Yes, there have been some cool cases for Lap Top's in the movies, and I saw one on "VIP" or whatever with that Pam Anderson chick.. ya know.. the bay watch one. But, I'm not holding my breath to actually see someone selling them.
Now, as far as HACKERS goes, ARGH!!! You know what, I am SICK of hearing how LAME HACKERS WAS!! IMHO, Hackers was great. The movie may not have been "perfect" but I sure haven't seen ANY other movies do it much better. Hackers sucked, in your opinion, ok, so then name a few movies that were actually better, and weren't "pure fiction." The Matrix SUCKS in my opinion, because it may be interesting to watch the affects, but thre was NO way you can believe "that could happen." Hackers actually retained at least some ground in the real world..... Well, maybe it wouldn't happen, but it's not impossable. I would love to see more movies like Hackers. I would love to see better movies like Hackers. For that matter, I would rather see a movie that was HALF as good as Hackers than to see another "total science fiction, there is no way at all ANY of this could happen, but we got great special effects" movie.
I probably won't ever find this out.. But I really would like to understand thier financial model.
Somehow, I don't believe that VA is hiring all these people and buying all this stuff from it's own profits.
I thing it's gotta be either that have a friendly banker who believes in thier buisness plan and they are getting pretty deep in debt, or there is some huge outside investor that is hopping they come through and make him rich or something...
Anyone point to a detailed report of where the money comes from?
So, it looks like there is now at least a smp kernel that will ship and be an option. But, Red Hat enables a heck-of-a-lot in thier default kernels. The best bet is to get the kernel__src.rpm and compile it yourself, because only inabling what _you_ need will always increase your system preformance a bit. (sometimes only a little, but it's a lot on older systems, so, it's a catch 22... if you have a slow system, you need to compile it, and it will compile slow, if you have a fast system, you could compile it more quickly, but don't need to as much).
I heard the price was going to go up, but, uh, jumping from a ~$39 boxed set to $300! Almost a 100% increase in price?!?!?!?!
I realize they are evolving from "email only" support to "phone" support now, but... Uh... Is the $40 box with the book, CD's w/source, and sticker gone? Maybe the page isn't fully updated yet? Am I over reacting?
Eeek. _IF_ this is true, it looks like I won't be buying "offical" for a long long time... $40 to toss to them to pay Raster and others to write GPL is something I can handle once a year or so, but $400 isn't.... Cheap Bytes, here I come... And, while I am there, I don't see a whole lot of reason not to just get Debain CD's insted... Or try something new...
First, they nailed Bruce to the wall.. Ouch. Least the guy had the guts to try it. And butt heads with a lot of people in the process. Many would have given up long before him. Without Bruce, it never would have started, and definately not got the attention it did. Personalities clashed, goals got fragmented, and Bruce POLITELY resigned and handed over the reigns, then got flamed hard, and flamed back. Overall, he does diserve MORE credit for what good he did that what I read!
Then the Red Hat myth. Eeek.. They quote a few people, including Bob Young, and don't really get anywhere. Simply said, "Red Hat supports it, but just like everyone else, refuses to handcuff itself in the event it sucks." But over and over, in more vague spins... Not really making the point as clear as they could have.
Quinlan, the hero... Well, k, maybe. He is. But, such a spin on it.
I like the coverage, but it was a bit lop-sided, and it didn't quite give it the "Positive" feel I wish it would have.
The FreeBSD operating system is a powerful, completely open-source system based on the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX. It is available free of charge from numerous Internet websites and also on CD-ROM from Walnut Creek CDROM, and includes thousands of ported applications including 3-D graphics rendering and many other equally powerful tools.
That's my guess why. Even if it was just source in ports, something as complex as 3-D graphics rendering software can be a bytch to compile... But, port's always seem to compile.
Linux on the other hand...:-) Well, I must say it's getting a little better lately, and I'll just shut up now...
"was truly an amazing effort on everyone's part, and I don't believe it would've been possible had we chosen to go with any other Operating System solution."
*SMACK*, suddenly, I understand EXACTLY what FreeBSD users feel like when they read about Linux in the news....
This is impressive, and, they deserve the credit, both the Manex Visual Effects and FreeBSD. If I might add, SGI deserves historic credit for pioneering this stuff (hope they can make a comeback to the way I remember them with thier new Linux/Intel project, and porting OpenGL, etc...)
