Slashdot Log In
An Open Letter From Bob Young
from the listen-to-the-source dept.
Subject: Freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad.
From: bob@redhat.com
Dear Slashdotter,
The wild and heated debate about Red Hat 7 in recent days has been interesting to follow. It demonstrates the strength of the open source model. By comparison (I'm not sure if anyone noticed this) Computerworld had a front page story a couple of weeks ago about how there were problems with Solaris on Sun's Enterprise systems, but that these bugs were not well known because Sun was making their customers sign NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) before helping them fix the problem.
Consider the contrast between a proprietary vendor's unwillingness to debate the merits of their technology with the open debate that Red Hat Linux enjoys.
This discussion is of such value to the users of Red Hat products that we feel little need to even attempt to comment. Informed readers can read all sides of the debate, download our products, test them, and decide for themselves whether our critics or supporters are correct. Of course the readers who post things like "well I haven't tried RH7 but I've heard..." aren't very helpful, but I trust most Slashdot readers to see through that kind of stuff.
There is one recurring comment that I could not resist addressing. Namely the regular habit of our critics of comparing Red Hat to Microsoft. I just don't get it.
There are many things for which we should be justifiably criticised (I have no idea what these might be, but I'm certain they exist ;-) but trying to act like Microsoft is not one of them. Red Hat's business is built on solving the problem thatMicrosoft's business model has imposed on the software user since Bill Gates disagreed with the members of the Homebrew computing club back in 1980.
The software industry that Microsoft has been the role model for is built on the premise that customers are not to be trusted with the technology that they are building their organizations on. The legacy software industry is built on the proprietary binary-only model where not only does the user not get the source code he needs to make changes, but worse he receives the product under a license that essentially says that if you make any improvements to the technology you are using, if you solve a bug that is causing your systems to crash, or add a feature that your users or customers desperately need the vendor can have you thrown in jail. (If you don't believe me, just read any shrinkwrapped software license). This kind of business model, where the customer is completely beholden to his supplier exists in no other industry in any free market that I know of. It harks back to the old feudal systems of 12th century Europe.
Red Hat's business success is owed to one simple benefit our products and services offer that our larger binary-only OS competitors do not. Namely that our commitment to publish the code that we write and distribute under open source licenses enable us to give our customers control over the technology they are using to build their systems. We cannot promise to deliver perfection. All we can promise is to acknowledge the problems immediately and work with you to fix them publicly and in real time. With control over their systems our users can simply build more stable and reliable systems than the binary-only model allows.
This is why the fear that Red Hat is somehow going to wake up one morning and abandon our commitment to open source is so mis-placed. Open source provides us with -the- competitive advantage that enables us to compete effectively against much larger competitors. To abandon open source is simply not in our customers interest and hence not in Red Hat's financial interest.
So if you want to criticise us for shipping gcc 2.96, you have every right to do so - you'd be wrong, but it is at least a legitimate debate and I'd respect your opinion. But to compare Red Hat to Microsoft indicates an ignorance of what is driving our success.
Remember that this debate was begun by someone going to Red Hat's public site and trying to add up all the registered bugs in Red Hat 7. When was the last time Microsoft (or any other legacy software vendor for that matter) gave you access to their complete bug registration system? Which software model do you really want to see succeed? One where you have to trust your vendor (who can and frequently restrict access to information you does need) or one where you are in control of the technology you are using?
We may be making mistakes - that up to you to decide. Some of them may be important to you and while I have no doubt you will point them out to us, you have control over the technology you are using. We work hard to build products that please most of our users most of the time. But if you don't like something about Red Hat Linux you don't have to use that feature or function. We simply are not pursing a business model that bears any resemblance to Microsoft's, so just quit it.
The next slashdotter who compares anything Red Hat does to Microsoft will be punished. The punishment will be to find the nearest blackboard and write "freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad" seven hundred times.
Cheers, Bob.
Re:A pleasant response (Score:2)
Red Hat, Open Source? (Score:2)
my complaints about redhat (Score:2)
Installing Redhat 6.2 is a very burdensome process because of the number of fixes required. However, the consequences of RedHat 7 are much more severe because of its incompatible version of gcc.
