The ISOs released to RHN subscribers (all five of them) would be 3 discs (binaries) and 2 discs (source code). As such, they would be in full compliance with the GPL (more so than other distribution companies).
Think of it this way - it's a bonus incentive for people who pay to get the distribution ahead of time. That's it. No if's, and's or but's. I am positive Red Hat realizes that their 9.0 distributions ISOs will be mirrored elsewhere during that week waiting period.
However, their official stance would more likely be: if it isn't an official Red Hat Linux mirror - you won't know if you're getting the good stuff.
Let's not leave out the following phrase from the link you posted:
At certain times, Red Hat may extend errata maintenance for certain popular releases of the operating system.
Translation: If you are willing to pay for the support, we're willing to support you.
There is nothing wrong for a company to essentially say - look, we're focusing on maintaining the best code that's available rather than spending much of our time back-porting fixes to old applications.
What this means for most people who use Red Hat Linux (the free-download version), is that to stay with the game, you'll need to upgrade at least once per year.
You bring up an excellent point - and you're along the right track. If we examine the features of Red Hat Linux 8.0.9x (Phoebe beta), we notice that several things have been added to the OS that will set it apart from previous releases. You can find the changes (so far) to Red Hat Linux 9.0 in the release notes of Phoebe:
I think the two major updates that will definitely warrant a few "major" number upgrade will be the following:
1) glibc update from the 2.2 development branch to the 2.3 branch; the major feature would be the addition of the NPTL (Native POSIX Thread Library).
The release notes cite that legacy (LinuxThreads) applications will work with NPTL if and only if they conform to the POSIX standard.
2) The new and improved XFree86 4.3 (usability, eye-candy, performance, drivers, et al.).
3) Extended attributes (EA) and access control lists (ACL) finally come to Red Hat's distribution - giving per-file control par with NT and other OSes that have already had EA and ACL.
4) The inclusion of Gnome 2.2 fine tunes Gnome 2.0 to a better degree.
So far, the glibc update (which seems to branch off the glibc that is shipping with Red Hat Linux 9.0) that was given to Red Hat Linux 8.0 users seems to be wreaking havoc with regards to threads implementations; a few examples:
It should be noted that Red Hat has been extraordinarly adept with the inclusion of compatibility packages to allow legacy applications to continue working with their newest offering.
The 80386 processor introduced more than just 32-bit register addressing. It was also the first processor to support the protected mode interface to the processor and not to mention the ability to "virtualize" memory by paging to another medium. Windows 3.0 took advantage of the new features of the processor while still being a 16-bit operating system.
Nonetheless, I think the basics of 64-bit computing are solid for the server arena, but when you examine the Opteron processor (and the x86-64 architecture), AMD offers alot of simple performance benefits by simply assisting problems associated with register starvation (the more the merrier, right?) When you take this into consideration, any application that works with large chunks of data (be it 32-bit for Opteron's legacy mode, or native 64-bit) - it results in faster processing time. Compiling the Linux kernel should be faster with all those handy dandy general purpose registers that come with the Opteron.
I believe Intel understands what it is talking about, however - Intel has done an extraordinary job in predicting the market and following demand. However, in the case, I think Intel is purposefully leaving out the x86-64 implementation in their consideration. Early Itanium benchmarks (even the Itanium 2) show that the processor isn't up to snuff in most instances, and to compensate, Intel simply throws 2M (or even more) worth of cache to help the little guy out.
AMD, on the other hand, is not waiting for a certain time to flip the big switch for the consumers. By incorporating native support for all legacy 32-bit application code in the processor, mainstream consumers will be adopting 64-bit computing without necessarily utilizing it for what it was intended for, BUT they will enjoying the architectural benefits as a result.
It's not from the basis of Gladiator. It's pretty nice to see that you only reflect upon the Roman legion - which made up a segment of the Roman army - and not as a whole. I do not consider the Roman army an ancient one; their technological advances thrust them to top as the world super power.
Fact: the general with the most wealth (acquired through various means) had the ability to better equip their soldiers to acquire more wealth. For the armies that did not have much wealth (i.e. from the conquered lands to the north and west) - they did not have the fancy full bodied shields or the best long swords. Improvisation has been a feature of humanity since we could not share the shovel in the same sandbox. Archers were a commodity to most regiments serving Roman generals.
Flaming arrows were becoming a popular apparatus prior to the Roman Empire splitting up. To say they were not used - sounds a bit foolish to me. Where did they acquire the nack for such a strategy? The impending raids from the far east (i.e. the Mongols - which were quite fond of the flexible uses of arrows in military combat).
Applying fire to weaponry was not something invented in the post-Roman era. You should study about the origins of the Mongols (not Persian of the latter era - but the Chinese Mongols) and their love for distance warfare. With every acquisition of a new land, the Romans learned and acquired new methods of warfare, both offensive and defensive strategies.
Ah, but to each his own interpretation of history - but to categorize me as "everything I needed to learn, I learned from television" is a bit presumptuous. I watched Ben Hur, too, and had nothing to do with college studies, so maybe that's where I got my ideas from... *g*
1) We don't know. And we can't expect the military to reveal their knowledge of such weapons. I know this: in the arena of warfare, you first expend your general purpose arsenal in hopes of warding off the enemy. As a last ditch effort, you begin using the "hail-mary" tactic where you have to expend something of limited quantity to save the game.
It's not to say that they have missiles outfitted with chemical and/or biological warheads. It's to say that have the chemical and/or biological agents to outfit missiles to deliver said agents to a target.
The missiles that Iraq began to destroy two weeks ago were missiles that were built to deliver chemical and/or biological agents (weapons of mass destruction). They were, of course, empty - but why would a country develop and build missiles (even though they were forbidden to do so) without having the chemical or biological agents to fill them up?
2) Scud missiles are considered to be weapons of aggression that can potentially cause massive casualties (a.k.a. a weapon of mass destruction). Scud missiles were banned as a part of the resolution that ended the Gulf War - in years following, Iraq stated they had no Scud missiles; they were completely disarmed.
Trying to make a relationship between "shock and awe" (the US strategy) and "blitzkrieg" (the Nazi strategy) is to say that we take a crap on a porcelain throne just like the North Koreans do. You're going to have to do better than that.
Fact: the Roman army would volley flaming arrows in such a large quantity while sending the infantry in simultaneously in a storm through pre-planned timing when engaging the enemy (club and short sword wielding tribes) to show they had the ability to send an air attack quickly and follow-upon with a mighty frontal attack of hand-to-hand, weapon-to-weapon combat.
Shock and awe has been a strategy used since history and war have been cataloged.
Large companies are already adopting LCDs
on
LCD Overtaking CRT
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
CRTs take a large amount of real-estate when it comes to the desk in which an employee has to work. In the long term, a farm of CRT cubicals versus a farm of LCD cubicals will consume a much larger portion of energy costs (considered company overhead). Display costs alone are appropriated from a specific budget. However, rarely does a department ever worry about the higher cost of energy until the overhead budget continues to swell. This does indeed turn the heads of bean counters.
Cheap CRTs have the notoriety of having short "brightness" spans so much that a company would rather purchase a more expensive brand name just to ensure that the longevity of the display device will be sufficient.