Dell, well, uh... Dell did deliver the boxes speedy, I guess:-)
Sorry, this is ONE time I think SlashDot SHOULD have mirrored, or requested a mirror for something BEFORE posting it. The images are on an FTP server, so they are going to reach a maximum threshold much faster than an web server.
Someone grab them and mirror... I'll try myself too... I am not sure if I can get them, but I'll try. This is KDE... Right? Shouldn't be any legal problems mirroring?
Society is not the cause
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Usenet is full of this theory, take a look at some of the threads there, it's not to hard to figure out the potential connections.
Wonder if that monster size link will work, it's just one of hundreds of such comments though, I am sure you can find some of your own.
Not Guns, Not Drugs, Not TV...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
So, the low crime rate countries, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands, are all highly controled, less free countries?
And the more violent countries are those that allow freedom, like the USA, South Africa...
I don't see that really adding up like your saying.
Society is not the cause
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about Korea, but society did have quite a share of problems during both WWII and Vietnam.
The Zuit Suit Riot's isn't just a cute pop song, FYI. It was a violent gang of anti-war thugs that beat the living heck out of sailors and other military members on leave, and created quite a non-war related crime wave.
Protesters during VietNam bombed buildings in Universitys... I know for a fact my father was a police officer stationed in Chicago when someone snuck in and droped concrete blocks on the heads of sleeping police officers...
Don't give me this "when we were at war before, everything was peacefull at home" crap, because it's absoulutely false. Crime goes up when the country is at war.
Not Guns, Not Drugs, Not TV...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I have been thinking about this a little bit lately. So, here's a theory to kick around:
Japan has no guns, Switzerland has at least one gun in every house by law. Both have low crime. It's not guns.
Drugs exist in EU scandinavian countries, with lower crime than US. It's not drugs.
Hollywood movies, video games, etc, are all over the world, it's not that...
War?!? USA is always involved in some military act, UK to a lesser extent, Japan and Switzerland hardly ever. Canada follows way behind the USA as far as military action. South Africa has had the Zulu wars, segeration, and much military violance, and, high crime. It would seem that millitary agression might corelate to social agression.
Wether this is an indication that nations are militarily violent as an extention of thier inner hostility, or if the national justification of war translates to promoting agression in general, reaching our home streets, I don't know.
If there is a better correlation for this military/social connection than there is to TV, Games, Drugs, Guns, Internet,... I think probably, I would like to see a good study on it.
GUI CrUD is site created for people who want to use GNU/GPL stuff to create a GUI that functions similar to existing GUI's. This might be usefull in situations where you want to use Linux, but would have to retrain your staff, or your family in order to use it. Just set it up to look work just like a Mac, or whatever, and they don't have to deal with too much change....
I kept hearing people talk about it, and ideas floating around. Someone asked me for some webspace for it, I slaped the pages together, and stuck them up.
Unfortunately, I personally don't want to lead any of these projects, I only offered the site space, and some server side stuff (mailing list setup/mantainance, etc...). And, so far only about a dozen people have showed any interest, so there isn't much to do or talk about yet. If anyone wants to work on it, let me know, I'd be happy to give ya some space, or just the list of names I have so far....
The title says it all. This artical is incomplete, and out of date. Why bother?
Obviously, a web publication is better than a book for tracking Linux... But why did they write it like this? Couldn't they have set some wide standards of comparison? They comment that SuSE has feature A, and Red Hat has feature B, but they don't mention that Debian has A or B, they just say it has feature C.... ?? What the heck? Like it doesn't? In several cases it does, and Red Hat has A, and SuSe has B...
Not to mention the fact that SuSE is at 6, and Hat will be at 6 by the time anyone who reads this actually sorts through all this double talk and orders it...
They might as well have just put up a table of what's avaliable and provided links... Oh wait, there is already a page of links at www.linux.org... maybe they should have just reviewed www.linux.org, and not tried to pick such a wide moving target.
SCO use to be the "UNIX" that people choose if they wanted to run it on x86 hardware (and if I'm not mistaken, don't they own the word "UNIX" now?). Now Red Hat is the #1 choise. Hmm....
There is a big price gap, and, (this is second hand information) I hear there is a big preformance gap also, with Red Hat being Cheaper, and Better Preforming.