What was such a big deal about coming out with a 6.3 release, which would have been stable and useable, instead of just quickly pushing RedHat 7 out the door?
Re: I get seasick... (Score:2)
Well, given that this is on your desktop, I bet you don't see the names that way under your DesTop Icons. In fact, you won't see them that way in your Windows Explorer, unless, of course, you have that infamous check box checked.
The point made, methinks, was that the names you see were not the actual names of the file. WYSINWYG.
Re:Blackmail (Score:3)
The company's response is, "Well, look how much worse the other guy is! At least we let you see the source code!"
That isn't what the company did.
What compelling defense of RedHat 7.0 am I missing here?
Defense of the bugs within RH7? None. Young isn't defending the bugs. He's just defending against the charges that RH is similar to Microsoft. And his defense happens to be strong.
Re:Like MS (Score:3)
Um, what if the standards set by the dominant distro happen to be retarded? One of the reasons I don't use RedHat is because of the awkward standards they try to set.
Microsoft makes the dominant operating system. Shouldn't we all just use Windows?
Intel makes the dominant PC processor. Shouldn't we all just use Pentium IIIs?
Nike is the dominant producer of athletic shoes. If we oppose their labor practices, we should just sit down and keep quiet about it, because they're number one, and we should buy their shoes.
McDonald's has more fast-food restaurants than anybody else in the world. What do we need Burger King for?
Coca-Cola is king of the soft drink industry. RC Cola should just give up.
--
comparison based on shipping for profit reasons (Score:3)
We're still with you, Bob. We believe Red Hat will stay open source and give us power to control our own software. But a lot of people felt profit was driving this release, and that's a small step down the road to the dark side.
Re:Like MS (Score:3)
I agree to a certain extent. One thing that pisses me off is watching all of the duplication of effort in the Open Source Community. For example, if all of the groups out there working on accounting projects would combine forces and agree on technologies (Perl, Apache, PostgreSQL, RPM, etc.), we could soon have an Open Source, modular, scalable accounting package comparable to something like Great Plains Dynamics. If you don't agree with me, browse around sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net] sometime and look at all of the groups working on similar projects. Imagine what would happen if you combined some of those projects and focused that productivity into one kickass line of Open Source applications!! Don't re-invent the wheel!!
Now... I'm not saying that RedHat should have full reign of Linux standards. However, those of you who have read the book Net Ready [netreadiness.com] know that there are four pillars to success in the modern E-conomy: Leadership, Governance, Competencies, and Technologies. RedHat is providing leadership for much of the community. We should be using the Open Source model not only to support them with the other three, but also to help them with a good system of checks and balances.
Bob's got some good points, and I think we should stop beating RedHat down and instead stick out a hand to pull him back up. Face it, we're all in this together. We might as well stop pointing fingers and try some "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" instead. Then, and only then, will we truly be on our way to world domination.
Personally, I'll be installing RHL7.0 as soon as I can purchase a copy. Why purchase you may ask? Because RedHat, for all they've done for the community, deserves $29.95 of my money.
--Gunfighter
Re:Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:3)
What they did wrong was failed to consult the gcc steering committee to get approval for a new stable so that other venders can also use it. They also failed to modify the contact numbers and emails for the compiler such that it directs problems to RedHat rather than the Gcc group. Third, they failed to roll back those changes to the C++ ABI so that their version would be able to generate code libraries which could be used across platforms. This is bad because it makes shipping C++ libraries more difficult and error prone. Some venders may only chose to ship RedHat versions and thus users of other dists are left in the cold. Also they placed the burden of handing the library problems on the free software developers such as myself without a lot of notice. I only test my software against known stable compiler versions and thus this release caused me some problems.
With all respect to Bob Young, I think that RedHat did make some mistakes. He certainly doesn't deserve the horrible Microsoft comparisons and other flames. However, on issues like shipping snapshots I don't agree with him. Summarily declaring all people who disagree are wrong with him seems quite arrogant. I think RedHat deserves to hear at least on that issue what mistakes they made and where they miscalculated.
