Red Hat does not sell proprietary software. You're accidentally right about them not developing it, though, since RH only develops free software. Plenty of it.
I keep hearing that in these redhat threads. Can you give me some examples?
After the last Red Hat article, I did a bit of studying on Fedora and Red Hat (represented by Centos 4.0). The results were quite interesting.
Fedora is pitched as the beta testing project for Red Hat. Stuff that gets into Red Hat Enterprise is supposed to be proven in Fedora. If you look at the actual packages in each distribution, however, it is interesting to note that RHEL 4.0 actually has newer stuff than Fedora core 3. If Fedora leads to RHEL, how can this be? Has Red Hat, having jettisoned its community goodwill and developer support, been forced to fork RHEL in order to keep it current and supported? Could they be reducing the packages in RHEL in order to keep it supportable and current in what is a dying bid to tide the platform over until Fedora gets enough oxygen to live on its own, much less support the RHEL product? Is RHEL itself a smoke and mirrors operation - an unstable solution inferior even to Fedora that is part of a two pronged marketing operation to capitalize on the Red Hat name at the expense of the quality of their product? Is Fedora the true core of Red Hat, as directly indicated by Red Hat engineers commenting vociferously in the past couple of stories about this? Perhaps Red Hat has realized, as the air sucks slowly out of the room, that the best long term investment of dwindling oxygen supplies is to devote them to Fedora, because Fedora is the only hope for the future of the company. Certainly a closed linux distribution, forked from the roots of the original Red Hat Linux or Fedora, cannot be sustainable in the long term.
It looks like they wanted us to pull their gravy train for them by beta testing Fedora on our production systems and servers, and now that we haven't done it, they are cannibalizing their internal support and engineering resources to maintain what little momentum still exists in the Red Hat machine until they find the right Open Source affairs guy to get the Fedora engine to "kick in", as it were.
But hey, when did anything like logical reasoning ever stop Slashdot editors?
Actually, I don't see any logical evidence in your post. The meaningful bit of logical evidence that the picture is fake is the note from its author. Your "evidence" amounts to innuendo and your own personal beliefs about the actions and intentions of Microsoft. This, for future reference, is what evidence looks like:
I agree, it read like a screed. The only problem is that he was right on all logical points he made. I wonder if some of us confuse the legitimacy of acceptance of free information with its intrinsic legitimacy? What if the ideals of free information are intrinsic (dare I say self evident?), and that the question has more to do with our willingness to recognize that fact rather than how comfortable the idea is in polite society?
What's the worst thing about an Aaron Krowne, RMS, or a Thomas Paine? Is it that they are cantancerous, acerbic, and perhaps embarassing, or is that they actually ARE right, and that our problem is that, deep down inside, we know that the ideals they stand for really should be as important to us as they are to them?
The problem with Wikipedia is that information is not a democracy.
Who told you that?:) Truth is certainly not a democracy, but information is perhaps the single most intrinsic aspect of social concerns. Given that is the case, I would much prefer a democracy of information to the alternative.
Regarding a comparison to Gentoo:
intellectual property problems-
Red Hat and Fedora are encumbered by U.S. IP law and cannot provide MP3 capabilities or the ability to play Windows codecs in media players. There are other problems related to this, but I can't think of them just now.
freedom from dependency hell-
I've been running Gentoo for more than a year now and not once have I had to go google for libobscure.so.0 because some damn RPM had undocumented dependencies. This makes it possible to install a much broader range of software, because you don't have to worry about wandering too far from the fold of supported Red Hat RPMs. With Gentoo, if it's in Portage (and it is, trust me), emerge it and you are ready to rock and roll. No searching for dependencies, no breaking the system, etc. Even if it's not in Portage, the generic, nonpolluted environment of a true Linux system makes a much friendlier build environment than RH/Fedora does.
Access-
With Red Hat or Fedora, the actual guts of the system are buried in several layers of helper utilities that often crash, don't offer the full feature set of the underlying bit they are configuring, or otherwise generally prevent you from practically managing the system at a low level. Put simply, the hood is welded shut and you can't get to the real working parts of the system without screwing something up.
Scope of configurability-
Suppose you read about a new optimization flag in GCC, and you'd like to see what effect it has on your system. To do this in Red Hat, you'd have to download every single source rpm for every single rpm you have installed, install them to get their source code in/usr/src, edit/etc/make.conf with your desired changes (assuming some Red Hat silliness doesn't prevent you from doing so or changes it back after you edit it), rpmbuild --rebuild every single one of the rpms, and then rpm --freshen every single one of the rpms. To do the same thing in Gentoo: edit make.conf, emerge -e world.