Somehow, I think if Debian, with it's totally diffrent distribution style and model and charter was in Red Hat's Market Share, and Red Hat was the smaller one, I think Michel's might have attacked them. Loosing your #1 spot hurts, and you gotta blame someone.
"'now I'm Red Hat and I'm going to make a million dollars out of selling this software people developed for free'," he said at a media briefing in Sydney this morning. "I think it's a fraud." Well, if that's the worst he has to say, not much damage done, I'll still send $50 to Red Hat so they can make a million dollars and keep hiring those people who "write the software for free."
I believe that Red Hat intentionaly _did the right thing_ when it came to standards.
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.
I have been running Starbuck (5.9) on two of my systems, and it has some bugs (like e and gnome GUI configuration is flaky), but it's stable. I haven't seen the rpm thing your talking about happening. Over all, I would call it stable, and querky (mostly some user apps that act funny, not like a kernel panic or rpm database whip-out).
Uh, I don't know about you, but I doubt it will cost more. Red Hat as of 5.2 started "parting" it out, and now there are several ways to buy Red Hat Linux, you don't need to buy just the boxed set of CD's, manual, and stickers anymore, AFAIK. So, I suspect it will be like 5.2, and avaliable directly for less than the "boxed set" use to cost in the past.
Yea, you can still get the same package, and that may cost more than before, but it's misleading to just say "it will cost more." It might, it might not, and it might be avaliable in diffrent "bundles" that make comparing it to the previous versions somewhat difficult.
About a month ago I was comparing the default gcc that shipped with Red Hat 5.2 to the newest version of egcs I could download from thier site.
Among the things I notices were that executable times/preformance for binaries created with these compilers were almost identical, BUT, the thing that suprized me most was that the binaries were about 15-25% larger when created with egcs.
Anyone else noticed this, or any other quirks about egcs?
Me: Legal requirements imposed seems a bit much, and I think I am against it still.
AC: but if someone is too lazy to use tags then the best browser in the world isn't going to describe a picture to them.
I shouldn't be making light of this, but this is actually humorous. K, if it should be a law, will we have special net police who track down the lazy evil villans who forget to put ALT tags in thier HTML, and imprison them for, what, say 5 years? "what are you in for man?" "Who me? Oh, I sold software to the government, and didn't put ALT tag's in my web page..." "oh, I ran a mall public internet kiosk, and forgot to put a 'warning, some internet web sites may cause dizzyness' sign on it."
Ack... Spend money on awareness, not legislation. You really think the legal system, police, courts, judges, and all that don't have enough stupid laws to deal with, now THIS should be a law?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, as far as HACKERS goes, ARGH!!! You know what, I am SICK of hearing how LAME HACKERS WAS!! IMHO, Hackers was great. The movie may not have been "perfect" but I sure haven't seen ANY other movies do it much better. Hackers sucked, in your opinion, ok, so then name a few movies that were actually better, and weren't "pure fiction." The Matrix SUCKS in my opinion, because it may be interesting to watch the affects, but thre was NO way you can believe "that could happen." Hackers actually retained at least some ground in the real world..... Well, maybe it wouldn't happen, but it's not impossable. I would love to see more movies like Hackers. I would love to see better movies like Hackers. For that matter, I would rather see a movie that was HALF as good as Hackers than to see another "total science fiction, there is no way at all ANY of this could happen, but we got great special effects" movie.
Somehow, I don't believe that VA is hiring all these people and buying all this stuff from it's own profits.
I thing it's gotta be either that have a friendly banker who believes in thier buisness plan and they are getting pretty deep in debt, or there is some huge outside investor that is hopping they come through and make him rich or something...
Anyone point to a detailed report of where the money comes from?