Further, I also disagree with RedHat on the production of Inti rather than supporting the GNOME's current C++ binding, Gtk--. That like shipping a version of Gcc which is not compatible is divisive and intrusive into the workings of the Free Software community. A great many people did not see cloning an existing free product nor moving Havoc away from gtk+ development as good for the community. Obviously, RedHat felt it was in their best interests. I do hope that this situation wakes us up to the fact that what companies do is best for them and not necessarily the best for everyone. After all the point of a company is to make money. We should praise a company that does something in our best interest, and point out why we won't support them when they don't. After all it is in a companies best interest to release as little information about what they will support as possible to maintain competitive advantage. At the same time this is really against our interests as free developers such as myself have little chance to fix the bugs that shipping a snapshot compiler causes. However, flaming them like some people have choosen to do helps no one. Constructive criticism is a better approach.
--Karl
Re:Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:3)
Frankly, I think Redhat is giving linux something of a bad name. They're successful, sure, but their bugs always get turned into 'bugs in linux' by the press and the M$ cronies.
I'm grateful for the money that they bring in so that Alan Cox and folk like him can devote their time to the OS, but they have to do *something* about their buggy releases. I can't remember the last time anyone said 'Slackware? That buggy piece of crap? Forget it, I'm going to Redhat.'
So, to some up, I'll repeat something that my friends like to use (stolen from Something Awful):
'Use Redhat Lunix! Lunix si moar fastar!'
Re:Just an anecdote. (Score:3)
Generally, stuff that doesn't compile is one of three things -- the compiler (possible, but unlikely - I think there's only one confirmed this-code-is-valid-but-doesn't-compile bug), glibc (very possible -- make sure you apply the update to at least 2.1.94-3), or the code is broken with respect to the standard, and /will not compile with gcc 3.0 when it's done/. The most likely of the three, especially if c++ is involved, is the latter.
Re: Like MS (Score:3)
On the other hand, there are some areas where competing standards don't really hurt folks too much, given that the standard is well documented.
I do, however, like the idea of Red Hat taking charge. At worst, given the manner in which the "community" works, if the standard they attempt to implement ain't no good, it will more than likely get ignored.
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Five years ago... (Score:3)
Now, granted, this isn't exactly the same thing. GCC 2.96 isn't necessarily the best choice to maintain compatibility with anything else out there. (And that's an understatement.) But without a leader, no decisions get made.
Maybe the bigger question is, should RedHat be that leader? RedHat seems to me to be the distribution taking the bigger risks and trying to get the biggest lead to show 'how far Linux has come'. So they include patches to the kernel that aren't in anyone's tree yet - AFAIK, that hasn't been a big problem to date. They use bleeding edge software they deem to be stable - hasn't seemed to backfire yet, current issue excepted.
It just seems to me that people criticising RedHat over this decision haven't taken the time to realize RedHat's overall contribution to the community, in terms of writing software, hiring developers, and taking the lead to bring Linux to the average Joe.
If you can't stand it, there are plenty of other good distributions out there that you can use. Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, Stampede, to name a few. Just because RedHat makes a decision you do or don't agree with doesn't mean they are the final word. Plenty of other people have worked long and hard hours to bring what they wanted to the table; try their solutions out.
Re:Just an anecdote. (Score:3)
ping -n has behaved exactly the same for 15 years on every operating system except Windows.
Tell Microsoft to fix *their* broken ping, and RTFM.
-
Nonsense (Score:3)
If you're writing a word processor, you don't want to lengthen your development cycle by a month to fix a problem that only affects 1 in 100000 users. You don't want to double the price of your product so you can chase down the last few bugs that causes poor formatting of certain files.
In the tradeoff between bug-fixes and cost/time, you choose based on how mission-critical an app is. You'd be crazy to use Red Hat 7 to run an airplane. But if you're running someone's desktop machine, it's just fine.
It's just not possible to iron out all bugs without astronomical cost. To make that the standard would cripple the industry and make us wait twice as long for already-delayed software. In most cases I'm willing to accept buggy software with new features. If you aren't, stick with an older version. But don't demand that the rest of us be prevented from seeing a release until all bugs are released to your satisfaction.
bwahahahahaha (Score:3)
whoa. I have never seen such misplaced trust.