Put simply, if the only Linux you've ever experienced is Red Hat, you haven't experienced Linux.
Oh, I see; you just don't have a clue what "support" means in the software industry.
I don't seem to be the one who is of two minds about this issue.
And, frankly, any argument that "Red Hat doesn't support Fedora" probably runs into problems around the time you have to type the URL "fedora.redhat.com", don't you think?
phrase 1 returned from search: "community-supported" - ok...
phrase 2: "It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc." - uh huh...
phrase 3: "Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the solution that provides a robust, stable operating system supported by Red Hat, Inc. and a wide variety of independent software vendors (ISVs)." - pretty consistent so far.
And last but not least: "The Fedora Project is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc. "
Did I miss anything?
To be fair - it appears, after reading your posts and the posts of others, that the whole Fedora thing appears to have been a game of marketing smoke and mirrors. Red Hat insiders have claimed that Fedora IS Red Hat linux - that the same people are working on it, and that, indeed, all their effort goes into Fedora itself. It could be that what used to be called support for Red Hat Linux is now hidden in the fedora downloads tab under "updates", but that the internal processes producing the updates is the same that produced the updates for RH8 and 9. It could be that all of this crap is one big case of schizophrenia inside Red Hat. Fine. Fair enough. Point made.
But if I'd known all this in 2003, would I still have walked away from the community? There wasn't an upgrade path between RH9 and FC1. People (me!) with outstanding support agreements on RH9 were cut off at the nuts right during a time where getting someone to accept a Linux box in the enterprise, much less pay for it, was a political nightmare. And all we got from Red Hat for our trouble was condescending statements about downloading ISOs. Even if I were absolutely positive that FC1 was going to be release-quality RH10, and that Fedora support was no different than what I was doing with up2date at the time, I still would have walked.
Now, here we are, two years later, and Red Hat has suddenly realized that these "ISO freeloaders" were their fucking user base. We were the people who put the face on Red Hat inside organizations all over the world. We were the evangelists, the sales people, and enthusiastic tech support organization. And not only did they cash in on our goodwill, but they stepped on our faces in the process. Now suddenly they want us to come back to them now that they have become a shrinking vertical market unix vendor, like SCO, bereft of community goodwill and slowly dying at the fringes of IT industry esteem and relevance. All I can say, RedHat, is that I hope it was worth it. I hope you got what you were after.
"Enterprise has to do with RH's business side of things, the service and support of the product that customers buy. Free/consumer/community distribution is the same technology, but with no guarantee of support because it is for hobbyists. Companies may choose to use it in production but it is their responsibility to support it themselves, or hire others to help them."
-Warren Togami, 2003
Or maybe this:
Availability of updates should not be misconstrued as support for anything other than continued development and innovation of the code base.
(From the fedora updates page)
Or maybe this:
The Fedora Project is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.
The footer of the home page (and each page within) the Fedora site.
The original claim was that there is no official support for Fedora. That claim appears to have been well established in what was said when Fedora and Red Hat merged, and is corroborated at least once or twice a page in the Fedora website. If the claim is as weak as you say it is, then why is it plastered on every fucking page of the web site?
Messed around with Mandrake for a little while, then when they started to have "community" releases and whatever the real release is called, I became afraid I'd be in the same position I was with Red Hat and swore off commercial distros forever. I am using Gentoo and kicking myself daily for not having discovered it sooner.
I fully agree that dropping the boxed in-stores in-front-of-peoples-eyes version has been detrimental to awareness of RH (and Linux in general).
Is that really what you thought Red Hat Linux was? Are you actually attempting to describe leaving me, my employers, and my customers in the lurch sitting on worthless RH9 support agreements with no upgrade path to a supported product as a casual decision regarding retail visibility?
RPM is just doing its job, detecting a failed dependency.
If A.rpm depends on B.rpm, and B.rpm depends on A.rpm, you can install neither A nor B. That is not a failed dependency. That's a fucked up package management system. When I stopped using RPM, I never had to worry about that again.
There's nothing that says a modern package management system has to be wrapped up in a single tool, in this case RPM.
Well, nothing except, say allyour competition. But you want to ignore that? Fine. Try this on for size...