kernel-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 3266 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 4439 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:50:00 1999 kernel-2.2.5-4.i586.rpm 4356 Kb Tue Apr 6 19:27:00 1999 kernel-2.2.5-4.i686.rpm 4355 Kb Tue Apr 6 20:04:00 1999 kernel-BOOT-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 2546 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-BOOT-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 2757 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:51:00 1999 kernel-doc-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 762 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-doc-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 766 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:50:00 1999 kernel-headers-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 811 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-headers-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 829 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:50:00 1999 kernel-ibcs-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 27 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-pcmcia-cs-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 184 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-pcmcia-cs-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 185 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:51:00 1999 kernel-smp-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 3070 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-smp-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 4229 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:51:00 1999 kernel-smp-2.2.5-4.i586.rpm 4212 Kb Tue Apr 6 19:27:00 1999 kernel-smp-2.2.5-4.i686.rpm 4212 Kb Tue Apr 6 20:04:00 1999 kernel-source-2.2.3-5.i386.rpm 11065 Kb Mon Mar 15 20:14:00 1999 kernel-source-2.2.5-4.i386.rpm 11608 Kb Tue Apr 6 18:50:00 1999 kernelcfg-0.5-4.i386.rpm 17 Kb Thu Feb 25 16:47:00 1999 kernelcfg-0.5-5.i386.rpm 16 Kb Sun Mar 21 20:20:00 1999
So, it looks like there is now at least a smp kernel that will ship and be an option. But, Red Hat enables a heck-of-a-lot in thier default kernels. The best bet is to get the kernel__src.rpm and compile it yourself, because only inabling what _you_ need will always increase your system preformance a bit. (sometimes only a little, but it's a lot on older systems, so, it's a catch 22... if you have a slow system, you need to compile it, and it will compile slow, if you have a fast system, you could compile it more quickly, but don't need to as much).
Not to repeat myself, see my comments on the RedHat/ZDNet artical about Red Hat 6.0 prices? :-/
I heard the price was going to go up, but, uh, jumping from a ~$39 boxed set to $300! Almost a 100% increase in price?!?!?!?!
I realize they are evolving from "email only" support to "phone" support now, but... Uh... Is the $40 box with the book, CD's w/source, and sticker gone? Maybe the page isn't fully updated yet? Am I over reacting?
Eeek. _IF_ this is true, it looks like I won't be buying "offical" for a long long time... $40 to toss to them to pay Raster and others to write GPL is something I can handle once a year or so, but $400 isn't.... Cheap Bytes, here I come... And, while I am there, I don't see a whole lot of reason not to just get Debain CD's insted... Or try something new...
Someone tell me I am wrong, please :-)
Here's a start, learn to respect your brother *NIX.
First, they nailed Bruce to the wall.. Ouch. Least the guy had the guts to try it. And butt heads with a lot of people in the process. Many would have given up long before him. Without Bruce, it never would have started, and definately not got the attention it did. Personalities clashed, goals got fragmented, and Bruce POLITELY resigned and handed over the reigns, then got flamed hard, and flamed back. Overall, he does diserve MORE credit for what good he did that what I read!
Then the Red Hat myth. Eeek.. They quote a few people, including Bob Young, and don't really get anywhere. Simply said, "Red Hat supports it, but just like everyone else, refuses to handcuff itself in the event it sucks." But over and over, in more vague spins... Not really making the point as clear as they could have.
Quinlan, the hero... Well, k, maybe. He is. But, such a spin on it.
I like the coverage, but it was a bit lop-sided, and it didn't quite give it the "Positive" feel I wish it would have.
Sorry, didn't know. Didn't read that. Never used it.
That's my guess why. Even if it was just source in ports, something as complex as 3-D graphics rendering software can be a bytch to compile... But, port's always seem to compile.
Linux on the other hand... :-) Well, I must say it's getting a little better lately, and I'll just shut up now...
*SMACK*, suddenly, I understand EXACTLY what FreeBSD users feel like when they read about Linux in the news....
This is impressive, and, they deserve the credit, both the Manex Visual Effects and FreeBSD. If I might add, SGI deserves historic credit for pioneering this stuff (hope they can make a comeback to the way I remember them with thier new Linux/Intel project, and porting OpenGL, etc...)
Dell, well, uh... Dell did deliver the boxes speedy, I guess :-)
http://www.current.nu/kde/
Someone grab them and mirror... I'll try myself too... I am not sure if I can get them, but I'll try. This is KDE... Right? Shouldn't be any legal problems mirroring?
Wonder if that monster size link will work, it's just one of hundreds of such comments though, I am sure you can find some of your own.
And the more violent countries are those that allow freedom, like the USA, South Africa...
I don't see that really adding up like your saying.
The Zuit Suit Riot's isn't just a cute pop song, FYI. It was a violent gang of anti-war thugs that beat the living heck out of sailors and other military members on leave, and created quite a non-war related crime wave.
Protesters during VietNam bombed buildings in Universitys... I know for a fact my father was a police officer stationed in Chicago when someone snuck in and droped concrete blocks on the heads of sleeping police officers...