The company I work for alone has begun the mass upgrade of computers throughout the building. So far, it's about a 8:2 ratio of LCDs to CRTs. Even so, the CRT purchases are for individuals who require 21" screens. The average LCD purchase is for a 17" screen.
The banks in the city I work in have begun adopting LCD screens over the small CRT monitors to reduce the amount of breaks necessary by tellers to relieve eye-stress, theoretically increasing productivity.
Hospitals (a big corporate customer base) have begun the mass adoption of LCD screens because they take much less space than their CRT counterparts and produce a much smaller amount of electrical interface when turned on or off.
These are just a few examples of how LCDs are more practical and efficient - spearheading the adoption of LCDs as the display of choice.
Re:Burned out pixels suck
on
LCD Overtaking CRT
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The performance and reliability of LCDs compared with CRTs is a big factor in bolstering revenue for the LCD market. Sure, LCD screens are more expensive - but the benefits of LCD screens over CRTs, in my opinion, are worth the additional money (savings in energy, ease of long-term viewing on the eyes, etc.)
Many manufacturers guarantee their LCDs from burned out pixels with a pixel defect policy. The policies will differ as to the amount of defect will warrant a free replacement, and you should check to see the duration of terms of the policy prior to making a decision.
In fact, Tom's Hardware Guide posted a recent article with regards to pixel displays. You can find the article here: http://www17.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/lcd _pixels-01.html
Ignorance is no excuse for criticism...
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm surprised that your post received "Insightful" and "Interesting" as its mod. I attempt to read as much as possible when it comes to opinions across the board with regards to a potentially dividing topic.
If we look at the strict "cause and effect" of the Gulf War, not the current conflict - we find that the UN resolution that ended the war in the first place explicitly stated that the loser (Iraq) had to succumb to the wishes of the winner (the United Nations). The wishes were pretty simple - I'll paraphrase for those who have forgotten:
"Dear Saddam, we, the clear winner, will discontinue kicking your ass, the clear loser, and accept your surrender if you abide by the following: completely disarm your weapons of 'mass destruction', withdraw completely and vow not to attack Kuwait again, and allow UN inspectors into your country without any stipulations to witness and categorize the complete disarmament of offensive weapons and munitions of your country. We will continue to examine your munitions manufacturing process to make sure you are in compliance with said terms."
This was the terms of the surrender. This was not forced upon Hussein. This was agreed upon by his government in order to end the conflict waged in his country. By choice, the Iraqi government chose this method to continue operating without being completely defeated and occupied by UN peacekeeper forces.
History lesson of the "democratic process of the UN" up until now:
During the beginning of the Clinton administration, our UN inspectors (comprised of a multitude of factions - including the United States) were being given the run around as to the locations of their scud missiles (banned) and their chemical agents they were so fond of using in the 80s versus the Iranians. This spurred a number of UN security council resolutions which said (paraphrase): "Dear Saddam, you are a bad boy for not being upfront with the locations of your armament. If you do not be upfront with the required resolution that ended the war, we will continue to the act of kicking your ass."
Shortly after, the Iraqi government revealed more locations of weapons. The UN inspectors seemed to be achieving success through the threat of the security council. We would continue to see the games of cloak and dagger throughout the disarmament process while the world looked on in hopes that the Iraqi government would live up to the agreement it pledged to uphold - the complete disarmament of offensive (hostile) armament.
During the latter part of the Clinton administration, we (the United States) had our men and women in uniform be fired upon while performing reconnoissance via military aircraft. This act of aggression was responded to, with the support of Congress (both democratic and republicans alike) with an order by William Jefferson Clinton to bomb the anti-aircraft sites of the Iraqi government. This was aligned with the wishes of the security council because UN inspectors did not need to die with a country that pledged to willingly disarm.
In 1998, the UN security council learned that the Iraqi government kicked out the inspectors and were told to immediately leave their sovereign terrority, completely forgetting that "all their b[ass]es belong to us." Our response? The world, including the United States, sat back and took the defiance of a dictator to reneg on its pledge.
It took a change of government in the United States and the will of the citizens of the United States to finally say enough is enough.
The democratic process of the UN? 17 complete resolutions - all of which said "disarm or else!" - were filed and agreed upon by the security council. The last resolution (the now infamous 1441) was simply restating the original resolution - disarm or else! The unanimous vote of the security council, now a complete joke or a replay of a childern's classic "Cry Wolf!", spoke once again to the Iraqi government.
Cisco provides outstanding quality networking and communications products for the IT sector of the enterprise. However, with the dot-bomb era of the computing industry, Cisco's shares have fallen drastically as a result of companies not actually needing to acquire Cisco equipment as much as they thought. The effect on Cisco? Over-stocked inventories required price-slashing to remain competitive. Their existing market segment is slow, sustained growth. The Linksys acquisition caters to a dynamic, expanding market.
The reason I say it's the Walmart way is because Walmart provides just about everything you can think of that is smaller than a car - some of the Walmarts where I live actually have the Walmart Appliance section. Walmart sells clothing, food, tools, etc.
Most individuals looking for high quality (cost) goods will not be purchasing their designer fashions at Walmart. Instead, they choose to go to Dillards, Parisians, Eddie Bauer, and other higher quality - smaller customer base distributors. Yet, when you look at it in the end - who makes the most money (by a huge margin)? You guessed it - Walmart.
The vast majority of consumers are middle-class to lower-class individuals. Many companies that have taken a huge beating in the market place are looking for cost cutting measures. 40 Linksys switches or 10 Cisco switches for the same cost? The "Linksys line by Cisco" would be like the "Great Value" Walmart brand. The Cisco native branded equipment, I would imagine, would be for the people who still want to shop at Eddie Bauer, etc.
Linksys is a highly popular choice for cable companies who provide their broadband service because it's extraordinarily cheap with a pretty decent track record. Cisco acquires not only Linksys, but its existing relationship with all of the companies who buy Linksys equipment in bulk. As a result, Cisco gains market share into an arena it previously untapped venture without having to invest the capital to pursue moving into an already crowded arena.
I would imagine the Linksys brand name would stay around for quite a while (much like the legacy of USRobotics when purchased by 3Com) to diversify the two segments of the company for marketing purposes.
The only caveat to this acquisition is the fact that it was a purchase of another company. Many companies which made acquisitions before the dot-bomb crash did not efficiently integrate the companies, and they ended up either being dead-weights or misused to the point of extinction. Only time will tell.
I'm interested to read about the terms of their severence packages. Many people who want the package must also sign a waiver to not sue or come against the company, its partners, or its interests.
I've been laid off before in the software sector only to find that the company began a new hiring spree a few months later - but the severence package was extremely generous all things considered.
In a cable service, you have channels that are eligible for and ineligible for when you pay a certain rate. This is the agreement that you have with your cable company. Obtaining more channels (or PPV features) without paying for them in illegal.
P2P is simply a concept - technology if you will - that allows machines to share files. No matter how you look at peer-to-peer transfers, I look at it in its basic parts: machines (peers) sending data to other machines (peers). P2P's concept has existed since we were able to transfer a file from one system to another. P2P's preferred modern implementations make it extraordinarily easy to transfer data - OF ANY TYPE - without having to use the old methods (of which I'll name a few):
1) "sneaker-net", in which case one person would place data on a tape, disk, or other medium to be transferred to another machine.