Gentoo has never once stomped on a config file. It's package management system includes etc-update, a tool for merging changes in config files when you updated packages. with RPM, you have to hope and pray whoever put the RPM together wouldn't stomp your config files.
Please go download Fedora and tell me if up2date isn't free anymore
So you mean to tell me that:
Fedora is officially supported by Red Hat, who provides official security updates and patches to the product?
This product support lifecycle is greater than or equal to 3 years?
Didn't think so. Refer to my previous asessment.
I've been using redhat for 6-7 years and they've never once asked me for a penny.
The only way you can have been doing that is by using Red Hat 9 without any patches. Red Hat Linux disappeared in 2003, and was replaced by a product you had to pay (a lot)for. Fedora is not, was not, and will never be Red Hat Linux.
A modern package management system has automatic dependency resolution and management. I mean hell, Perl's only a programming language and the MCPAN system has better depenency management than Red Hat. What does that say?
Failing that, I would have to cite circular dependencies as a ferociously irritating problem with RPM. When I used Red Hat, I would use RPM only to install stuff that came with the original distribution and for patching security problems. If I wanted to install any applications onto the machine, it was generally easier to manually install straight from source than it was to try to fight with the RPMs.
What are you talking about? Up2date is completely free,
That statement is unmitigated bullshit. If you mean to say that the Up2date software itself is free, but not the connection to Red Hat that makes it work, then it is semantic bullshit. (and you people wonder why we don't trust you anymore)
The short version: inside RH engineering we find it very bizarre that people consider RH Linux and Fedora to be different.
When I used RH Linux, I could get security patches. If I use Fedora, I have to wait for the next version which (hopefully) doesn't suck. If they are the same, then put your money where your mouth is. Support the fucking product.
What part of Fedora is not Free-as-in-beer? There are bit-torrents all over the place of FC3.
But not the finished product. The only beer that appears to be free here is my beta testing services.
Fedora is the big "give-back", or don't you get it?
Well, no, actually, I'm not getting anything. That's the problem. The idea of Linux/Open Source/Free Software is that when the product reaches maturity, your efforts in having brought it to that point are rewarded by getting to use the mature product. The mature product is the big "give-back".
A very good point. The problem with Fedora is support. A common complaint back when Red Hat Linux existed was that they were always behind the times technologically. They could have driven Fedora on newness alone and not cut themselves off at the balls by throwing away support. They wouldn't have even needed to support Fedora. They could simply have used Fedora as a public beta for RH10, which, when it came out, would be publicly available like always.
At the end of the day, however, I am not sure how much they can do to fix things. I will never install any Red Hat operating system on an important computer again because I was a paying RH9 customer who was summarily jettisoned from support less than a year after my purchase without an upgrade path that cost less than $1500. I am going to have a very hard time forgetting that.
the point of Christianity is that there IS NO SUCH THING as an unforgivable sin.
Matt 12:31-32 - (NAB) - " Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Unless you can prove you have a license, they dont have to give you squat.
I would argue that the vast majority of Wine users have a legally licensed copy of windows (in my case, it's on the same machine). That would mean that this has a lot less to do with scoundrels trying to download patches for their pirated versions of Windows and a lot more to do with the modern economic concept that says that if you bought something from me, I have the right to define every aspect of your life.
The paradoxism of astroturfing and spin that is unfolding in this thread is truly epic. Now please excuse me while I bask in the glory of desperation and despondence so painfully evident in the sheer quantity of MS sponsored flaming bullshit this thread will produce.
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat does not sell proprietary software. You're accidentally right about them not developing it, though, since RH only develops free software. Plenty of it.
I keep hearing that in these redhat threads. Can you give me some examples?
After the last Red Hat article, I did a bit of studying on Fedora and Red Hat (represented by Centos 4.0). The results were quite interesting.
Fedora is pitched as the beta testing project for Red Hat. Stuff that gets into Red Hat Enterprise is supposed to be proven in Fedora. If you look at the actual packages in each distribution, however, it is interesting to note that RHEL 4.0 actually has newer stuff than Fedora core 3. If Fedora leads to RHEL, how can this be? Has Red Hat, having jettisoned its community goodwill and developer support, been forced to fork RHEL in order to keep it current and supported? Could they be reducing the packages in RHEL in order to keep it supportable and current in what is a dying bid to tide the platform over until Fedora gets enough oxygen to live on its own, much less support the RHEL product? Is RHEL itself a smoke and mirrors operation - an unstable solution inferior even to Fedora that is part of a two pronged marketing operation to capitalize on the Red Hat name at the expense of the quality of their product? Is Fedora the true core of Red Hat, as directly indicated by Red Hat engineers commenting vociferously in the past couple of stories about this? Perhaps Red Hat has realized, as the air sucks slowly out of the room, that the best long term investment of dwindling oxygen supplies is to devote them to Fedora, because Fedora is the only hope for the future of the company. Certainly a closed linux distribution, forked from the roots of the original Red Hat Linux or Fedora, cannot be sustainable in the long term.