...trusting
History (Score:3)
... except that it happened in 1975. And Bill's letter read:
I don't think that calling an entire community as thieves qualifies as "disagreeing"...
In short, if Bob wants to quote Levy's Hackers, he at least should do it right!
Re: Like MS (Score:3)
If there is a dominant vendor, whatever they do becomes a de facto standard. I'm not too keen on it either, but that's reality.
What I am keen on, though, is for that dominant vendor to say "Here's our product. It will become standard. Here's the source code. Copy and reimplement to your heart's content."
Re:freedom & personal responsibility good... (Score:3)
---
Okay, let's talk about gcc 2.96... (Score:3)
I want to know -- what's the upside of 2.96?
---
question = '\FF';
A rather clueless response... (Score:3)
Including alpha components??? If you think this is the first time that RedHat or any other distribution has included an alpha-quality component, then you haven't been paying attention. Right now, I count 133 packages on my system with version numbers starting with "0."!
They included a compiler that has much better C++ support. If anything, this was done precisely to help developers, and "Joe every day windows user" will never even notice the difference. Goodness, what world are you from? Go to their FTP site. They have these things called "source RPMs". They have instructions for installing them. When you install them, you will see not only the pristine source code for the component, but also the individual patches that they apply to them. Debian is a wonderful distribution, so have fun! I certainly hope that the 2.2.17pre6 kernel that they provide doesn't give you any trouble! [debian.org]Just an anecdote. (Score:3)
I wouldn't ever compare RedHat to microsoft. I don't particularly like RedHat's distribution, bu that's just personal taste.
I Do know that last night while hanging out on IRC there we gobs of perople having problems with things specific to redhat.
Stuff not compiling on rh7, people not knowing about the -n switch for ping (if anyone at redhat reads this PLEASE FIX PING, what it does is unexpected and has sent many people looking for deeper problems in their netoworks), and linuxconf in general munging stuff.
I applaud redhat for making a mostly easy but flexible distribution... but please try not to break things that people depend on to work (ping, gcc, etc.)
Subtly wrong. (Score:3)
This only appears correct; it's not. Red Hat engages in a policy of encouraging proprietary vendors to release their software for Red Hat Linux, yes--but I suspect they also encourage people to consider releasing the source to their software as well, if not going the full open-source route.
The real incorrectness comes from the implication, that Red Hat encourages vendors of proprietary software to only ship for Red Hat Linux. Nothing could be further from the truth. Red Hat encourages vendors to make sure that their software works with Red Hat, which is pretty sane business advice--Red Hat has an extremely large market share.
Vendors will (often) choose only to officially support one distro, because QA testing is a long and costly process. Making sure that their software also works on Debian will cost them a small fortune, and the Debian market is small in comparison to the Red Hat market.
If you want to blame anyone for contributing to the non-support of non-RH distros, blame the software vendors and not Red Hat. Red Hat only encourages vendors to support Red Hat (a policy which is as unobjectionable as it is eminently sensible); they don't encourage vendors to get locked into a Red Hat solution (a policy as objectionable as it is monopolistic).
The former is the Red Hat way of doing things; the latter is the Microsoft way of doing things.
Oh, and by the way--I run Debian, and I still like Red Hat a heck of a lot. There's an awful lot of software on my Debian system which came from Red Hat, and one of the books on my shelf is Linux Application Development, written by some Red Hat guys.
I bought the Deluxe version of Red Hat 7.0, even though I'm a Debian user, just to say "thank you" to Red Hat for the software they've contributed to my Debian system.
Re:Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:3)
Well, except that I think differential pricing is illegal. If it isn't, it is at least unethical.
And no, not everything can be solved by "if you don't like it, don't shop there". Hey, maybe I don't like the practices of Archer Daniels Midland, or Monsanto. Try and buy food that *hasn't* passed through their hands. You pretty much can't. How can you tell? You can't use that excuse against monopolies. And while there are many corporations out there, many are equally as bad as the others, so there is effectively no "choice" to be made.