Don't give me this "when we were at war before, everything was peacefull at home" crap, because it's absoulutely false. Crime goes up when the country is at war.
Japan has no guns, Switzerland has at least one gun in every house by law. Both have low crime. It's not guns.
Drugs exist in EU scandinavian countries, with lower crime than US. It's not drugs.
Hollywood movies, video games, etc, are all over the world, it's not that...
War?!? USA is always involved in some military act, UK to a lesser extent, Japan and Switzerland hardly ever. Canada follows way behind the USA as far as military action. South Africa has had the Zulu wars, segeration, and much military violance, and, high crime. It would seem that millitary agression might corelate to social agression.
Wether this is an indication that nations are militarily violent as an extention of thier inner hostility, or if the national justification of war translates to promoting agression in general, reaching our home streets, I don't know.
If there is a better correlation for this military/social connection than there is to TV, Games, Drugs, Guns, Internet, ... I think probably, I would like to see a good study on it.
I kept hearing people talk about it, and ideas floating around. Someone asked me for some webspace for it, I slaped the pages together, and stuck them up.
Unfortunately, I personally don't want to lead any of these projects, I only offered the site space, and some server side stuff (mailing list setup/mantainance, etc...). And, so far only about a dozen people have showed any interest, so there isn't much to do or talk about yet. If anyone wants to work on it, let me know, I'd be happy to give ya some space, or just the list of names I have so far....
Obviously, a web publication is better than a book for tracking Linux... But why did they write it like this? Couldn't they have set some wide standards of comparison? They comment that SuSE has feature A, and Red Hat has feature B, but they don't mention that Debian has A or B, they just say it has feature C.... ?? What the heck? Like it doesn't? In several cases it does, and Red Hat has A, and SuSe has B...
Not to mention the fact that SuSE is at 6, and Hat will be at 6 by the time anyone who reads this actually sorts through all this double talk and orders it...
They might as well have just put up a table of what's avaliable and provided links... Oh wait, there is already a page of links at www.linux.org... maybe they should have just reviewed www.linux.org, and not tried to pick such a wide moving target.
The only comment I have is the two boys who did this probably learned more from CNN about what they did than from videogames.
There is a big price gap, and, (this is second hand information) I hear there is a big preformance gap also, with Red Hat being Cheaper, and Better Preforming.
Somehow, I think if Debian, with it's totally diffrent distribution style and model and charter was in Red Hat's Market Share, and Red Hat was the smaller one, I think Michel's might have attacked them. Loosing your #1 spot hurts, and you gotta blame someone.
"'now I'm Red Hat and I'm going to make a million dollars out of selling this software people developed for free'," he said at a media briefing in Sydney this morning. "I think it's a fraud." Well, if that's the worst he has to say, not much damage done, I'll still send $50 to Red Hat so they can make a million dollars and keep hiring those people who "write the software for free."
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.
I have been running Starbuck (5.9) on two of my systems, and it has some bugs (like e and gnome GUI configuration is flaky), but it's stable. I haven't seen the rpm thing your talking about happening. Over all, I would call it stable, and querky (mostly some user apps that act funny, not like a kernel panic or rpm database whip-out).
Yea, you can still get the same package, and that may cost more than before, but it's misleading to just say "it will cost more." It might, it might not, and it might be avaliable in diffrent "bundles" that make comparing it to the previous versions somewhat difficult.
Among the things I notices were that executable times/preformance for binaries created with these compilers were almost identical, BUT, the thing that suprized me most was that the binaries were about 15-25% larger when created with egcs.
Anyone else noticed this, or any other quirks about egcs?
Me: Legal requirements imposed seems a bit much, and I think I am against it still.
AC: but if someone is too lazy to use tags then the best browser in the world isn't going to describe a picture to them.
I shouldn't be making light of this, but this is actually humorous. K, if it should be a law, will we have special net police who track down the lazy evil villans who forget to put ALT tags in thier HTML, and imprison them for, what, say 5 years? "what are you in for man?" "Who me? Oh, I sold software to the government, and didn't put ALT tag's in my web page..." "oh, I ran a mall public internet kiosk, and forgot to put a 'warning, some internet web sites may cause dizzyness' sign on it."
Ack... Spend money on awareness, not legislation. You really think the legal system, police, courts, judges, and all that don't have enough stupid laws to deal with, now THIS should be a law?