2) a computer (peer) connecting via sounds-signals to another computer (peer) via modem (or other like devices).
3) a computer (peer) connecting to a web server (peer) via TCP/IP.
The third example brings up a unique point since modern P2P clients generally transmit their data based off HTTP transactions - each client that runs such a client are acting as HTTP servers and HTTP clients.
RIAA is targetting the concept of P2P - the concept which they themselves use to hand out press releases and data to their customer base via http://www.riaa.org.
In the cable example, there are no legitimate (legal) reasons for obtaining channels outside the scope of your contract plan. As we have known since HTML was invented and widely deployed, there are plenty of fully LEGAL and GOOD reasons to have P2P - it's the basic function of the Internet. One peer connected to many different peers transmitting data (irregardless of content). Making P2P illegal is stupid. Punishing companies would provide a technologically innovative application to consumers is also just as stupid.
Let's view a parallel example:
Four people use a 1996 Chevy Impala SS as a fast getaway car that cost a bank a tens of thousands of dollars and injured a couple members of society. If it were up to the RIAA, not only would the perpetrators be locked up, but General Motors would have an injunction placed against them by a ruling judge for providing a vehicle to carry out illegal activites (referencing Napster). This abuse of the judicial system is sickening. It's also disappointing that the people we elect are not properly versed in the differentiate between technology and abuse of available technologies.
There is no computer that inherently attempts to commit illegal acts. Just like a 1996 Chevy Impala SS does not in itself attempt to commit an illegal act. I will even go so far as to say that the Napster, Gnutella clients, Kazaa!, and *Donkey P2P applications also themselves do not inherently commit illegal acts. The problem exists between the chair and the keyboard - if people choose to be dishonest and misuse a product in a which for which it was not intended, the liability is upon them. This applies to the people who wish to obtain cable service above and beyond the scope of their contract.
Never forget that proprietary, commercial UNIX solutions are also vulnerable to kernel-level bugs and exploits. I used to work for a university that deployed Linux and Solaris solutions - the patch sets for Solaris (kernel and userland utilities) were just as necessary as the Linux server installations.
The beauty of the Linux and open-source worlds is that the code is available right before your very eyes and is subject to scrutiny, day-in and day-out. Commercial offerings are not available to the general public, potentially leaving behind bugs that wouldn't be caught by the few who _could_ see the code. Code that is viewed by literally thousands of all programming backgrounds, versus code that is viewed by a select few which only specialize in that code, is more likely to be exploit-free.
This particular Linux kernel exploit was encountered by developers that recognized the flaw. And, luckily for us, the developers were talented enough (or knew someone in the core development group) that could quickly produce a patch so that administrators could secure their servers from being taken advantage from.
If the exploit was encountered in the commercial arena, the person who found the flaw would have to contact the company who supports the operating system. An assessment team would have to see the cause/effect/consequences of the exploit. Then, the development group would have to produce a patch. The company would then contact their support group to contact their enterprise customers first (more than likely) to deploy the patch. Finally, with the company's core customer interests intact, the company would publish their findings and solution for the remainder of the world. Many Microsoft patches are first released to their core enterprise companies - and then released via Windows Update (or through their web site).
For universities that have made the switch, there should be more peace of mind knowing that the quantity of security breaches on the kernel level are much less than the overwhelming number of Windows flaws (which generally require a reboot) and at a much cheaper price than a commercial UNIX offering.
FireWire was an excellent idea for fast access to portable devices. Unfortunately, the technology came at a price most manufacturers do not want to actually pay. USB 1.x became so popular because most portable devices tend to be simple (hubs, HID, etc.) without being levied a cost to implement the technology.
Here is an excerpt from MacNN (Mac News Network) talking about the benefits of USB 2.0 over FireWire -
Also in USB 2.0's favor is its free licensing. Apple initially charged as much as $1 per port for devices using its proprietary FireWire technology. While that price has since dropped to 25 cents per device regardless of ports, which is paid to a consortium of developers, companies wishing to use USB 2.0 technology will be free of having to pay any royalties. Their devices will, however, be forced to pass a series of independent tests to obtain USB 2.0 certification.
The full article can be read here. Apple's retraction of the $1 per port licensing fee came a bit late in the game, evidenced largely but the overwhelming backing of USB 1.x in portable devices versus the limited selection of FireWire devices.
The constant linear velocities (CLV) of CDs and DVDs are different - very different. DVD discs in themselves are also designed differently. DVDs can be configured as follows (taking account only one side of the disc): single layer or dual layer.
The normal 1X speed CLV CD-ROM spins a CD at about 495rpm.
The normal 1X speed CLV DVD-ROM spins a single layer DVD at about 550rpm to 700rpm. A dual layer DVD is spun at 1100rpm to 1400rpm - effectively double.
So even at the very basic speeds of CDs and DVDs, DVDs require more power simply by having to spin the disc a bit faster than a CD.
The thing that makes MP3 support so simple is the fact there are manufacturers will have chips that can decode MP3 streams for very little cost. These chips (available from Philips, Texas Instruments, and other big-name chip manufacturers) also feature an on-chip USB controller. Functionally rich - low profile - low power usage - low implementation costs. The current array of MP3 players probably share more guts than one would think.
The system-on-a-chip design eliminates the need to bundle a more expensive embedded CPU and support a software decoder via firmware. While this is indeed a better option in the long run (due to flexibility and upgrades), it could mean the difference of $1.50 per chip versus $12.00 per CPU/flash combination. Sell 10,000 units and you can see where the savings appears. Of course, take into consideration the elimination of having to implement decoding a stream using multiple chips and interfaces, the savings are exponential. Companies are about the bottom dollar - minimum cost, maximum profit.
The fact that MP3 has been so popular over the years (the first foot in the door, so to speak), it only makes sense to cater to the 95+% of those people out there that still have collections made of solely MP3s. A smart company would take into consideration emerging technologies, but nonetheless still focus on the popular demand - the one to make the most profit.
If you visit Xiph's OGG Vorbis hardware support page you can help get the word out that you want OGG support. I can only assume that with the release of Tremor and Xiph's pledge to give free engineer to time to companies that a company would be foolish not to take advantage of free development. If you take the Slashdot Effect into consideration, eventually the emails and phone calls for OGG support in future devices will be heard, quickening the availability of such devices.
Red Hat has been pushing their Red Hat Network as a conduit to provide upgrades and fixes to their distributions through an easy to use utility. You can access your system profile on the web - anywhere in the world and schedule installations and upgrades to any of the computers that are subscribed to the Red Hat Network.
Red Hat Network was developed with the philosophy in mind to manage a large installation of Red Hat Linux based machines. You can group your machines so that one group gets the KDE packages and the other group gets the Gnome packages. If you have 500 Linux boxes at your site, the Red Hat Network is really a useful tool for network administrators. It is quite a shame that their up2date tool is still "basic" compared to the advanced interface that the web-based front-end to the Red Hat Network provides. If it were more advanced, I would think that more people would be exposed to the many options that are provided by the Red Hat Network.