It's a crime that corporations are treated as individuals under law, because in many cases they don't have to hold up to their responsibilities and are unnaccountable for their actions. Yes corporations and businesses should be allowed to exist. But it should *also* be understood that a corporate charter is a mandate given on the good graces of the hosting society, which can pull it when the corporation does not behave well.
And for the record, I sympathize with many of the Libertarian ideas, but think that "pure" libertarianism verges on irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing fundamental services to citizens, if it is architected to resist corruption, and open to a real democracy. I feel the Green party, and Nader's candidacy, is the best of many worlds, by mixing some good libertarian ideas, a passion for social justice, and a good helping of civic responsibility and "daily democracy". That's why I'm voting for Nader.
Re:Okay, let's talk about gcc 2.96... (Score:3)
The upside is that RedHat's gcc snapshot generates better code, thanks to the powerful new optimizations it contains. It also fixes some bugs in 2.95.x and works much, much better on RISC platforms. Hardly surprising given that it contains about a year's worth of development effort over gcc 2.95.x.
It's all very well for the gcc steering committee to take the attitude that gcc 3.0 will be done when it's done, but for those of us who want both a working compiler and one that has (almost) all the latest enhancements, RedHat's QA'd gcc snapshot is an absolute boon.
freedom & personal responsibility good... (Score:3)
freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad,
freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad,
freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad
...
Re:gcc (Score:3)
gcc's syntax checks got much stricter; unclean code doesn't compile anymore.
If you think you have found something that is really a compiler bug (as opposed to the compiler complaining about broken code), report it [redhat.com] and the problem will be fixed.
Re:Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:3)
Inti is not yet beta code. Neither is the gtk version it uses. And that's quite clear even from the packagename (gtkbeta).
Red Hat Linux 7 also includes gtk 1.2.8, which is the most stable gtk release yet, and that's the version of gtk that's used unless you want to play with experimental stuff.
Re:Great to see, troubling to think about (Score:3)
bugzilla [redhat.com].
Since nobody can fix problems without being aware of them, please make sure you report those problems rather than just complaining on your favorite message board/mailing list/IRC channel/...
Re:What about Qt itself (Score:3)
We've had a close look at it, and we think it's non-standards compilant code in Qt.
With the patch, Qt works without problems.
Writing this from Konqueror 2.0RC2...
Of course he took it personally... (Score:3)
His point is that, any innovation is going to have its faults, and that they have to be worked through. RedHat publishes publishes its distro's faults to the world - something that MS and Sun do not fully disclose. That data is being used to say compare Redhat to MS and Sun - an inherently flawed concept.
Now, comparing RedHat to MS because they are trying to make money from Linux is also wrong (IMHO). RedHat gives a lot back to the Linux community - and heck, they even employ Linux geeks to do just want they want to, add to Linux and open source software.
People are too willing to throw stones at RedHat - helping them find the bugs, and correct them would be more in the spirit of Open Source, and definitely more productive.
Re:Red Hat != Microsoft but... (Score:3)
Red Hat stung by Linux Popularity? (Score:3)
There was a time when this would have been a non issue. If you didn't like what the Distro contained, you'd replace it yourself. Maybe compile some source code and stick it in, or install a new binary. It would be no big deal, something everyone did to use Linux.
With the growing popularity of Linux, the user base may no longer have the time or skills or both to do this and some definitely don't have the tolerance for any need to do it. Is this a slam against users? No, just recognizing the fact that it's not just the type or kind people it used to be.
All the rants, open letters, diatribes, posts, etc, against Red Hat certainly starts to look like the reactions against Microsoft. To that degree it starts to look like Red Hat is the next MS. It's not all their fault, it's the demands of all the users. The can certainly fall into Microsoft's error of trying to be all things to all users.
This is still Linux though. Everything is still open, the code hasn't been hidden. We can still change it ourselves if we need or want to.
Why not stop all this stuff and start acting like a community of users again. Someone replace gcc 2.96. Then post the code or changes to
We can act more as a community and realize, on all sides, that this won't be the last time this happens and be better prepared to solve the problem when it arises again.
Dear Bob, (Score:4)
The correct term is "Slashbot".