It looks like they wanted us to pull their gravy train for them by beta testing Fedora on our production systems and servers, and now that we haven't done it, they are cannibalizing their internal support and engineering resources to maintain what little momentum still exists in the Red Hat machine until they find the right Open Source affairs guy to get the Fedora engine to "kick in", as it were.
Sad.
Feed the RFID chip to a carrier pigeon, place the pigeon into a carved potato and then fire the whole thing out of a cannon.
I think you might have a problem with packet fragmentation in the RFC1149 implementation.
But hey, when did anything like logical reasoning ever stop Slashdot editors?
Actually, I don't see any logical evidence in your post. The meaningful bit of logical evidence that the picture is fake is the note from its author. Your "evidence" amounts to innuendo and your own personal beliefs about the actions and intentions of Microsoft. This, for future reference, is what evidence looks like:
alternative browser
I agree, it read like a screed. The only problem is that he was right on all logical points he made. I wonder if some of us confuse the legitimacy of acceptance of free information with its intrinsic legitimacy? What if the ideals of free information are intrinsic (dare I say self evident?), and that the question has more to do with our willingness to recognize that fact rather than how comfortable the idea is in polite society?
What's the worst thing about an Aaron Krowne, RMS, or a Thomas Paine? Is it that they are cantancerous, acerbic, and perhaps embarassing, or is that they actually ARE right, and that our problem is that, deep down inside, we know that the ideals they stand for really should be as important to us as they are to them?
The problem with Wikipedia is that information is not a democracy.
:) Truth is certainly not a democracy, but information is perhaps the single most intrinsic aspect of social concerns. Given that is the case, I would much prefer a democracy of information to the alternative.
Who told you that?
Regarding a comparison to Gentoo: /usr/src, edit /etc/make.conf with your desired changes (assuming some Red Hat silliness doesn't prevent you from doing so or changes it back after you edit it), rpmbuild --rebuild every single one of the rpms, and then rpm --freshen every single one of the rpms. To do the same thing in Gentoo: edit make.conf, emerge -e world.
intellectual property problems- Red Hat and Fedora are encumbered by U.S. IP law and cannot provide MP3 capabilities or the ability to play Windows codecs in media players. There are other problems related to this, but I can't think of them just now. freedom from dependency hell- I've been running Gentoo for more than a year now and not once have I had to go google for libobscure.so.0 because some damn RPM had undocumented dependencies. This makes it possible to install a much broader range of software, because you don't have to worry about wandering too far from the fold of supported Red Hat RPMs. With Gentoo, if it's in Portage (and it is, trust me), emerge it and you are ready to rock and roll. No searching for dependencies, no breaking the system, etc. Even if it's not in Portage, the generic, nonpolluted environment of a true Linux system makes a much friendlier build environment than RH/Fedora does. Access- With Red Hat or Fedora, the actual guts of the system are buried in several layers of helper utilities that often crash, don't offer the full feature set of the underlying bit they are configuring, or otherwise generally prevent you from practically managing the system at a low level. Put simply, the hood is welded shut and you can't get to the real working parts of the system without screwing something up. Scope of configurability- Suppose you read about a new optimization flag in GCC, and you'd like to see what effect it has on your system. To do this in Red Hat, you'd have to download every single source rpm for every single rpm you have installed, install them to get their source code in
Put simply, if the only Linux you've ever experienced is Red Hat, you haven't experienced Linux.
And for some reason, human nature will radically alter and the Linux IT world won't be filled with underqualified people hoping to make a buck too?
Actually, I am using that as a metric for the growth of Linux, and noticed this starting to happen as of last year.
Oh, I see; you just don't have a clue what "support" means in the software industry.
/support(enter)
I don't seem to be the one who is of two minds about this issue.
And, frankly, any argument that "Red Hat doesn't support Fedora" probably runs into problems around the time you have to type the URL "fedora.redhat.com", don't you think?