All editions includes one free subscription to the Red Hat Network, while the packaged editions include timed subscriptions to their basic and enterprise subscription packages. For home use, it's a good method of keeping "up2date" with the latest security fixes and feature upgrades. It would also be nice if Red Hat took the plunge and allowed everyone (including the free edition ISOs) to get their top-notch enterprise subscription for a limited time (perhaps 2 weeks). It's really hard to conceive the features by simply reading a feature list.
Be mindful - often, Red Hat releases packages that are not considered the latest and greatest only by version number of the package. Red Hat incorporates their own internal team of software engineers to patch the source and taylor the package to their distribution. Thus, sometimes, you may be "up2date" as far as the Red Hat Network is concerned, but behind the times as far as the latest and greatest vanilla source release from the original authors/contributors. The packages released by Red Hat are verified and supported (via their technical support and bugzilla) for use with their distribution.
This is really an incorrect philosophy - one that is evident in the argument that Linux is not the distribution but the kernel that is common to all Linux-based distributions. Even the modern, stable kernel of Linux runs on a 386 processor, some slow RISC processors, and a handful of other legacy chips that have pretty much long left our desktops. The kernel falls in line with these goals.
When developing for small platform devices (hand helds, tablets, etc.) one does not think "how do I fit Gnome or KDE on this little thing". On the contrary - it poses a problem that the open source community is ready to tackle. FLTK (fast lightweight tool-kit), among many others, was developed to bring graphics to small hand held devices. The spirit of "Linux", or rather the open source community and all of the software which it provides, lives on - on the hardware of old, hardware of new, and hardware of the extremely small.
The distributions which use Linux as the kernel are made up of all kinds of utilities and applications. All of which are considered modern and targetted for modern times. To be nostalgic and develop all software to run "antique" hardware is not intuitive - why not take advantage of what our computers have to offer? Do we not enjoy vehicles with anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, a quiet cabin, engines which start almost flawlessly, and all sorts of other amenities that we take for granted?
Software, as well as the hardware upon which it is run, is constantly changing - adapting to the needs of the people who use the computers and as well as the computers themselves. I find it ironic that over the years that Linux-based distributions have increasingly become more popular, more advanced, and more feature-rich the groaning has switched from "Linux doesn't have enough stuff or it isn't stable like my Windows box" to "Linux is so bloated it doesn't run on my four year old machine." Another old argument was "Linux is too hard to understand and configure" - now the argument has switched to "they hide too much of the specifics". Distributions were developed so that the users of those distributions had a convenient and consistent environment to take advantage of the latest and greatest software offerings. Of course the interfaces change over time but developing utilities to replace legacy applications within a distribution maintains a level of consistency to help, not restrict, the end-user.
Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, et al. are all attempting to take advantage of the modern offerings that our technologically elite provide us in terms of hardware and software concepts. To do so would be living in a era of restriction - preventing Linux-based distributions from forging ahead to utilize the technologies that only Microsoft could provide for (in the past).
Face the facts - most people want an easy to use operating system. Consistency is nice! Fancy features are nice! A good looking interface is nice! A faster, more responsive system is nice! It's frustrating to see people ready to tear down an honest effort of an organized entity to provide features requested by their paying customers and the comments of the open source community as a whole.
It's very confusing when the mob asks for "consistency and features like Windows" and then immediately gripes when the consistency and features are added into the distribution. Nonetheless - you have a choice. Use Red Hat's, Mandrake's, SuSE's, Debian's, or the other's offerings. Build a Linux distribution from scratch and add your home-grown, home-built installation of KDE. When a company attempts to differentiate its product to better suit its customers (paying and the open source community), be constructive in your criticism and inform the developers of your suggestions rather than finding a forum to gripe because a piece of 2002 software will not run on your 1996 hardware platform.
The nice thing about emerging technologies is that it tends to lower the cost (and eventually the consumer price) of "legacy" devices already deployed. I'd much rather have a 21" flat panel for the price of a 15" flat panel. Even better, it will allow standard 2D flat panel screens to retire CRT-based monitors as the mainstream display device.
Since Red Hat Linux 6.2 - 7.3 are up2date Red Hat Linux releases, support will more than likely continue for security releases through the up2date conduit. Reason I think this will be the case is because subscribers to the Red Hat Network are paying for the support it provides to keep even their legacy machines "up2date".
Linux just gets better - just as Windows had to
on
Red Hat 8.0 Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Linux-based distributions have been under constant development ever since Linux became a popular operating system to actually run and support (hardware and software). To completely discredit the offerings of Linux as an everyday operating system is only fair if you exclude the fact that all other operating systems have all been in a state of flux to develop an easy to install and use approach for the common user.
Windows has had many years to garner the market share and see trends in development to adequately support their users. With this comes innovations such as the driver management system, streamlined interface, overall stability, self-maintaining (semi), and a united Win32 SDK. Through these innovations comes revenue - with revenue comes research and development.
These features are taken for granted considering they are relatively "recent" or modern innovations, even in the Windows world. The rock solid reputation Windows has is as a result of many releases - much feedback (largely from the corporate space). The driver model used in the NT-based Windows releases was pretty good in Windows 2000, but is considered even better in Windows XP because it comes with so many drivers pre-installed. No one would have ventured to make the claim with regards to stability and flexibility with Windows NT 4 and, God forbid, Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.x. Apple touted its MacOS as a vastly superior model to Windows - Microsoft simply learned to put the "good stuff" ("lessons learned" from other operating system offerings) in with its own product and, voila!, we have stable (for the most part), easy to install and use, and widely support Windows releases. Microsoft may not be saintly in its operations - but in a business sense, it is extremely smart to give people something to suckle on - easy to take and get used to. Believe it or not, it is what the majority of bipeds want.
Software innovations come about from much trial and error. Linux is breaking out of the stages of its infancy - catering only to those willing to take the dare and challenge of migrating from a Windows world to a UNIX world. But times are changing, and Linux is changing with it. People who can describe the average Linux distribution in 1995 will tell you that hardware support was hit or miss - and if it was a hit, it often only was a partial (never a bulls-eye).
Personally, I feel that Linux has made HUGE strides towards that perfect operating system for any niche. If you consider how long it took Microsoft's Windows line to fully mature - Linux is ahead of the game. Businesses will just need more time to listen to feedback and implement those features that people can suckle on - and using Microsoft and Apple as references with regards to their own products is a great start - they obviously figured something out to appease the masses.
Members of the open source community (users, developers, and companies) need to pay close attention to the desires of the community as a whole. Many of the projects that make up Linux (and other open source operating system offerings) have the ability to receive feedback to make the project better. Griping is one thing - channelling the gripe to the write email address is better for the whole. The applications that make up Linux thrive on contributions (ideas, source code, and comments [good/bad]). The more feedback - the better the product.
The capabilities in Linux are there - the opportunities for Linux just need to be taken advantage of - users, developers, and companies alike.