Please take note of this in your future correspondence.
Regards,
AC
Red Hat != Microsoft but... (Score:4)
However I think that there is something in the worries expressed by many about Red Hat's decision to include a gcc that the gcc people have publicly stated is not up to the standard of an official release due to incompatibilities.
Consider that Red Hat do engage is a policy of encouraging proprietary vendors to release their software "for Red Hat Linux" offering binary products only.
Now consider what happens should one of those binary only products is compiled against Red Hat version 7.0 and the product makes use of C++ in it's development.
That product will then only work on either Red Hat 7.0 or another platform that chooses to discard the views of the GCC steering committee.
Red Hat is the biggest player in the Linux market. They control the biggest share of the biggest market for commercial Linux use and they know it. By including "GCC 2.96" in Red Hat Linux 7.0 they are creating a situation of vendor lock in for the users of any proprietary software that is released "for Red Hat Linux" and compiled on the latest version.
I am sure that this is not a deliberate policy at Red Hat - were it deliberate it would certainly suggest a certain leaning towards the position of companies like Microsoft - however the effects remain the same: vendor lock in.
For Bob to reply to such critisisms with "You're wrong" without offering any explanation suggests arrogance. That is the kind of thing one expects of Microsoft. Red Hat need to offer a better explanation than "you are wrong".
Open Letter To Bob Young (Score:4)
Dear Bob,
I admire your company greatly and have had very productive relationships with Red Hat and Cygnus engineers going back many years. I am a member of the GCC steering commitee. I wish you nothing but success.
However, you do have a problem with openness that you are not acknowledging. There is one sense in which your practices do resemble those of Microsoft: your practice of keeping outsiders in the dark about upcoming plans that will affect them. To be specific: your management ordered its employees, including those who were members of the GCC Steering Committee, not to discuss anything about your plans for Red Hat 7.0 with other members of the committee. Advance discussion could have led to improved quality in 7.0, better relations with the outside developers you depend on, better planning by your customers and a whole lot less anger against you.
Joe Buck
Re:Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:4)
Untrue. It works almost perfectly. There is, so far, one known problem that fails to compile code that is ok (and that's currently being fixed).
It can't compile 2.2.x kernels because of bugs in the kernel code (ask Alan), that's why the two compilers are needed.
Re:Unless you need the optimizer... (Score:4)
FWIW, all of Red Hat Linux 7, including Powertools and the Extra CDs for the European edition have been compiled with 2.96 using -O2 -mcpu=i686 -march=i386 without problems.
KDE 2.0 [kde.org] is completely c++, doesn't cause any problems with 2.96 -O2 -mcpu=i686 -march=i386.
Bob, your buggy distros put off newbies. (Score:4)
Quoted from Bob's article:
But if you don't like something about Red Hat Linux you don't have to use that feature or function.Hi Bob. My name is Lawrence Wade, and I have root on four Red Hat Linux boxes.
I'm still a relative Linux newbie. Though I was on the Internet (Arpanet) in 1988 and am therefore very familiar with UNIX heirarchy and commands, my first Red Hat Linux system was my first attempt at administering a UNIX(-like) box.
So, looking around, everyone told me how wonderful Linux is, and how light and easy on resources it is.
At the time, Red Hat 6.0 was current, and I installed it on a 486DX2-66 that I had kicking around. (Linux doesn't need much hardware, right? One would expect that the geniuses at Red Hat wouldn't expect that knowledgeable computer users are going to give a new OS a spin on their main computer, right? One would *think* then that a 486 would be a reasonable place to try out Linux.)
My first problem came when the installer detected that I had a monochrome VGA monitor, and set my text to the same color as my background. I plugged in a color monitor, and still couldn't read it. A reboot with a color monitor on, then a swap back to the monochrome monitor after booting, and the installer was still legible.
Next thing was, RedHat 6.0's installer asked me if I had PCMCIA card slots. This was a VESA-bus 486. I indicated NO.
The installation continued, and then finished. I restarted the machine:
"LI"
Stuck in the rescue disk, booted off that. Eventually found out about the LILO >1024 cylinder BIOS issue. Oops. Not Red Hat's fault, sure, but new users don't understand enough to distinguish that.