Okay, let's try it... Okay, it's up. let's see - support...
phrase 1 returned from search: "community-supported" - ok...
phrase 2: "It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc." - uh huh...
phrase 3: "Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the solution that provides a robust, stable operating system supported by Red Hat, Inc. and a wide variety of independent software vendors (ISVs)." - pretty consistent so far.
And last but not least: "The Fedora Project is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc. "
Did I miss anything?
To be fair - it appears, after reading your posts and the posts of others, that the whole Fedora thing appears to have been a game of marketing smoke and mirrors. Red Hat insiders have claimed that Fedora IS Red Hat linux - that the same people are working on it, and that, indeed, all their effort goes into Fedora itself. It could be that what used to be called support for Red Hat Linux is now hidden in the fedora downloads tab under "updates", but that the internal processes producing the updates is the same that produced the updates for RH8 and 9. It could be that all of this crap is one big case of schizophrenia inside Red Hat. Fine. Fair enough. Point made.
But if I'd known all this in 2003, would I still have walked away from the community? There wasn't an upgrade path between RH9 and FC1. People (me!) with outstanding support agreements on RH9 were cut off at the nuts right during a time where getting someone to accept a Linux box in the enterprise, much less pay for it, was a political nightmare. And all we got from Red Hat for our trouble was condescending statements about downloading ISOs. Even if I were absolutely positive that FC1 was going to be release-quality RH10, and that Fedora support was no different than what I was doing with up2date at the time, I still would have walked.
Now, here we are, two years later, and Red Hat has suddenly realized that these "ISO freeloaders" were their fucking user base. We were the people who put the face on Red Hat inside organizations all over the world. We were the evangelists, the sales people, and enthusiastic tech support organization. And not only did they cash in on our goodwill, but they stepped on our faces in the process. Now suddenly they want us to come back to them now that they have become a shrinking vertical market unix vendor, like SCO, bereft of community goodwill and slowly dying at the fringes of IT industry esteem and relevance. All I can say, RedHat, is that I hope it was worth it. I hope you got what you were after.
I have to confess that I had no idea that this even existed.
I wonder why I didn't know that...
Could it have been this:
"Enterprise has to do with RH's business side of things, the service and support of the product that customers buy. Free/consumer/community distribution is the same technology, but with no guarantee of support because it is for hobbyists. Companies may choose to use it in production but it is their responsibility to support it themselves, or hire others to help them."
-Warren Togami, 2003
Or maybe this:
Availability of updates should not be misconstrued as support for anything other than continued development and innovation of the code base.
(From the fedora updates page)
Or maybe this:
The Fedora Project is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.
The footer of the home page (and each page within) the Fedora site.
The original claim was that there is no official support for Fedora. That claim appears to have been well established in what was said when Fedora and Red Hat merged, and is corroborated at least once or twice a page in the Fedora website. If the claim is as weak as you say it is, then why is it plastered on every fucking page of the web site?
A comparison of RPM and emerge (Gentoo):
- google for app
- find and download app.i386.rpm
- rpm -ivh app.i386.rpm
- app.i386 requires foo1.2 and bar6.2
- google for foo
- find and download foo.i386.rpm
- rpm -ivh foo.i386.rpm
- foo.i386.rpm requires zap2.6 and forp5.2
- find and download zap.i386.rpm
- rpm -ivh zap.i386.rpm
- (ok)
- rpm -ivh forp.i386.rpm
- (ok)
- rpm -ivh foo.i386.rpm
- foo.i386.rpm requires libobscure.so.1
- google for libobscure
- libobscure.so.0 is in zaplib-devel.i386.rpm
- download zap.src.rpm
- google the zap project
- download zap sources, which provide the newer libobscure.so.1
- rpm -ivh zap.src.rpm
- copy the new sources into the rpm sources directory
- rpm --rebuild zap.src.rpm
- Fuck! rpm doesn't rebuild anymore?! WTF?
- google rpmbuild
- download rpmbuild rpm
- Stop, look up at the screen in a haze.
- What the hell was I trying to install, anyway?
Gentoo:emerge app
Messed around with Mandrake for a little while, then when they started to have "community" releases and whatever the real release is called, I became afraid I'd be in the same position I was with Red Hat and swore off commercial distros forever. I am using Gentoo and kicking myself daily for not having discovered it sooner.
I fully agree that dropping the boxed in-stores in-front-of-peoples-eyes version has been detrimental to awareness of RH (and Linux in general).