It is a matter of personal preference. Like you, I prefer to use the panel to launch my frequently used applications - but still use the desktop for convenient launching of help applications (dragging "shortcuts" to the help application's icon). However, panels did not always exist, and the traditional setup of desktop icons was used to launch applications. Microsoft clued in on this handy feature with their Quick Launch bar (with Active Desktop). Other operating systems have been offering it already as a handy-dandy feature. For most people it makes the transition from one operating system to another easier - consistency is often a desirable trait.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
The ISOs released to RHN subscribers (all five of them) would be 3 discs (binaries) and 2 discs (source code). As such, they would be in full compliance with the GPL (more so than other distribution companies).
Think of it this way - it's a bonus incentive for people who pay to get the distribution ahead of time. That's it. No if's, and's or but's. I am positive Red Hat realizes that their 9.0 distributions ISOs will be mirrored elsewhere during that week waiting period.
However, their official stance would more likely be: if it isn't an official Red Hat Linux mirror - you won't know if you're getting the good stuff.
Let's not leave out the following phrase from the link you posted:
At certain times, Red Hat may extend errata maintenance for certain popular releases of the operating system.
Translation: If you are willing to pay for the support, we're willing to support you.
There is nothing wrong for a company to essentially say - look, we're focusing on maintaining the best code that's available rather than spending much of our time back-porting fixes to old applications.
What this means for most people who use Red Hat Linux (the free-download version), is that to stay with the game, you'll need to upgrade at least once per year.
Not a bad deal considering what all you get...
You bring up an excellent point - and you're along the right track. If we examine the features of Red Hat Linux 8.0.9x (Phoebe beta), we notice that several things have been added to the OS that will set it apart from previous releases. You can find the changes (so far) to Red Hat Linux 9.0 in the release notes of Phoebe:
o s/ i386/RELEASE-NOTES
g i? id=86498o w_bug.cgi? id=86465o w_bug.cgi? id=86449
http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/beta/phoebe/en/
I think the two major updates that will definitely warrant a few "major" number upgrade will be the following:
1) glibc update from the 2.2 development branch to the 2.3 branch; the major feature would be the addition of the NPTL (Native POSIX Thread Library).
The release notes cite that legacy (LinuxThreads) applications will work with NPTL if and only if they conform to the POSIX standard.
2) The new and improved XFree86 4.3 (usability, eye-candy, performance, drivers, et al.).
3) Extended attributes (EA) and access control lists (ACL) finally come to Red Hat's distribution - giving per-file control par with NT and other OSes that have already had EA and ACL.
4) The inclusion of Gnome 2.2 fine tunes Gnome 2.0 to a better degree.
So far, the glibc update (which seems to branch off the glibc that is shipping with Red Hat Linux 9.0) that was given to Red Hat Linux 8.0 users seems to be wreaking havoc with regards to threads implementations; a few examples:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/sh
It should be noted that Red Hat has been extraordinarly adept with the inclusion of compatibility packages to allow legacy applications to continue working with their newest offering.
*sheesh*
I think common sense would have dictated that we were talking about PCs. But, if that wasn't clear 'nuff for you...
The 80386 processor introduced more than just 32-bit register addressing. It was also the first processor to support the protected mode interface to the processor and not to mention the ability to "virtualize" memory by paging to another medium. Windows 3.0 took advantage of the new features of the processor while still being a 16-bit operating system.
Nonetheless, I think the basics of 64-bit computing are solid for the server arena, but when you examine the Opteron processor (and the x86-64 architecture), AMD offers alot of simple performance benefits by simply assisting problems associated with register starvation (the more the merrier, right?) When you take this into consideration, any application that works with large chunks of data (be it 32-bit for Opteron's legacy mode, or native 64-bit) - it results in faster processing time. Compiling the Linux kernel should be faster with all those handy dandy general purpose registers that come with the Opteron.
I believe Intel understands what it is talking about, however - Intel has done an extraordinary job in predicting the market and following demand. However, in the case, I think Intel is purposefully leaving out the x86-64 implementation in their consideration. Early Itanium benchmarks (even the Itanium 2) show that the processor isn't up to snuff in most instances, and to compensate, Intel simply throws 2M (or even more) worth of cache to help the little guy out.
AMD, on the other hand, is not waiting for a certain time to flip the big switch for the consumers. By incorporating native support for all legacy 32-bit application code in the processor, mainstream consumers will be adopting 64-bit computing without necessarily utilizing it for what it was intended for, BUT they will enjoying the architectural benefits as a result.
It's not from the basis of Gladiator. It's pretty nice to see that you only reflect upon the Roman legion - which made up a segment of the Roman army - and not as a whole. I do not consider the Roman army an ancient one; their technological advances thrust them to top as the world super power.
Fact: the general with the most wealth (acquired through various means) had the ability to better equip their soldiers to acquire more wealth. For the armies that did not have much wealth (i.e. from the conquered lands to the north and west) - they did not have the fancy full bodied shields or the best long swords. Improvisation has been a feature of humanity since we could not share the shovel in the same sandbox. Archers were a commodity to most regiments serving Roman generals.
Flaming arrows were becoming a popular apparatus prior to the Roman Empire splitting up. To say they were not used - sounds a bit foolish to me. Where did they acquire the nack for such a strategy? The impending raids from the far east (i.e. the Mongols - which were quite fond of the flexible uses of arrows in military combat).
Applying fire to weaponry was not something invented in the post-Roman era. You should study about the origins of the Mongols (not Persian of the latter era - but the Chinese Mongols) and their love for distance warfare. With every acquisition of a new land, the Romans learned and acquired new methods of warfare, both offensive and defensive strategies.
Ah, but to each his own interpretation of history - but to categorize me as "everything I needed to learn, I learned from television" is a bit presumptuous. I watched Ben Hur, too, and had nothing to do with college studies, so maybe that's where I got my ideas from... *g*
1) We don't know. And we can't expect the military to reveal their knowledge of such weapons. I know this: in the arena of warfare, you first expend your general purpose arsenal in hopes of warding off the enemy. As a last ditch effort, you begin using the "hail-mary" tactic where you have to expend something of limited quantity to save the game.
It's not to say that they have missiles outfitted with chemical and/or biological warheads. It's to say that have the chemical and/or biological agents to outfit missiles to deliver said agents to a target.
The missiles that Iraq began to destroy two weeks ago were missiles that were built to deliver chemical and/or biological agents (weapons of mass destruction). They were, of course, empty - but why would a country develop and build missiles (even though they were forbidden to do so) without having the chemical or biological agents to fill them up?
2) Scud missiles are considered to be weapons of aggression that can potentially cause massive casualties (a.k.a. a weapon of mass destruction). Scud missiles were banned as a part of the resolution that ended the Gulf War - in years following, Iraq stated they had no Scud missiles; they were completely disarmed.
Trying to make a relationship between "shock and awe" (the US strategy) and "blitzkrieg" (the Nazi strategy) is to say that we take a crap on a porcelain throne just like the North Koreans do. You're going to have to do better than that.
Fact: the Roman army would volley flaming arrows in such a large quantity while sending the infantry in simultaneously in a storm through pre-planned timing when engaging the enemy (club and short sword wielding tribes) to show they had the ability to send an air attack quickly and follow-upon with a mighty frontal attack of hand-to-hand, weapon-to-weapon combat.
Shock and awe has been a strategy used since history and war have been cataloged.