After I finally got the machine to start up, the machine hung at "Bringing up PCMCIA services". Still being a complete neophyte at the time, I had no idea how to go and kill that from the machine's startup. You'll note again that when the installer asked me if I wanted to install support for PCMCIA services, the response was probably sent to /dev/null; the installer apparently did what it wanted to, independent of my input. It took instructions about as well as my cat. With a cat, that's cute. With a computer, it's not.
Frustrated to all hell by this point, having wasted a weekend farting around, I took my RH6 disk and threw it across my home office. It landed behind a desk. Windows 95B went back onto that old, occasionally-used 486.
A few months later, I decided to get DSL internet service, and there was no way that I was going to use Windows for my gateway/firewall. So, I hit the Linux websites and got a list of supported network cards.
I rooted around under the desk, and found my RH6 disk under a dustbunny and an empty coffee cup. This time I knew that the LILO bug really only affected 486-vintage machines. I had a Pentium 133 ready to go. With 2 identical and supported ISA ethernet cards installed.
I'm not an idiot. First off, these network cards were set properly so that they didn't have any conflicts. Even Windows 95 was happy with them. Yet, every time RH6 tried to use the second card (eth1), a kernel panic happened. This continued until, in frustration, I replaced eth1 with a PCI NE-2000 card. Immediately, things worked.
After RH6.2 came out, I put it onto that machine, and then swapped back to my original matched-pair of ethernet cards. The machine worked like a million bucks, and has ever since.
So, Bob, what is this, a rant without a purpose? No.
I run Red Hat because, from the perspective of a newbie, Red Hat makes the most sense. Information is readily available. And 6.2 has been very good to me.
And while I realize that you have shareholders who will lose interest if you don't frequently bring out new releases, I'm afraid that most people, upon going through what I went through with RH6, would decide that Linux wasn't worth the trouble.
All the advocacy in the world isn't worth squat if the impressionable Windows user goes out to the local software store and buy a copy of Red Hat 7 to discover that nothing works as it should.
It undermines the Linux movement as an alternative to the scourge of Windows. And while I'm very sensitive to the fact that you have to keep your shareholders happy, discouraging new users by releasing buggy software in colorful boxes only serves to hurt Linux.
We simply are not pursing a business model that bears any resemblance to Microsoft's, so just quit it.New users don't distinguish between distributions - they don't know the difference between SuSE, Caldera, Debian, Slackware and Red Hat. To them, Linux is Linux. If Red Hat is flaky ("and golly, they're a big name!"), then *all* Linux must be flaky.
So, don't be surprised when someone falls asleep at the switch or buckles to shareholder pressure, releases a shitty version of your operating system, and Linux users all around the world start to compare you to Microsoft.
No one asks for perfection. That's simply impossible. But even Windows 95 Upgrade was more stable, reliable and functional than RH6. If RH7 is anywhere near as bad as I'm led to believe it is from here, let the comparisons begin.
I run RH 6.2. I like RH 6.2. I look forward to when your firm releases 7.2; until then, I won't be upgrading any systems. And I'll keep on burning CD copies of 6.2 for my friends, with the explanation that Red Hat bowed to shareholder pressure and released 7.0 before getting it to work properly. <sigh> Sounds just like any product Microsoft has ever released.
Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:4)
I'll give you a personal example of what's griping me. I installed the Inti class library because I was looking for a decent object oriented framework under which to develop Linux/GNOME apps. I can't even compile a basic tutorial program with it, because the gtk library that got installed with RedHat 7.0 is a devel one that's prone to crashing, deprecation problems, etc. The error message advised me to go and get a different version of the GTK in order to compile a basic "Hello World" style program.
I'd understand it if I found a complex bug. Really, I would. But what I found was something anyone could have found by taking a blank machine, installing RH7.0 and then trying to compile a program that RedHat has on its website as a tutorial.
A packaged, paid-for distribution is NOT the place for devel code, for alpha code, use at your own risk code, strange new worlds of compilers that can't even build the kernel, etc. Make that an option if you wish.