Is that really what you thought Red Hat Linux was? Are you actually attempting to describe leaving me, my employers, and my customers in the lurch sitting on worthless RH9 support agreements with no upgrade path to a supported product as a casual decision regarding retail visibility?
RPM is just doing its job, detecting a failed dependency.
If A.rpm depends on B.rpm, and B.rpm depends on A.rpm, you can install neither A nor B. That is not a failed dependency. That's a fucked up package management system. When I stopped using RPM, I never had to worry about that again.
There's nothing that says a modern package management system has to be wrapped up in a single tool, in this case RPM.
Well, nothing except, say all your competition. But you want to ignore that? Fine. Try this on for size...
Gentoo has never once stomped on a config file. It's package management system includes etc-update, a tool for merging changes in config files when you updated packages. with RPM, you have to hope and pray whoever put the RPM together wouldn't stomp your config files.
So you mean to tell me that:
- Fedora is officially supported by Red Hat, who provides official security updates and patches to the product?
- This product support lifecycle is greater than or equal to 3 years?
Didn't think so. Refer to my previous asessment.I've been using redhat for 6-7 years and they've never once asked me for a penny.
The only way you can have been doing that is by using Red Hat 9 without any patches. Red Hat Linux disappeared in 2003, and was replaced by a product you had to pay (a lot)for. Fedora is not, was not, and will never be Red Hat Linux.
Also, please tell me what's wrong with RPM.
A modern package management system has automatic dependency resolution and management. I mean hell, Perl's only a programming language and the MCPAN system has better depenency management than Red Hat. What does that say?
Failing that, I would have to cite circular dependencies as a ferociously irritating problem with RPM. When I used Red Hat, I would use RPM only to install stuff that came with the original distribution and for patching security problems. If I wanted to install any applications onto the machine, it was generally easier to manually install straight from source than it was to try to fight with the RPMs.
What are you talking about? Up2date is completely free,
That statement is unmitigated bullshit. If you mean to say that the Up2date software itself is free, but not the connection to Red Hat that makes it work, then it is semantic bullshit. (and you people wonder why we don't trust you anymore)
The short version: inside RH engineering we find it very bizarre that people consider RH Linux and Fedora to be different.
When I used RH Linux, I could get security patches. If I use Fedora, I have to wait for the next version which (hopefully) doesn't suck. If they are the same, then put your money where your mouth is. Support the fucking product.
What part of Fedora is not Free-as-in-beer? There are bit-torrents all over the place of FC3.
But not the finished product. The only beer that appears to be free here is my beta testing services.
Fedora is the big "give-back", or don't you get it?
Well, no, actually, I'm not getting anything. That's the problem. The idea of Linux/Open Source/Free Software is that when the product reaches maturity, your efforts in having brought it to that point are rewarded by getting to use the mature product. The mature product is the big "give-back".
A very good point. The problem with Fedora is support. A common complaint back when Red Hat Linux existed was that they were always behind the times technologically. They could have driven Fedora on newness alone and not cut themselves off at the balls by throwing away support. They wouldn't have even needed to support Fedora. They could simply have used Fedora as a public beta for RH10, which, when it came out, would be publicly available like always.
At the end of the day, however, I am not sure how much they can do to fix things. I will never install any Red Hat operating system on an important computer again because I was a paying RH9 customer who was summarily jettisoned from support less than a year after my purchase without an upgrade path that cost less than $1500. I am going to have a very hard time forgetting that.
the point of Christianity is that there IS NO SUCH THING as an unforgivable sin.
Matt 12:31-32 - (NAB) - " Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
GTA taught me that shooting cops pretty much always results in a quick and violent death. He must have better cheat codes than I do.
Unless you can prove you have a license, they dont have to give you squat.
I would argue that the vast majority of Wine users have a legally licensed copy of windows (in my case, it's on the same machine). That would mean that this has a lot less to do with scoundrels trying to download patches for their pirated versions of Windows and a lot more to do with the modern economic concept that says that if you bought something from me, I have the right to define every aspect of your life.
Berman was basically the man at the helm for what was argueable the best portion of the series, the last 3 seasons.
And with that, I can summarily dismiss your argument.
The paradoxism of astroturfing and spin that is unfolding in this thread is truly epic. Now please excuse me while I bask in the glory of desperation and despondence so painfully evident in the sheer quantity of MS sponsored flaming bullshit this thread will produce.