CRTs take a large amount of real-estate when it comes to the desk in which an employee has to work. In the long term, a farm of CRT cubicals versus a farm of LCD cubicals will consume a much larger portion of energy costs (considered company overhead). Display costs alone are appropriated from a specific budget. However, rarely does a department ever worry about the higher cost of energy until the overhead budget continues to swell. This does indeed turn the heads of bean counters.
Cheap CRTs have the notoriety of having short "brightness" spans so much that a company would rather purchase a more expensive brand name just to ensure that the longevity of the display device will be sufficient.
The company I work for alone has begun the mass upgrade of computers throughout the building. So far, it's about a 8:2 ratio of LCDs to CRTs. Even so, the CRT purchases are for individuals who require 21" screens. The average LCD purchase is for a 17" screen.
The banks in the city I work in have begun adopting LCD screens over the small CRT monitors to reduce the amount of breaks necessary by tellers to relieve eye-stress, theoretically increasing productivity.
Hospitals (a big corporate customer base) have begun the mass adoption of LCD screens because they take much less space than their CRT counterparts and produce a much smaller amount of electrical interface when turned on or off.
These are just a few examples of how LCDs are more practical and efficient - spearheading the adoption of LCDs as the display of choice.
The performance and reliability of LCDs compared with CRTs is a big factor in bolstering revenue for the LCD market. Sure, LCD screens are more expensive - but the benefits of LCD screens over CRTs, in my opinion, are worth the additional money (savings in energy, ease of long-term viewing on the eyes, etc.)
d _pixels-01.html
Many manufacturers guarantee their LCDs from burned out pixels with a pixel defect policy. The policies will differ as to the amount of defect will warrant a free replacement, and you should check to see the duration of terms of the policy prior to making a decision.
In fact, Tom's Hardware Guide posted a recent article with regards to pixel displays. You can find the article here: http://www17.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/lc
I'm surprised that your post received "Insightful" and "Interesting" as its mod. I attempt to read as much as possible when it comes to opinions across the board with regards to a potentially dividing topic.
If we look at the strict "cause and effect" of the Gulf War, not the current conflict - we find that the UN resolution that ended the war in the first place explicitly stated that the loser (Iraq) had to succumb to the wishes of the winner (the United Nations). The wishes were pretty simple - I'll paraphrase for those who have forgotten:
"Dear Saddam, we, the clear winner, will discontinue kicking your ass, the clear loser, and accept your surrender if you abide by the following: completely disarm your weapons of 'mass destruction', withdraw completely and vow not to attack Kuwait again, and allow UN inspectors into your country without any stipulations to witness and categorize the complete disarmament of offensive weapons and munitions of your country. We will continue to examine your munitions manufacturing process to make sure you are in compliance with said terms."
This was the terms of the surrender. This was not forced upon Hussein. This was agreed upon by his government in order to end the conflict waged in his country. By choice, the Iraqi government chose this method to continue operating without being completely defeated and occupied by UN peacekeeper forces.
History lesson of the "democratic process of the UN" up until now:
During the beginning of the Clinton administration, our UN inspectors (comprised of a multitude of factions - including the United States) were being given the run around as to the locations of their scud missiles (banned) and their chemical agents they were so fond of using in the 80s versus the Iranians. This spurred a number of UN security council resolutions which said (paraphrase): "Dear Saddam, you are a bad boy for not being upfront with the locations of your armament. If you do not be upfront with the required resolution that ended the war, we will continue to the act of kicking your ass."
Shortly after, the Iraqi government revealed more locations of weapons. The UN inspectors seemed to be achieving success through the threat of the security council. We would continue to see the games of cloak and dagger throughout the disarmament process while the world looked on in hopes that the Iraqi government would live up to the agreement it pledged to uphold - the complete disarmament of offensive (hostile) armament.
During the latter part of the Clinton administration, we (the United States) had our men and women in uniform be fired upon while performing reconnoissance via military aircraft. This act of aggression was responded to, with the support of Congress (both democratic and republicans alike) with an order by William Jefferson Clinton to bomb the anti-aircraft sites of the Iraqi government. This was aligned with the wishes of the security council because UN inspectors did not need to die with a country that pledged to willingly disarm.
In 1998, the UN security council learned that the Iraqi government kicked out the inspectors and were told to immediately leave their sovereign terrority, completely forgetting that "all their b[ass]es belong to us." Our response? The world, including the United States, sat back and took the defiance of a dictator to reneg on its pledge.
It took a change of government in the United States and the will of the citizens of the United States to finally say enough is enough.
The democratic process of the UN? 17 complete resolutions - all of which said "disarm or else!" - were filed and agreed upon by the security council. The last resolution (the now infamous 1441) was simply restating the original resolution - disarm or else! The unanimous vote of the security council, now a complete joke or a replay of a childern's classic "Cry Wolf!", spoke once again to the Iraqi government.
The change? It had been more than
Cisco provides outstanding quality networking and communications products for the IT sector of the enterprise. However, with the dot-bomb era of the computing industry, Cisco's shares have fallen drastically as a result of companies not actually needing to acquire Cisco equipment as much as they thought. The effect on Cisco? Over-stocked inventories required price-slashing to remain competitive. Their existing market segment is slow, sustained growth. The Linksys acquisition caters to a dynamic, expanding market.
The reason I say it's the Walmart way is because Walmart provides just about everything you can think of that is smaller than a car - some of the Walmarts where I live actually have the Walmart Appliance section. Walmart sells clothing, food, tools, etc.
Most individuals looking for high quality (cost) goods will not be purchasing their designer fashions at Walmart. Instead, they choose to go to Dillards, Parisians, Eddie Bauer, and other higher quality - smaller customer base distributors. Yet, when you look at it in the end - who makes the most money (by a huge margin)? You guessed it - Walmart.
The vast majority of consumers are middle-class to lower-class individuals. Many companies that have taken a huge beating in the market place are looking for cost cutting measures. 40 Linksys switches or 10 Cisco switches for the same cost? The "Linksys line by Cisco" would be like the "Great Value" Walmart brand. The Cisco native branded equipment, I would imagine, would be for the people who still want to shop at Eddie Bauer, etc.
Linksys is a highly popular choice for cable companies who provide their broadband service because it's extraordinarily cheap with a pretty decent track record. Cisco acquires not only Linksys, but its existing relationship with all of the companies who buy Linksys equipment in bulk. As a result, Cisco gains market share into an arena it previously untapped venture without having to invest the capital to pursue moving into an already crowded arena.
I would imagine the Linksys brand name would stay around for quite a while (much like the legacy of USRobotics when purchased by 3Com) to diversify the two segments of the company for marketing purposes.
The only caveat to this acquisition is the fact that it was a purchase of another company. Many companies which made acquisitions before the dot-bomb crash did not efficiently integrate the companies, and they ended up either being dead-weights or misused to the point of extinction. Only time will tell.
I'm interested to read about the terms of their severence packages. Many people who want the package must also sign a waiver to not sue or come against the company, its partners, or its interests.
I've been laid off before in the software sector only to find that the company began a new hiring spree a few months later - but the severence package was extremely generous all things considered.
