is about five years old. Still using version 2.6.
I suspect most desktop users want something newer than that.
I suggest that you take a closer look at the acutal kernel source code. The version number is 2.6.32, but that's just because that was when Red Hat _forked_ it from kernel.org. They continiously backport features and hardware support during the production support life cycle.
Might as well call Clang obsolete and useless because it doesn't do Java, Ada, Fortran, etc.
The C in Clang stands for C, so it will probably never support those other languages. That's because Clang is just a frontend to LLVM. There are other frontends that implement those languages. Even GCC can act as a frontend to LLVM.
And these proprietary bits would somehow be released under GPL if the BSD license did not exist?
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that Apple could choose to adhere to the license. They could join the GNU project if they wanted, or hire Richard Stallman as their CEO for all I know. I don't know if he would accept that position though. But the point is that nothing stops Apple from becoming the next Red Hat apart from artificial constraints about what Apple can or cannot do.
No, that is not the same thing. The runtime library exception is for the parts of gcc that gcc includes in your program when it builds it. The actual binary that the compiler produces. This is limited to certain headers and library routines. It does not give you access to the inner workings of the compiler.
A free software license does not limit what you can do with the code. For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine. I totally understand why they choose not to do that, but it was Apples choice to do it; they could have done different if they really, really, really wanted to.
I'm sure it was Apple that stopped Apple from contributing to GCC. I'm thankful that they contributed to LLVM by developing Clang, but it was entirely their own choice to not contribute to GCC after 4.2.1.
the beta testers were more concerned about the apple shaped 3rd degree burns imprinted on their thighs and palms
Some people would see this as a feature.
Nobody is perfect.
And how should we know that we can trust Snowden? He doesn't even work there anymore.
It was supposed to be a secret, and that meant that it could only be used for when it was really necessary; like for example to prevent terrorist attacks. If it was used too widely then people would know about it and they didn't wanted that.
It's at least more or less OK as long as it is updated and patched. Happened to run across an XP machine a couple of weeks ago... which had not yet had SP1 installed yet. The weird thing was that it was actually in a quite good shape. I guess it was just too old for the vulnerabilities are exploited nowadays.
That's why they fixed most of the issues in Windows 8.1. You should try it.
They probably did the same mistake.
SystemD has nothing to do with Gnome, apart from that some Gnome components use it.
It could also be argued that you should jump to Wayland because X does not support it.
The ISP that I have at home permits me to run servers from my connection. I suggest you either change ISP or put pressure on them to change their policy.
He/she is talking about the television fee. Since a couple of years ago public radio and television in Sweden is broadcasted on the Internet, and as a result any computer capable of connecting to the Internet is license bound. The license fee is collected once per year per household. This has of course been somewhat controversial and the topic is currently under heavy debate. The entire funding system is likely to change in the future, probably to a more traditional tax-like system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_Sweden
I have backup of my important data. The problem is that it takes a couple of days to restore it all from tape so I really don't want to do that unless I really have to. As long as the price is not way too high I stick with what's most reliable.
Apple can always ask for a ban, but it will only be approved if it's actually legit.
and get a UPS. Why blow more money on a slightly more reliable SSD when a UPS is so much cheaper?
That will give absolutely zero help when the machine blows a fuse and halts.