The best way to continue in your business is to get out of the CD world entirely - except to publish one on ISO and at nominal cost as a baseline, and then have a subscription-based service whereby when I log on to my RedHat machine I'm advised of new developments and offers to upgrade given packages.
Like MS (Score:4)
Btw, Make A Reply to this, i really want to know other people's opinions.
Re:Like MS (Score:4)
Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:5)
Re:Red Hat, Open Source? (Score:5)
Welcome to leap before looking school. You have successfully leaped to a conclusion without looking at the surrounding facts. To help you better understand your position, here are some facts that you may have missed:
This is software intended to help online merchants interoperate with existing credit card clearing houses.
Red Hat (or more likely, the company they bought CCVS from) probably had to sign a lot of NDAs in order to get access to the specifications for those proprietary protocols.
Thus Red Hat has released the software with a license that complies with the legal requirements, but still allows merchants to build Linux solutions. This is a GOOD thing. For details see this [redhat.com].
Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
A pleasant response (Score:5)
It's always nice to see an open letter, and even nice to see that Red Hat are actually watching the flow of conversation on Slashdot.
When something goes wrong, it's so usual for someone to sit around and say 'not my fault', that it's nice for someone to sit down and honestly say 'We may have made a mistake, perhaps.. But we made decisions we believed to be right, and you're quite at liberty to disagree..', and actually take the time to read the arguments against, and weigh them up.
I guess there's no progression without controversy and dissent over the paths to follow, and somebody has to spark controversy.
Maybe I speak just for myself, maybe for many, but thanks Bob, for paying attention to what we have to say, and for letting us know that you are, indeed listening to our many voices.
Cheers,
Malk
Debian user in support of RedHat! (Score:5)
Now, this issue is moot in my mind - Young, in effect, seems to be feeding the trolls more than anything else here. No one who had actually researched this debate would claim RedHat to be acting like Microsoft. Again, as a Debian user, I feel that there is a hell of a lot WRONG with RedHat's distro - for ME. This more of a personal taste though - and don't anyone dare tell me that Debian hasn't had it's share of crippling bugs.
In the end, this is all just incredibly silly for me, and I have finally made my decision about RedHat. RedHat is a company, like SuSE and the Turbolinux guys... they are selling a product. RedHat has supported it's product admirably, and though it isn't in my decision the product that I want to use, that doesn't mean that when something goes wrong we should all point our fingers and scream "REDHAT IS BECOMING MICROSOFT!!!" RedHat, as a company, had done a great deal of work for the Linux community and for the acceptance of Linux in places that in turn have made Linux a better OS (IBM, Dell, etc...). So I think we should back off and turn down our flamethrowers here - if you want to criticize RedHat, fine, but at least find a good reason.
Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:5)
One great thing about Linux distributions is competition. Don't like RedHat? Buy SuSE or Turbo or Corel or Stampede or Debian or one of several others. If you want to jump on corporations, then there are some pharmaceutical companies and food processing companies that really need public vehement public criticism of their practices. But don't bother pointing the same kind of fire at RedHat.
Re:Blackmail (Score:5)
You are missing that any large software development effort, if they are honest and have high standards, must admit that they have zillions of "bugs". Most don't make the product unusable or even bad; instead they are things that could be done better, or that some person doesn't like based on taste, or are just notes worth keeping around to think about. (This isn't even counting the many bogus, incomplete, and duplicate bug reports.) There is in fact good reason that most organizations call it an "issue" database instead of a "bug" database.
The 2000 (or whatever) "bugs" in RedHat's bugzilla is a meaningless number, and by itself is no cause for alarm (by users), shame (by RedHat), or criticism (by sanctimonious know-nothings). Go count the bug's in Debian's database. (Don't bother telling me when you get finished, because you won't.)
I think Bob was trying to say that counting the bugs is a silly response to the availability of RedHat's bug database. A more "enlightened" response is to appreciate the value that the mere existence of a public database gives you.
the Clip sez.. (Score:5)
From: bob@redhat.com
Dear Slashdotter,
"it appears that you're trying to write an Open Letter. Would you like some help in choosing defensive words and phrases?"
--
Re:Open Letter To Bob Young (Score:5)