*shrug*
P2P != copying music
In a cable service, you have channels that are eligible for and ineligible for when you pay a certain rate. This is the agreement that you have with your cable company. Obtaining more channels (or PPV features) without paying for them in illegal.
P2P is simply a concept - technology if you will - that allows machines to share files. No matter how you look at peer-to-peer transfers, I look at it in its basic parts: machines (peers) sending data to other machines (peers). P2P's concept has existed since we were able to transfer a file from one system to another. P2P's preferred modern implementations make it extraordinarily easy to transfer data - OF ANY TYPE - without having to use the old methods (of which I'll name a few):
1) "sneaker-net", in which case one person would place data on a tape, disk, or other medium to be transferred to another machine.
2) a computer (peer) connecting via sounds-signals to another computer (peer) via modem (or other like devices).
3) a computer (peer) connecting to a web server (peer) via TCP/IP.
The third example brings up a unique point since modern P2P clients generally transmit their data based off HTTP transactions - each client that runs such a client are acting as HTTP servers and HTTP clients.
RIAA is targetting the concept of P2P - the concept which they themselves use to hand out press releases and data to their customer base via http://www.riaa.org.
In the cable example, there are no legitimate (legal) reasons for obtaining channels outside the scope of your contract plan. As we have known since HTML was invented and widely deployed, there are plenty of fully LEGAL and GOOD reasons to have P2P - it's the basic function of the Internet. One peer connected to many different peers transmitting data (irregardless of content). Making P2P illegal is stupid. Punishing companies would provide a technologically innovative application to consumers is also just as stupid.
Let's view a parallel example:
Four people use a 1996 Chevy Impala SS as a fast getaway car that cost a bank a tens of thousands of dollars and injured a couple members of society. If it were up to the RIAA, not only would the perpetrators be locked up, but General Motors would have an injunction placed against them by a ruling judge for providing a vehicle to carry out illegal activites (referencing Napster). This abuse of the judicial system is sickening. It's also disappointing that the people we elect are not properly versed in the differentiate between technology and abuse of available technologies.
There is no computer that inherently attempts to commit illegal acts. Just like a 1996 Chevy Impala SS does not in itself attempt to commit an illegal act. I will even go so far as to say that the Napster, Gnutella clients, Kazaa!, and *Donkey P2P applications also themselves do not inherently commit illegal acts. The problem exists between the chair and the keyboard - if people choose to be dishonest and misuse a product in a which for which it was not intended, the liability is upon them. This applies to the people who wish to obtain cable service above and beyond the scope of their contract.
Never forget that proprietary, commercial UNIX solutions are also vulnerable to kernel-level bugs and exploits. I used to work for a university that deployed Linux and Solaris solutions - the patch sets for Solaris (kernel and userland utilities) were just as necessary as the Linux server installations.
The beauty of the Linux and open-source worlds is that the code is available right before your very eyes and is subject to scrutiny, day-in and day-out. Commercial offerings are not available to the general public, potentially leaving behind bugs that wouldn't be caught by the few who _could_ see the code. Code that is viewed by literally thousands of all programming backgrounds, versus code that is viewed by a select few which only specialize in that code, is more likely to be exploit-free.
This particular Linux kernel exploit was encountered by developers that recognized the flaw. And, luckily for us, the developers were talented enough (or knew someone in the core development group) that could quickly produce a patch so that administrators could secure their servers from being taken advantage from.
If the exploit was encountered in the commercial arena, the person who found the flaw would have to contact the company who supports the operating system. An assessment team would have to see the cause/effect/consequences of the exploit. Then, the development group would have to produce a patch. The company would then contact their support group to contact their enterprise customers first (more than likely) to deploy the patch. Finally, with the company's core customer interests intact, the company would publish their findings and solution for the remainder of the world. Many Microsoft patches are first released to their core enterprise companies - and then released via Windows Update (or through their web site).
For universities that have made the switch, there should be more peace of mind knowing that the quantity of security breaches on the kernel level are much less than the overwhelming number of Windows flaws (which generally require a reboot) and at a much cheaper price than a commercial UNIX offering.
Here is an excerpt from MacNN (Mac News Network) talking about the benefits of USB 2.0 over FireWire -
The full article can be read here. Apple's retraction of the $1 per port licensing fee came a bit late in the game, evidenced largely but the overwhelming backing of USB 1.x in portable devices versus the limited selection of FireWire devices.
The constant linear velocities (CLV) of CDs and DVDs are different - very different. DVD discs in themselves are also designed differently. DVDs can be configured as follows (taking account only one side of the disc): single layer or dual layer.
The normal 1X speed CLV CD-ROM spins a CD at about 495rpm.
The normal 1X speed CLV DVD-ROM spins a single layer DVD at about 550rpm to 700rpm. A dual layer DVD is spun at 1100rpm to 1400rpm - effectively double.
So even at the very basic speeds of CDs and DVDs, DVDs require more power simply by having to spin the disc a bit faster than a CD.
The thing that makes MP3 support so simple is the fact there are manufacturers will have chips that can decode MP3 streams for very little cost. These chips (available from Philips, Texas Instruments, and other big-name chip manufacturers) also feature an on-chip USB controller. Functionally rich - low profile - low power usage - low implementation costs. The current array of MP3 players probably share more guts than one would think.
The system-on-a-chip design eliminates the need to bundle a more expensive embedded CPU and support a software decoder via firmware. While this is indeed a better option in the long run (due to flexibility and upgrades), it could mean the difference of $1.50 per chip versus $12.00 per CPU/flash combination. Sell 10,000 units and you can see where the savings appears. Of course, take into consideration the elimination of having to implement decoding a stream using multiple chips and interfaces, the savings are exponential. Companies are about the bottom dollar - minimum cost, maximum profit.
The fact that MP3 has been so popular over the years (the first foot in the door, so to speak), it only makes sense to cater to the 95+% of those people out there that still have collections made of solely MP3s. A smart company would take into consideration emerging technologies, but nonetheless still focus on the popular demand - the one to make the most profit.
If you visit Xiph's OGG Vorbis hardware support page you can help get the word out that you want OGG support. I can only assume that with the release of Tremor and Xiph's pledge to give free engineer to time to companies that a company would be foolish not to take advantage of free development. If you take the Slashdot Effect into consideration, eventually the emails and phone calls for OGG support in future devices will be heard, quickening the availability of such devices.
Red Hat has been pushing their Red Hat Network as a conduit to provide upgrades and fixes to their distributions through an easy to use utility. You can access your system profile on the web - anywhere in the world and schedule installations and upgrades to any of the computers that are subscribed to the Red Hat Network.
Red Hat Network was developed with the philosophy in mind to manage a large installation of Red Hat Linux based machines. You can group your machines so that one group gets the KDE packages and the other group gets the Gnome packages. If you have 500 Linux boxes at your site, the Red Hat Network is really a useful tool for network administrators. It is quite a shame that their up2date tool is still "basic" compared to the advanced interface that the web-based front-end to the Red Hat Network provides. If it were more advanced, I would think that more people would be exposed to the many options that are provided by the Red Hat Network.
All editions includes one free subscription to the Red Hat Network, while the packaged editions include timed subscriptions to their basic and enterprise subscription packages. For home use, it's a good method of keeping "up2date" with the latest security fixes and feature upgrades. It would also be nice if Red Hat took the plunge and allowed everyone (including the free edition ISOs) to get their top-notch enterprise subscription for a limited time (perhaps 2 weeks). It's really hard to conceive the features by simply reading a feature list.
Be mindful - often, Red Hat releases packages that are not considered the latest and greatest only by version number of the package. Red Hat incorporates their own internal team of software engineers to patch the source and taylor the package to their distribution. Thus, sometimes, you may be "up2date" as far as the Red Hat Network is concerned, but behind the times as far as the latest and greatest vanilla source release from the original authors/contributors. The packages released by Red Hat are verified and supported (via their technical support and bugzilla) for use with their distribution.
This is really an incorrect philosophy - one that is evident in the argument that Linux is not the distribution but the kernel that is common to all Linux-based distributions. Even the modern, stable kernel of Linux runs on a 386 processor, some slow RISC processors, and a handful of other legacy chips that have pretty much long left our desktops. The kernel falls in line with these goals.
When developing for small platform devices (hand helds, tablets, etc.) one does not think "how do I fit Gnome or KDE on this little thing". On the contrary - it poses a problem that the open source community is ready to tackle. FLTK (fast lightweight tool-kit), among many others, was developed to bring graphics to small hand held devices. The spirit of "Linux", or rather the open source community and all of the software which it provides, lives on - on the hardware of old, hardware of new, and hardware of the extremely small.
The distributions which use Linux as the kernel are made up of all kinds of utilities and applications. All of which are considered modern and targetted for modern times. To be nostalgic and develop all software to run "antique" hardware is not intuitive - why not take advantage of what our computers have to offer? Do we not enjoy vehicles with anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, a quiet cabin, engines which start almost flawlessly, and all sorts of other amenities that we take for granted?
Software, as well as the hardware upon which it is run, is constantly changing - adapting to the needs of the people who use the computers and as well as the computers themselves. I find it ironic that over the years that Linux-based distributions have increasingly become more popular, more advanced, and more feature-rich the groaning has switched from "Linux doesn't have enough stuff or it isn't stable like my Windows box" to "Linux is so bloated it doesn't run on my four year old machine." Another old argument was "Linux is too hard to understand and configure" - now the argument has switched to "they hide too much of the specifics". Distributions were developed so that the users of those distributions had a convenient and consistent environment to take advantage of the latest and greatest software offerings. Of course the interfaces change over time but developing utilities to replace legacy applications within a distribution maintains a level of consistency to help, not restrict, the end-user.
Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, et al. are all attempting to take advantage of the modern offerings that our technologically elite provide us in terms of hardware and software concepts. To do so would be living in a era of restriction - preventing Linux-based distributions from forging ahead to utilize the technologies that only Microsoft could provide for (in the past).
Face the facts - most people want an easy to use operating system. Consistency is nice! Fancy features are nice! A good looking interface is nice! A faster, more responsive system is nice! It's frustrating to see people ready to tear down an honest effort of an organized entity to provide features requested by their paying customers and the comments of the open source community as a whole.
It's very confusing when the mob asks for "consistency and features like Windows" and then immediately gripes when the consistency and features are added into the distribution. Nonetheless - you have a choice. Use Red Hat's, Mandrake's, SuSE's, Debian's, or the other's offerings. Build a Linux distribution from scratch and add your home-grown, home-built installation of KDE. When a company attempts to differentiate its product to better suit its customers (paying and the open source community), be constructive in your criticism and inform the developers of your suggestions rather than finding a forum to gripe because a piece of 2002 software will not run on your 1996 hardware platform.
The nice thing about emerging technologies is that it tends to lower the cost (and eventually the consumer price) of "legacy" devices already deployed. I'd much rather have a 21" flat panel for the price of a 15" flat panel. Even better, it will allow standard 2D flat panel screens to retire CRT-based monitors as the mainstream display device.
Since Red Hat Linux 6.2 - 7.3 are up2date Red Hat Linux releases, support will more than likely continue for security releases through the up2date conduit. Reason I think this will be the case is because subscribers to the Red Hat Network are paying for the support it provides to keep even their legacy machines "up2date".
The Linux-based distributions have been under constant development ever since Linux became a popular operating system to actually run and support (hardware and software). To completely discredit the offerings of Linux as an everyday operating system is only fair if you exclude the fact that all other operating systems have all been in a state of flux to develop an easy to install and use approach for the common user.
Windows has had many years to garner the market share and see trends in development to adequately support their users. With this comes innovations such as the driver management system, streamlined interface, overall stability, self-maintaining (semi), and a united Win32 SDK. Through these innovations comes revenue - with revenue comes research and development.
These features are taken for granted considering they are relatively "recent" or modern innovations, even in the Windows world. The rock solid reputation Windows has is as a result of many releases - much feedback (largely from the corporate space). The driver model used in the NT-based Windows releases was pretty good in Windows 2000, but is considered even better in Windows XP because it comes with so many drivers pre-installed. No one would have ventured to make the claim with regards to stability and flexibility with Windows NT 4 and, God forbid, Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.x. Apple touted its MacOS as a vastly superior model to Windows - Microsoft simply learned to put the "good stuff" ("lessons learned" from other operating system offerings) in with its own product and, voila!, we have stable (for the most part), easy to install and use, and widely support Windows releases. Microsoft may not be saintly in its operations - but in a business sense, it is extremely smart to give people something to suckle on - easy to take and get used to. Believe it or not, it is what the majority of bipeds want.
Software innovations come about from much trial and error. Linux is breaking out of the stages of its infancy - catering only to those willing to take the dare and challenge of migrating from a Windows world to a UNIX world. But times are changing, and Linux is changing with it. People who can describe the average Linux distribution in 1995 will tell you that hardware support was hit or miss - and if it was a hit, it often only was a partial (never a bulls-eye).
Personally, I feel that Linux has made HUGE strides towards that perfect operating system for any niche. If you consider how long it took Microsoft's Windows line to fully mature - Linux is ahead of the game. Businesses will just need more time to listen to feedback and implement those features that people can suckle on - and using Microsoft and Apple as references with regards to their own products is a great start - they obviously figured something out to appease the masses.
Members of the open source community (users, developers, and companies) need to pay close attention to the desires of the community as a whole. Many of the projects that make up Linux (and other open source operating system offerings) have the ability to receive feedback to make the project better. Griping is one thing - channelling the gripe to the write email address is better for the whole. The applications that make up Linux thrive on contributions (ideas, source code, and comments [good/bad]). The more feedback - the better the product.
The capabilities in Linux are there - the opportunities for Linux just need to be taken advantage of - users, developers, and companies alike.
It is a matter of personal preference. Like you, I prefer to use the panel to launch my frequently used applications - but still use the desktop for convenient launching of help applications (dragging "shortcuts" to the help application's icon). However, panels did not always exist, and the traditional setup of desktop icons was used to launch applications. Microsoft clued in on this handy feature with their Quick Launch bar (with Active Desktop). Other operating systems have been offering it already as a handy-dandy feature. For most people it makes the transition from one operating system to another easier - consistency is often a desirable trait.